Sitting of 5 February 2002

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

    National Missile Defence
    Norman Baker: When he last discussed the foreign policy implications of national missile defence with his US counterpart. [30481]
    Brian White: What discussions he has had with the US Administration on their proposed withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972. [30485]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I have regular discussions with the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, on many matters, including threats to international peace and security from weapons of mass destruction and missile proliferation. We last discussed specific proposals for missile defence on 11 December.
    Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. When he is asked about this matter, he generally hides behind the formula that no request has yet been made by the US authorities, and that therefore he is not in a position to state the Government's policy. However, he must have made an assessment of the British national interest in this matter. Will he tell the House what that assessment is, and whether it is in our national interest for this country to be used as a base for NMD?
    Mr. Straw: I hide behind no formula, but the truth is very simple: we have received no request to use Menwith Hill or Fylingdales in respect of a further upgrade of US missile defence.
    As for the general issue of missile defence, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to take the rational and proportionate approach of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party, according to which the merits of missile defence are considered carefully, if I have got it right. The simple fact of the matter is that we in this country have long
    716
    recognised the case, in appropriate circumstances, for measures of missile defence. They are permitted by the ABM treaty. Moreover, if missile defence systems had been available at the time of the German V1 and V2 rockets, many thousands of lives in this country would have been saved.
    Brian White: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the measured response of President Putin and the Russian Government is one of the reasons why this has not yet developed into an international crisis. He will also be aware of the perception in many parts of the world that US foreign policy is based on double standards, because America is prepared to rip up the ABM treaty, reject the Kyoto agreement, ignore the World Trade Organisation ruling, blockade Cuba and so on. Is it not up to us as the closest ally of the US to make it aware of the dangers of that approach?
    Mr. Straw: One of the reasons why President Putin's response to these proposals has indeed been measured is the fact that the proposals themselves have been measured. That has been recognised by the President of the Russian Federation. Moreover, although I understand that this is a matter of regret to some of my hon. Friends and indeed other people, the decisions taken by the US to seek an end to the ABM treaty were taken in accordance with the terms of the treaty and international law.
    Mr. George Osborne: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a good phrase to describe the rogue states against which missile defence might provide some protection is "an axis of evil"; or does he think that those who use that phrase are just electioneering?
    Mr. Straw: As I said when I was in the US, I applaud the fact that President Bush has drawn attention to the twin threats of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: In reviewing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2000, all countries promised to maintain and strengthen the ABM treaty and rapidly to ratify the test ban treaty. Will the Government try to impress on our US allies the fact that, by directly contravening those undertakings while blocking other arms control agreements, they increase the risk of proliferation and endanger us all?
    Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend draws about the US position. Although the US has not ratified certain international instruments, it has respected almost every instrument in this field that I can think of.
    We are not a party to the ABM treaty; it is a bilateral treaty between the US and the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation. The US is entitled to give notice under that treaty, as it has done. As the House has already recognised, the response of the Russian Federation has been measured, in my judgment, because of the measured proposals from the US.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Will the Foreign Secretary reassert today his words reported in The Times on 21 November last year that there was
    "an overwhelming case for missile defence in principle"
    and that
    "the overall case for new forms of missile defences has been strengthened since September 11…because…of the extreme nature of the threats that we can face"?
    Does he also recall referring in a parliamentary Labour party briefing on missile defence of 1 August last year to the "growing missile threat" and to states, including Iran and Iraq, acquiring such missiles, and commenting that it was difficult to see the purpose of that other than
    "to threaten and deter the United States"?
    Does he also recall in the same briefing note, under the heading, "Dealing with 'Rogue States'", specifically referring to North Korea and commenting that we could not stop it
    "passing on this deadly technology"?
    Does he still stand by those comments? In the light of them, does not he agree that he should have thought twice before criticising President Bush's speech last week, not least by judging it according to the criteria by which he obviously writes his own?
    Mr. Straw: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his homework in reading my speeches. I hope that he agrees not only with those speeches but with others. In particular, he drew attention to the excellent Tribune column that I wrote on 24 July.
    I repeat that I strongly support the President's call for action on the twin threats of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As for the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the domestic context of the state of the union speech, I can do no better than draw on the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition last week, when he said:
    "For me …a successful foreign and security policy is one which always has a clear understanding of the national interest."
    I agree with him.
    Glenda Jackson: How would a nuclear missile defence system have protected the United States from the events of 11 September? Clearly, it would not have done so. If America were to go ahead with a programme that had little scientific base for being successful and that would be astronomically expensive, would this country automatically grant the United States of America a right to site bases on our soil, or would there be a debate before any such undertaking was given?
    Mr. Straw: Of course there would be nothing automatic about the granting of any such rights, as these matters require careful consideration. My hon. Friend is also right to say that a missile defence system would palpably not have prevented the atrocities of 11 September. However, that does not lead me to conclude that the world is safer as a result of the atrocities of 11 September—rather, that the danger not only from such international terrorism but from the use of missile systems by rogue states and semi-states is much greater. Therefore, we should consider and examine propositions for missile defence on their merits.
    718
    I must say to my hon. Friend that it is slightly ironic that the implication, as in the past, of people saying that they refuse to discuss missile defence is that they fall back on the old doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which was exactly the doctrine that many of us opposed when it was proposed. Had there been missile defence then, we would have been in favour of it.

    Middle East
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: What steps he is taking to help the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate. [30482]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): We are in regular contact with the Israelis and the Palestinians. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Sharon this morning. I visited the region two weeks ago. We urge both parties to de-escalate the tension and resume negotiations to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: The Minister sums up nicely the Government's attitude—do nothing and hope that the problem goes away. This tit-for-tat situation is getting worse and worse. When will the Foreign Secretary go out there to try to get both sides together and start negotiations to sort out the situation before it gets out of hand? When will he do something about it in practice, as opposed to spin?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The reaction of most hon. Members showed what they thought of that supposed question. The British Government have been very engaged in the middle east peace process before and since 11 September. The hon. Gentleman may remember a visit that the Prime Minister paid to the region after 11 September, which was shortly followed by a visit to the United States that was crucial in persuading the Americans to become more engaged, in President Bush making a speech in which he became the first President to talk about a Palestinian state and in Colin Powell making a similar speech.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend believe that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are more likely to begin and succeed if this country stands up to Iran and opposes its support for terrorism in the middle east and its specific support for the annihilation of Israel? In particular, is he aware of the statement by Kind Abdullah of Jordan that Iran, through Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is planning major attacks on Israeli civilians from Jordanian territory?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that the role of Iran and of other countries in the region that support rejectionist Palestinian groups not only threatens to terrorise and cause death and mayhem in Israel but undermines the Palestinian Authority.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The fact that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are now on the Government's proscribed list of terrorist organisations is very welcome. What evidence do the Government have

    719
    of links between those terrorist organisations and foreign Governments? What aid is the British Government giving to Israel to help to defeat those terrorist groups?
    Mr. Bradshaw: We always make plain our abhorrence of terrorism in all its forms, from whatever quarters it comes. We acknowledge that there is contact between countries in the region and rejectionist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. We condemn that and regularly raise the issue with the Governments with whom we have diplomatic relations.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 763, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)? It identifies the role played by the Israeli reservists who have refused to participate in a campaign the purpose of which is to occupy, deport, destroy, blockade, kill, starve and humiliate an entire people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of Israeli defence forces to serve in southern Lebanon ended the occupation of that area by Israel and brought peace to Israel? Would not the Israeli Government be well advised to pay attention to the advice of the Israeli reservists, because only when they end the occupation will there be peace between Israel and Palestine?
    Mr. Bradshaw: It is not for me to comment on the internal matters of the Israeli defence forces or, indeed, on the behaviour of some of Israel's reservists. During my visit two weeks ago I noticed an encouraging resurgence of criticism among ordinary people on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides of the current policies deployed by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories and by the Palestinian Authority against Israel, which they saw as unhelpful and simply contributing to a spiral of violence.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Mark Hoban: What recent discussions he has had with other members of the EU concerning the future of Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [30483]
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet other European Foreign Ministers to discuss the imposition of smart sanctions against members of Zimbabwe's Government. [30484]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): On 28 January, the European Union decided to impose targeted sanctions on senior members of the Government of Zimbabwe if they prevent the deployment of election observers between now and the election or prevent the international media from having proper access, or if there is a serious deterioration on the ground.
    The first group of EU election observers has now been deployed, but I am under no illusions—the Government of Zimbabwe have moved this far only because of the
    720
    international pressure that has been exerted on them, which must be maintained. The Government there will be judged by actions, not words.
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but following the arrest, detention and now release of Basildon Peta, The Independent journalist in Zimbabwe, is it not time to trigger sanctions against Zimbabwe for preventing the international press from following the elections closely?
    Mr. Straw: I wholly condemn the arrest and detention of Mr. Peta, even though he has now been released. He is an extremely courageous Zimbabwean journalist. I have asked for a full report from the British high commission in Harare on the circumstances of his arrest and detention, which I shall send to the EU Commission. I accept that it is evidence of a prima facie breach of the EU policy.
    Our overall objective, however, is to work as far as we can to achieve a better environment in Zimbabwe in which fairer elections can take place. That continues to be difficult to achieve, but in my view it is a worthwhile objective, and I hope that it has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are fully supported in that objective by the Opposition parties and non-governmental organisations in Zimbabwe. Although it may be easy to suggest that we should cut off all relations or not send in observers, we should bear that objective very much in mind in every decision we make.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the EU package is far too little too late? Since our last Foreign and Commonwealth questions, Opposition party members in Zimbabwe have been arrested, falsely imprisoned and tortured; some have even been murdered. Mugabe has forced laws through Parliament to restrict press freedoms that are much more draconian than anything in China, resulting in the imprisonment of Basildon Peta. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand why Opposition Members here are so angry about what is going on? Why does he have a blind spot for Zimbabwe? Surely the time has come for him to account for his shameful performance in a full-day debate in Government time.
    Mr. Straw: The blind spot, I am afraid, is the blind spot of Opposition Members, especially those who adopt a policy of isolation from Europe and effective isolation from the multinational Commonwealth. If the Opposition had been in government, there would have been no possibility of any kind of Commonwealth backing to condemn what has been going on, and no possibility of any kind of backing by the Southern African Development Community to condemn what is going on—still less would there be any possibility of the European Union, having been hectored and lectured by the Opposition, drawing together not only to condemn what is going on in the fullest possible terms, as we have done, but to impose effective sanctions, if at any stage between now and election day or thereafter we do not believe that it has been possible to hold fair and free elections.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must be careful in judging the presidential elections? We must recognise that when parliamentary elections were last held in Zimbabwe, the pressure on

    721
    Opposition parties lessened as the elections approached. Is it not important, therefore, that the observers look at what has happened in the past six months and, indeed, two years, as there has been a rapid erosion of democracy and true freedom in the tragic country of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I entirely accept that. When we reach an overall judgment about whether the elections were free and fair, we shall certainly have to take into account not just events from now on, but events in the preceding six to 12 months. It was precisely because of the history of election monitoring in Zimbabwe—in the past, election observers were allowed in only for the last few days—that the European Union, the Commonwealth and I insisted that election observers should start to be admitted now, five weeks before the elections, rather than just a few days before.
    Ross Cranston: Historically, has not the Commonwealth suspended members only in limited circumstances—for example, when a country has had a coup against an elected Government? Does not Zimbabwe provide an opportunity for the Commonwealth to reconsider the issue of suspension and widen the range of circumstances in which it might be considered?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend is right. A key decision taken at the Commonwealth ministerial action group on 20 December was to widen the interpretation of the Harare principles, to which he refers. We declared before Christmas that Zimbabwe was in persistent violation of principles that, ironically, were drawn up in Harare in 1991 by President Mugabe. It is precisely because of that persistent violation of the principles that I judged that the Commonwealth, at the CMAG meeting last Wednesday, should suspend Zimbabwe immediately from the councils of the Commonwealth. As the House knows, that recommendation did not attract unanimous support from CMAG, so it fell, but we shall continue to pursue it. There is a further CMAG meeting on 1 March.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I say to the Foreign Secretary that his efforts of last week have the support of all Liberal Democrat Members? Do not the last few days demonstrate what is typical of Mr. Mugabe? He gave a minimalist response to the EU ultimatum on observers and at the same time arrested The Independent correspondent Basildon Peta—no doubt a deliberate attempt to intimidate like-minded people. If there is clear evidence of malpractice in the course of the presidential election, will the Foreign Secretary consider a withdrawal by Her Majesty's Government of recognition of the Government of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: We will certainly monitor robustly what is happening in Zimbabwe, and ensure that our monitoring, as with the arrest of Mr. Peta, is transmitted to the EU. There was unanimity around the room when we decided the sanction policy last Monday; 12 of the 15 member states spoke, and all 12 spoke in favour of the policy, which represents a sea change in attitudes towards Zimbabwe.
    We—the European Union, the United States and our Commonwealth partners—are carefully watching what is happening in Zimbabwe. If we believe, notwithstanding the admission of observers and their report, that the
    722
    elections were not conducted freely and fairly, then, yes, withdrawal of recognition of that Government is obviously a possibility.
    Mr. David Borrow: I was in South Africa early last month. One of the clear impressions that I gained from that visit, both from discussions and from following the local media, was that there is real concern about the impact of developments in Zimbabwe on South Africa, a strong belief that a solution to the problems of Zimbabwe lay within southern Africa, and that the countries of southern Africa should take the lead in any solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the ex-colonial power that failed to stop a rebellion in Zimbabwe, we should listen closely to the Governments of southern Africa before taking any action in respect of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that, in addition to Zimbabwe, the economies and reputations of the countries of southern Africa have been most grievously damaged by the policies of President Mugabe. Anybody who needs any reassurance about that need only look at what has happened to the South African rand over the past year, the decline of which tracks almost exactly the decline in human rights in Zimbabwe.
    Yes, we do listen carefully to our southern African friends in the Commonwealth and outside. CMAG is chaired by the Foreign Minister of Botswana, but the whole international community in Africa and across the rest of the world is profoundly concerned about the anti-democratic actions of President Mugabe and ZANU-PF; we are entitled, therefore, to take our own decisions about the action that is necessary.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that despite last Sunday's deadline set by the European Council, there are still no official EU observers in Zimbabwe? Can he also confirm rumours that despite his frequent assertions that Britain is at the heart of Europe, if and when observers are sent, they will not include British observers, and that the free access for the international media required by the Council will not include the BBC or representatives of our major newspapers?
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that such qualifications on the composition of the observer team and on the definition of the international media would be totally unacceptable to the Government and the House, because they would be nothing more than concessions to the demands being made for electoral purposes by President Mugabe?
    Mr. Straw: I made it clear that we will not get into a game with President Mugabe about who is or is not to be a member of those teams. Those are matters for the European Union and the Commonwealth to deal with independently. Neither of those bodies is accepting conditions from President Mugabe.
    As for representatives, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. I am told that as of this morning at least four EU representatives are in the country setting up an observation mission. The leader of the mission will arrive at the weekend with colleagues. We expect other members of the EU observer team—about 100—to deploy in the

    723
    coming weeks. A head office for the mission in Harare has already been set up, and a contract with a logistical support company is being finalised.
    Given the gravity of the situation, I would have hoped that was something on which the Conservative party could join us. For all the bluster that we hear from the right hon. Gentleman, the simple truth about the priority that is attached to Zimbabwe was told—or rather, not told—in the keynote speech on foreign and commonwealth affairs made by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday at Chatham house. I have read through the speech—every single word. There is not one word in the speech about Zimbabwe—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Straw:—still less—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Minister. I should be obliged if, when I stand, the Minister would be seated and not continue his remarks.
    Mr. Ancram: Last week, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Council's conditions were clear and unambiguous and that we meant business. Today, we are told that the deadline has been waived, that the conditions have now been qualified and distorted to suit Mr. Mugabe and that, in effect, Mugabe is being given the benefit of the doubt again. Can he not understand the widespread feelings of disgust about what is happening in Zimbabwe? Three members of the Zimbabwean Opposition were brutally murdered at the weekend, but apparently that is still not enough to trigger action from him. When will he and his European colleagues realise that appeasement does not work? He welcomed the Abuja agreement, but it was not worth the paper it was written on. History teaches us that appeasing dictators merely encourages them. When will he stop talking and start doing something before it is too late and nothing can be done?
    Mr. Straw: I think that shows the error of writing one's supplementary question before one knows the answer to the original question. The right hon. Gentleman's basic assumption is wrong. Whether he and I like it or not, the initial condition—that observers must start to be admitted by 3 February—has been met. That is why he is wrong.
    I would have thought that the Conservatives would be the last party to start talking about appeasement. I do not just mean the 1930s; I mean appeasement by the Conservative Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported in the 1980s. They sat by and did nothing when Mugabe and his henchmen were murdering more than 5,000 native people and taking action in Matabeleland. That was real appeasement, as the Conservative Government did nothing.
    We are taking action now to secure, if we can, a democratic transfer of power in Zimbabwe. If we cannot do that, we must then ensure that further actions follow. The Opposition's propositions would lead to nothing but isolation by Britain and would play into Mugabe's hands.
    Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Conservative Government not only did nothing about the situation in Zimbabwe in the 1980s, but managed to become isolated, 48 to one, in the Commonwealth in support of apartheid South Africa?
    724
    Will he therefore carry on with his sensible, prudent policy and not fall into the trap of allowing Mugabe to claim that there is some sort of neo-colonialist plot against his Government? Is it not more important that we get united European Union action as well as support throughout southern Africa?
    Mr. Straw: I have already referred in slightly different terms to the fact that, in my judgment, while this issue may be a personal priority for the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is not one that is shared by the Leader of the Opposition. That speaks volumes about the priority that the Opposition attach to the matter. Of course, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The natural consequence of the strategy—if one can adorn it with that phrase—that is being offered by the Opposition Front Bench would not be an end to Mugabe. In my judgment, it would strengthen Mugabe, because he would he able to do what we have denied him for the past nine months and present what is happening as a bilateral dispute, in respect of which, for sure, the Opposition's position would have no support from the European Union, the Southern African Development Community and the Commonwealth. In other words, it is a strategy of failure of the sort that we have seen so many times before from the Conservative party.

    EU Enlargement
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent meetings he has had with his Spanish counterpart to discuss the presidency priorities for EU enlargement. [30486]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart in London on 19 December to discuss a range of EU issues, including EU enlargement.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm that one of the issues that have been discussed is the date of the first direct elections to the European Parliament by the applicant countries? Will he also confirm that he will use the Spanish presidency not only to grant full British citizenship to the people of Gibraltar, but to ensure that, by the date of those first direct elections from the applicant countries, the people of Gibraltar will have the right to send their own directly elected Members to the European Parliament?
    Peter Hain: The answer to the question about Gibraltar is yes; we have already made a clear commitment. The answer to the hon. Lady's first question is also yes. Countries that conclude their negotiations on the timetable by the end of the year will be ready to participate in the European elections in the summer of 2004 and, before that, to take part in the intergovernmental conference to shape the future structure of the European Union. We hope that up to 10 countries will attend as members and vote in the subsequent elections.
    Ann Clwyd: Was there any discussion of Turkey's failure to enact important human rights reforms, especially its failure to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in July last year? The court found that the imprisonment of Leyla Zana, the Kurdish Member of Parliament, and of three other

    725
    Kurdish Members of Parliament who have been in jail for eight years, was due to an unfair trial. What are we doing about it?
    Peter Hain: I commend my hon. Friend for her long and active interest in the problem of human rights abuses in Turkey. They remain a serious matter, and while they continue, they will prevent Turkey from joining the European Union. Although we support Turkey's application, it must comply fully with the Copenhagen criteria, which include support for human rights and good governance, before it is eligible for membership of the European Union.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Although I welcome the Spanish presidency's commitment to enlargement, does the Minister agree that successfully expanding the European Union will ultimately depend on a clear division of competencies? In a written answer to me yesterday, he stated:
    "Unlike the Member States, the European Communities have no inherent competence; they only have such competence as is accorded to them by the community Treaties. Accordingly, the competence of the Member States is limited only to the extent that the Communities have competence in accordance with the Treaties."—[Official Report, 4 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 766W.]
    Given the importance of enlargement, how about more focus and clarity instead of the Eurobabble that the Minister always attacks?
    Peter Hain: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to commend my plain English. The European Union needs to consider its structures, and especially the role of the nation state as the foundation of the intergovernmentalism that should drive its future. Enlargement will make that even more important, because we hope that an additional 10 countries will join the EU. That is precisely why the Prime Minister has appointed me to join the European convention that will discuss such matters and why the IGC in 2004 will take them forward with a strong British input.

    Cameroon
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has to visit Cameroon to discuss bilateral relations. [30487]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was in Africa two weeks ago. All Foreign and Commonwealth Office ministerial visits are kept under review and announced when plans are firm.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Did the Government take the opportunity to discuss Cameroon with the French Government during the recent Anglo-French initiative in Africa? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government in Cameroon routinely use death squads from their special security forces to eliminate political opponents? Does he also agree that the United Nations rapporteur on torture recently described the prisons in Cameroon as the worst that he had seen anywhere? Are not the repressive and discriminatory policies of the Government in Cameroon directed against
    726
    the English-speaking minority, especially members of the Southern Cameroons National Council? Will my hon. Friend assure—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister now has enough to cope with.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend has listed many of the human rights abuses in Cameroon. The Government are greatly concerned about them. Cameroon is a bilingual Franco-and Anglophone country which causes anxiety to the EU and the Commonwealth, and is likely to be discussed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights next month.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister has described Africa as a scar on the conscience of the world. Why will he pass Cameroon by in his forthcoming visit to west Africa? Surely it is in special need of a visitation from him, in the dire circumstances that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) described. Will the prosperity of Cameroon and other countries in Africa be enhanced by the part-privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation?
    Mr. MacShane: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to Africa. There are many people and organisations in all our constituencies for whom concern about Africa is a priority, and such comments come ill from the Conservatives, who did not lift a finger to give any serious help to Africa during their long years in government, and whose leader has just made a great speech on foreign affairs which did not mention that continent once.

    Great Lakes
    Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement about his recent visit to the Great Lakes region. [30488]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): My recent visit to the Great Lakes with my French counterpart, Hubert Védrine, reinforced our joint commitment to the Lusaka peace process. We made clear to all sides the need for progress in enforcing all Security Council resolutions and for full co-operation with the United Nations mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for finding the time to visit the Great Lakes area of Africa. I am sure that he is aware that the war that has been going on in the Congo for four years has cost the lives of 2.5 million people. Two million more are displaced, and something like 65 per cent. of the population—that is, 35 million people—are still undernourished. What are the British Government doing to try to bring this terrible conflict to an end?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right to draw attention to the scale of the suffering in the Great Lakes region, because this is the world's worst conflict. The genocide and starvation that have been suffered in the region are almost beyond record. We are working very carefully with France and

    727
    Belgium—which has historic links with the DRC—as well as with the United Nations to see whether we can advance progress on the Lusaka peace process. Indeed, this was the purpose of my trip. There is a clear framework for peace there, and up to now—in fairness to that framework—it has led to a relative ceasefire for the last year.
    A great deal more progress has to be made, however, and one of the things that Mr. Védrine and I undertook to do while we were in the four countries that we visited was to see what initial steps could be taken for the safe transfer of 1,800 former rebel troops who are being held at Kamina, in the DRC, to Rwanda. Sadly, we were not able to achieve that while we were there, but if we could do so, we would be able to unblock many of the other problems relating to confidence in military co-operation that lie in the way of a permanent settlement.
    Mr. Richard Spring: In recognising the need for African countries to assume leadership over pan-African problems, with our help and encouragement, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the new partnership for Africa's development during his visit? What practical support is he giving to the partnership's goals for conflict resolution, for improved environments for trade and investment, and for better governance in Africa?
    Mr. Straw: We did indeed discuss the new partnership for Africa, which will be a major theme of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to west Africa this week. Since 1997, this Government have done a huge amount to advance a strategy for the development and reconstruction of Africa, including making major increases in development aid under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. She and I, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, work closely together in a Cabinet Committee that I chair to ensure that diplomatic, aid and military efforts are effectively co-ordinated to prevent conflict, or, where conflict occurs—as in Sierra Leone—better and more quickly to resolve it.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to the Great Lakes region. Does he share my sense of frustration that this conflict, which he suggested was the worst on the planet, has been given so little attention either in Europe or in the United States? Will he acknowledge the need for all the world to get involved in resolving this conflict? Britain has extraordinary influence in Rwanda and Uganda, and we should be telling those countries' Governments that fighting proxy wars in other people's territories is simply unacceptable in this century.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The problem, however, has been not a lack of attention from the United States or from European countries, but—to put it bluntly—the fact that it has been possible for some countries and rebel groups to play off France and Belgium against the United Kingdom. The reason my trip with Mr. Védrine was so important was that we were able to develop a common strategy. It was, therefore, much easier to ensure that Mr. Védrine was
    728
    giving the hard messages to President Kabila in the DRC, while I was giving the hard messages to Presidents Kagame and Museveni in Rwanda and Uganda.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary was right to focus on humanitarian issues on that recent and important visit, but did he give time to allow the Governments of those countries to make representations on the changes that this Government are making to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which appear—I emphasise that—to place short-term profits in high-tech corporation industries above long-term jobs for people in many African countries who live in abject poverty?
    Mr. Straw: I am sure that that is not the case and not remotely the intention of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development, but the hon. Gentleman will not object too much if I gently observe that there is always room for sinners to repent. This afternoon's repentance—against privatisation and in favour of public ownership—is much to be welcomed.

    Arctic
    Colin Burgon: What recent discussions he has had with the Governments of (a) Canada and (b) the USA about the effect on the Arctic environment of oil and gas exploration and development. [30489]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): None.
    Colin Burgon: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive reply. I had hoped that he might be able to give a lead on a problem that concerns hundreds of thousands of people around the globe—the future of the Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska. It appears that the hard-nosed men of the big oil companies want to get in there to exploit and start drilling in that pristine wilderness, but I understand that they need the support of Congress to do so. What can we in Britain do to help defeat their disastrous plans?
    Mr. MacShane: I meant no discourtesy to my hon. Friend; I simply want to move Question Time forward as fast as possible. He is right to reflect the deep concern, but he must address the fact that the Energy Bill to allow drilling in the Arctic was passed by the House of Representatives by 240 votes to 189. It is going through Congress and is supported by a number of US trade unions.
    The House must understand that we need to engage with the American democratic process rather than name-call the White House. America is a great, vibrant republic and a great federal democracy. As parliamentarians, we need to talk to our colleagues over there to raise those issues, which I fully accept are of

    729
    great concern to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to many Americans; but it is not for this Government to dictate what the US does inside its own boundaries.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Have the Government made any representations to the American or Canadian Governments on behalf of any UK energy company?
    Mr. MacShane: To my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Does it follow from the answer to the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) that the Minister will have a word with the Foreign Secretary about his offensive remarks about the speech made the other day by the President of the United States?
    Mr. MacShane: I do not think that the United States has a better friend in the House than my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Conservative party, which last week reconfirmed its commitment to the most foolish isolationism that harks back to Neville Chamberlain, has no lessons to offer anywhere in the world.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about the reform of the common agricultural policy in advance of enlargement. [30490]
    The Minister for Europe (Peter Hain): We frequently raise the importance of CAP reform with European Union and applicant Governments.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. In those discussions, will he tell his European colleagues that it is entirely unacceptable for accession country farmers to be expected to compete with highly subsidised farmers from existing EU countries? Will he call for a level playing field for accession country farmers, which could be achieved by drastic cuts to the obscenely large CAP subsidies paid to big farmers?
    Peter Hain: We agree that there must be a level playing field once the applicant countries have come fully into the EU, but transitional arrangements are inevitable in an enlargement of such dimensions, and the proposals published recently by the European Commission provide for that. There will be a transition process.
    I do not think that my hon. Friend is asking for, nor will the Government support, any additional funding for the CAP, which desperately needs reform along precisely the lines that he suggests. Farmers from Britain and other members states should be able to benefit from that reform, as should applicant states when a level playing field is created following the necessary reforms.
    Tony Baldry: Is the Minister not concerned about the fact that one accession country, Poland, receives more development aid from the European Union than the whole of Asia? Farmers will not stand a chance of
    730
    escaping the chronic poverty suffered by these countries unless they are given fairer access to European markets for their agricultural produce.
    This is not just a dispute between accession countries and existing member states. We shall never make progress on Africa until we reform the common agricultural policy in Europe.
    Peter Hain: I agree. I just wonder why the Conservative Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was, I think, a member—certainly a supporter—did not achieve the CAP reforms which we began in 1999, and which we will carry through. They will be necessary once enlargement has taken place.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the very high—some would say obscene—level of agricultural subsidies in the rich world, Europe included. The total is equivalent to the entire gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in which we can conquer poverty, in Africa or elsewhere, unless we get rid of those bloated subsidies and create a level playing field for the agricultural markets of the developing world as well as those in Europe.
    Joyce Quin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progressive replacement of the CAP with a policy of agricultural and rural development would be much better for the different nations and regions of the European Union, and indeed the enlargement countries, than the present over-centralised, over-regulated policy? Will he press for such a change in both the enlargement negotiations and—this is very important—the "future of Europe" negotiations?
    Peter Hain: Yes indeed; I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. Let me return to the original question, and say that I think many applicant countries would benefit from considering the opportunities for agricultural rural development funding, rather than agricultural funding in the traditional CAP sense, that are available in the European Union. I think that that would help them enormously, if it took place in parallel with efforts to reform the CAP.

    Iraq
    Patrick Mercer: What discussions he has had with the United Nations concerning the prospect of weapons inspectors visiting Iraq. [30491]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): In the United Nations Security Council, we regularly review the prospects for a resumption of UN weapons inspections in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary led intensive discussions on that in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week in November. The UN expects Iraq to comply fully with its disarmament and monitoring obligations, and to permit the immediate return of UN weapons inspectors.
    Patrick Mercer: Does the Minister agree that it is now high time Iraq abided by UN Security Council resolution

    731
    678, and allowed on-site inspections throughout Iraq? Does he agree that only by so doing can Iraq leave the cabal of rogue states and join the civilised world?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. I think Iraq knows exactly what it must do to comply with UN resolutions. It is very simple. There have been vague signs recently that some elements of the regime may be having a change of heart, but I should warn the House that we have seen this before. What we want is action, not just words.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Instead of issuing warnings like this, would it not be at least prudent to listen to what Baghdad has to say to Kofi Annan?
    Mr. Bradshaw: As I just said, Saddam Hussein has done this before when he has felt under pressure, and he rightly feels under pressure now, post-11 September. He has put out feelers; he has spoken to a number of people, including those in the United Nations. These, however, are simply diplomatic ploys. We should wait and see whether any of his moves are followed by actions rather than words.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What role the Commonwealth will have in respect of monitoring the 2002 presidential elections in Zimbabwe. [30493]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The Government of Zimbabwe have stated that Commonwealth election observers will be invited to the presidential elections on 9 and 10 March, but no invitations have yet been issued. On 30 January the Commonwealth ministerial action group called for the immediate deployment of Commonwealth election observers.
    Mr. Viggers: With the Foreign Secretary's failure to carry our Commonwealth partners with us, I suppose we must take comfort where we can and reflect on the fact that there will be observers, notably from the Commonwealth, and that if the elections are not seen to be fair and free, further action can be taken; and the Commonwealth would be the ideal body to take that action. Does the Minister agree?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman repeats exactly what the Foreign Secretary said.
    Donald Anderson: Has there been any indication from the Government of Zimbabwe that they would seek to exclude British observers from any teams, and if so, what would be the response of both the Commonwealth and the European Union?
    Mr. MacShane: The simple answer is that that is a matter for the Commonwealth and the European Union, but it is important to stress that there are two institutions seeking to "bilateralise" this matter—to make it a UK-Zimbabwe affair. One is the Government of Zimbabwe; the other is the Opposition Front-Bench team. This Government have sought to get support from the EU, from the Commonwealth, from the Southern African
    732
    Development Community and from our friends in the United States. That is the way to deal with Zimbabwe, not the isolationist, old colonialist approach of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Exactly how many election monitors and observers will be in Zimbabwe by the time the elections take place? I have taken a deep interest in Zimbabwe over many years and raised the genocide in Matabeleland in 1983 with questions in the House. I am ashamed that this country and the civilised world did absolutely nothing about that genocide; I was angry and disgusted. We set a shocking example. Unless there are 500 or 600 monitors and observers in Zimbabwe, I do not believe that the elections can be free, transparent or fair.
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record in this matter, but when the massacres in Matabeleland were raised in another place in 1984—they were not debated in this House—the then Minister said:
    "The Zimbabwean Government face a serious security threat from dissidents in Matabeleland and obviously must try to take effective action to deal with it."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1984; Vol. 452, c. 259.]
    That was the position of the Conservative party then. We and our international friends and allies are insisting that election observers be in place, and if they are not, there will be consequences. The important thing is that we co-operate internationally, not puff and posture like the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who seeks to bilateralise the matter, falling into the trap that President Mugabe has set for us.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Between now and the presidential elections in Zimbabwe, more money from Zimbabwe will be trying to find its way to the City of London. What extra steps are we taking to talk to the City of London to ensure that money is not laundered here?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. Discussions are currently taking place with the City and with other appropriate departmental ministries to ensure that any improper money, as it were, that arrives in the City of London is notified. If, after the elections are over, the international institutions, of which we are partner members, express dissatisfaction with the election result, consequences in that area will surely follow.

    Golden Jubilee
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: What plans he has to encourage celebrations of HM the Queen's golden jubilee year in the British overseas territories. [30494]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): Governors of the overseas territories have received guidance on arrangements for the Queen's golden jubilee. It is for the Governments and people of

    733
    the territories to decide how best to celebrate the jubilee. The best present for the overseas territories will be the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords], currently going through the House; it gives the people of the overseas territories British citizenship, which the Conservative Government failed to do for 18 years.
    Mr. Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the overseas territories have as much right to celebrate the Queen's golden jubilee as people living on mainland Britain? Is he aware that it is nearly 50 years since Her Majesty visited the British Crown colony of Gibraltar? Does he feel that the year of the golden jubilee would be an appropriate time for Her Majesty to visit
    734
    Gibraltar? If not, perhaps an appropriate occasion would be the 300th anniversary of British sovereignty over Gibraltar, in 2004.
    Mr. Bradshaw: We never comment on royal visits or where Her Majesty the Queen should or should not go, but she has asked that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds in connection with the jubilee. I would however draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a number of the planned celebrations, including those on Gibraltar, where there will be a birthday parade and trooping the colour. Some territories will issue special commemorative stamps and many will have a public holiday. I am sure that the newly British citizens of the overseas territories will have a good time—an even better time than those back home.

Gibraltar
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks on Gibraltar yesterday with the Spanish Foreign Minister in London.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Yesterday I met the Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Piqué. We held the third in a series of meetings under the Brussels process. A copy of the joint communiqué from yesterday's meeting has been placed in the Library. At every stage we have kept the House fully informed of the process of the negotiations, including in a three-hour debate in Government time last Thursday in Westminster Hall. A further meeting under the Brussels process is due to be held within the next two months. The date has yet to be fixed.
There are four aspects to the approach that we have adopted: preserving Gibraltar's unique way of life; greater internal self-government for Gibraltar; practical benefits through co-operation and putting the long-running dispute about sovereignty to rest.
I am convinced that this dialogue represents the best way forward for the people of Gibraltar as well as for Spain and the United Kingdom. It must be better to try to settle differences through dialogue, and I am convinced that the people of Gibraltar have more to gain than to lose from the process. Moreover, they will not lose their British citizenship nor their traditional way of life. However, they will gain greater self-government and many practical benefits of a much more co-operative relationship with Spain and its people.
I underline the commitment that was first given in the House by the Labour Government in 1969, and that we have repeated in this round: that any proposals affecting the sovereignty of Gibraltar will not and cannot be put into effect without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.
I want the Government of Gibraltar to be directly involved in the Brussels round talks. Yesterday, the British and Spanish Governments reiterated our invitation to Chief Minister Caruana to participate in the discussions on the basis of the two flags, three voices formula, in which he would have his own distinct voice as part of the British delegation.
Lastly, there is nothing inevitable about the outcome of the discussions, but it is in all our interests to make a constructive effort to find a lasting solution to the problems—above all, one which we believe will be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Kaufman: I thank my right hon. Friend for sending me a copy of yesterday's communiqué and his article in the Gibraltar Chronicle yesterday.
Is it not bizarre that Spain has imposed and maintained what my right hon. Friend described in the Gibraltar Chronicle Yesterday as
"obstructions to everyday life"
which
"the people of Gibraltar are forced to endure",
736
and that the Spanish Government are now graciously offering to lift those restrictions provided that the British Government sell out the interests of those same people of Gibraltar?
Yesterday in London, despite what my right hon. Friend has just said about his ambition to put the long-running dispute over sovereignty to rest, the Spanish Foreign Minister said that
"Spain could not accept that the Gibraltarian people had a right to self-determination and would not drop its historic claim on the colony."
An agreement from those negotiations would therefore be only the first slice of the chorizo. Should not the British Government value the fact that the people of Gibraltar are so proud of being British that, to maintain their present status, they are ready to endure those obstructions to everyday life, just as they endured far worse in the second world war in defence of Britain and of democracy? Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that, apart from the telephone lines referred to yesterday, Spain will remove the restrictions—my right hon. Friend described them as those that the people of Gibraltar have to "endure"—only if the outcome of the negotiations is satisfactory to Spain and is then endorsed by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum? Will he also understand that there is no majority in the House for a negotiation conducted under duress?
Mr. Straw: I accept that there would be no majority in the House for negotiation under duress, but I believe that there is a majority for negotiation conducted within the Brussels process, which was initiated in 1984 by the Administration of Lady Thatcher with all-party support and the support of the shadow Cabinet. Indeed, at that time my right hon. Friend and I were on the Opposition Front Bench. Bipartisan support for the process continues to this day. As we discovered on 12 January during a similar private notice question, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary—notwithstanding his bluster—supported a continuation of the process.
As I have said to my right hon. Friend—I am happy to repeat the point—I accept entirely that all kinds of obstructions to daily life in Gibraltar have been imposed by the Government of Spain. Those obstructions should not be there and I am trying to do something about them. However, I defy any Member of the House to explain how we can deal with them—short, as I said on 12 January, of sending gunboats or threatening military action—except through discussion and dialogue with the Government of Spain.
My right hon. Friend also asked whether—apart from the telephone lines—Spain will remove other obstructions only if there is a satisfactory outcome to this phase of the negotiations that is then endorsed through a referendum. As part of the Brussels process, we are discussing with Spain the removal of further obstructions—as he calls them—well before any referendum. It is for that reason that we undertook considerable negotiation to get Spain to agree in principle to the transfer of the 70,000 lines. Yesterday, we agreed to further work on some of the technical problems associated with their connection.
I want to make two final points. First, whether we or the people of Gibraltar like it or not, the world for Gibraltar is changing. It is changing not because of Spain or the United

737
Kingdom, but because of the rules of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Union, which will quickly bring to an end Gibraltar's tax-free status. Gibraltar needs a new future and everybody in Gibraltar understands that.
Secondly, as I have said, the process that we are involved in—which cannot conceivably be described in my right hon. Friend's words—means that nothing that we agree can come into force without the consent of the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. I have made a point of that.
Mr. Michael Ancram: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that yesterday has done nothing to allay or dispel suspicion and anger in Gibraltar or in the House? If anything, the fears that I previously raised with the Foreign Secretary, and which until now he has dismissed, are turning out to be true. The process in which he is engaged is clearly seen as the disingenuous sell-out that we have always believed it to be.
Does not the Foreign Secretary accept that, once made, a bilateral agreement between the British and Spanish Governments to share sovereignty over Gibraltar cannot be rescinded? Even if it is subsequently rejected by the people of Gibraltar, the principle of ceding sovereignty over the Rock to Spain will have been established, the pass will have been sold and the promised democratic rights over sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar will have been fatally undermined.
Cannot the Foreign Secretary see that that is the sell-out, the done deal, that we and the people of Gibraltar fear, and which we and they will oppose? Why does not he accept the suggestion that I made in my letter of 18 January, which he dodged in his reply? That is that, in this process—which we accept—nothing should be agreed by any party until the overall proposals being put forward are approved in a referendum, and that, in the absence of Gibraltar's acquiescence, neither Government could claim that an agreement had been reached on any issue. That would meet the concerns and fears of the people of Gibraltar, and of Opposition Members.
Cannot the Foreign Secretary accept, even at this late date, that he owes the people of Gibraltar, not least for the loyalty that they have shown us, an open and democratic process, with nothing agreed by him on behalf of the British Government until all the proposals are agreed by the people of Gibraltar? Anything less would be a dishonourable betrayal, which would shame not only the right hon. Gentleman, but us all.
Mr. Straw: Yet again, we see a man without a policy. On the one hand, the right hon. Gentleman says that the Brussels process will lead to a sell-out, and on the other that we should continue with it. He needs to make up his mind.
Only by discussion in the Brussels process can we conceivably reach the point where proposals can be put to the people of Gibraltar. I should much prefer it if the right hon. Gentleman were to write me a letter about a different architecture for the discussions. I would prefer there to be a different architecture for the discussions, and for the Government of Gibraltar to be part of those discussions. I keep repeating that invitation to Peter
738
Caruana. I believe that it is safe for him to take part in the discussions, as nothing to do with his involvement in them would remotely prejudice anything that he said to the people of Gibraltar by way of advice about voting yes or no in a referendum.
I would value Peter Caruana sitting alongside me—two flags, three voices—in the process. In that way, instead of having to meet him separately and make telephone calls to him—which I am always happy to do—I would have his advice in the room. At the moment, that is not possible. The only alternative under the Brussels process, which the Conservative party in government initiated and with which the right hon. Gentleman agrees, is that there should be bilateral discussions.
If the discussions are satisfactory—they may not be—their outcome will be that we agree proposals. However, those proposals will come into law only if the people of Gibraltar agree. That is a sensible way in which to proceed. It has the absolute democratic guarantee that, ultimately, it will be the people of Gibraltar who will decide. Let them decide, is what I say.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I know that my right hon. Friend has a great interest in trying to achieve agreement over Gibraltar, but the real problem is that Piqué has stated openly and clearly that he will never accept that the people of Gibraltar have a right of self-determination. That declaration should be reason enough for us to withdraw from the talks.
We must be aware that we face the danger that people will accuse us of double standards. We cannot go around the world saying openly that we believe in democratic rights, and that we went into Bosnia and Afghanistan because we believe that people have the right to democracy, at the same time as we are beginning to put an end to the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
Spain has stated deliberately today that the people of Gibraltar have no rights. I declare an interest in what goes on, as I am chair of the all-party Gibraltar group. I believe that we should reconsider our position and allow that other countries in the EU have differing tax statuses within their borders. One example is Spain, and the circumstances covering Ceuta, Melilla, Tenerife and the Canary islands. Another example is France, and the differing status accorded to Monaco. Another example is Britain, with Jersey and the Isle of Man—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the issue of self-determination. I apologise for not picking up on it in my response a moment ago.
The Spanish Government and people have maintained a long-standing position on Gibraltar. However, they are involved in the negotiations and we have made it clear that there is no way that we shall accept that position and hand over sovereignty, lock, stock and barrel, to Spain. I have said that repeatedly, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe. We are involved in negotiations. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) is an expert on the origins of British sovereignty in Gibraltar, he will know that by the treaty of Utrecht, sovereignty was ceded to the English Crown, to the United Kingdom, and that the same clause in that treaty states clearly that if ever sovereignty is given up by

739
the United Kingdom it has to go back to Spain. So in the classic terms of normal decolonisation—when we had absolute sovereignty and no country had first refusal on it—we could of course grant independence if we and the other country so wished. That does not arise in respect of Gibraltar, so the alternatives are sovereignty with the UK, sovereignty with Spain or something in between.
As regards self-determination, whatever Spain may have said in the past, Spain has acknowledged, as part of these negotiations, that we will put any agreed proposals to the people of Gibraltar and that we will not implement them without the consent of the people of Gibraltar. We can argue about whether that really is self-determination, but in the context that I have described I think that it is.
I hope too—Spain has also acknowledged this—that as part of those discussions, if we reach an agreed outcome, we can grant a far greater degree of internal self-government to Gibraltar than exists at present. Spain is entirely in agreement with that.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Has the Foreign Secretary been able to identify any advantage to the people of Gibraltar from their Government staying out of the negotiations, especially when they would have no obligation either to accept or to endorse any result of the negotiations? Furthermore, what efforts has he made in his conversations to persuade the Spanish Government to take unilateral measures designed to increase confidence in Gibraltar—not least by the removal of the bureaucratic obstacles at the border? Finally, can he think of any greater illustration of the principle of sovereignty than that the people of Gibraltar should have an unencumbered veto over the British Government—something that no part of the United Kingdom enjoys?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's final point is absolutely right. I also believe in the wider sense of the word sovereignty. If sovereignty means greater control over one's own life, the kind of future that we seek to map out for the people of Gibraltar—in which there is real freedom across the borders and for trade, and where the economy can be opened up not only to the people of Gibraltar but to the whole of that part of southern Europe—would provide them with a much greater degree of practical sovereignty than they have at present.
As to why Chief Minister Peter Caruana should not take part in these discussions, he has advanced reasons to me that I do not want to go into in public, but in discussion with him I continue to try to identify the rubbing points for the Government of Gibraltar and to try to accommodate them. I regret that that has not proved possible so far, but the invitation remains open. In my judgment—although ultimately it is a matter for him—the people of Gibraltar would be better served by Mr. Caruana being in the negotiations rather than outside them. However, we shall continue to consult with him.
As regards Spain taking unilateral steps to build confidence, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: Spain should do that. It was for that reason that we urged Spain to put in the telephone lines. We obtained agreement in principle and we want those lines actually to be installed. Furthermore, it would greatly help if Spain could now take other measures—they have formed a
740
major part of my conversations with Minister Piqué—to reduce the lack of confidence that exists across those borders.
Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the rather bizarre concept of two flags, three voices. He has also mentioned Spain's so-called historic claim to Gibraltar. Can he give us an assurance that, if agreement is reached on the two flag concept, an express condition will be that Spain give up its historic claim?
Mr. Straw: That is obviously one part of the discussions. [Interruption.] As people who have ever been involved in the negotiations will know, that is, of course, one part of the discussions. I shall not anticipate the outcome of the negotiations, until there is a satisfactory outcome, but I am happy to say that there is no way, in these negotiations, that we intend to cede, lock, stock and barrel, the sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain. That is not part of our agenda—not now, not for the future.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Government of Spain have been shamefully and blatantly depriving the people of Gibraltar of their entitlements in anticipation of the discussions, would not the Foreign Secretary, as a great enthusiast for the EU, think that a better start to the negotiations would be to invite the Commission to take Spain to the European Court of Justice for blatantly and wrongfully depriving the people of Gibraltar of their rights?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman suddenly seems to have been converted to the merits of the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] Well, he mentioned it. That is a rather dangerous path down which to take Gibraltar because the infraction proceedings that are in prospect before the European Court of Justice are not against Spain, but against Gibraltar for its failure to transpose a number of EU directives. Whether or not one accepts another party's position in the negotiations, it is always at least worth comprehending that position. Spain has a number of points against Gibraltar. We have to examine carefully the way in which Spain thinks that Gibraltar and, indeed, the United Kingdom have behaved towards Spain historically, and we have to take that into account in any final agreement that we may reach.
David Winnick: Is it likely that there are more than 12 people, at the very maximum, in Gibraltar, who are in favour of what is happening? Is not the truth of the matter simply that, over the years, Spain has pursued a policy of harassment, obstruction and downright annoyance against the people of Gibraltar, whose only crime is that they simply want to retain their links with Britain? Good luck to them.
Mr. Straw: I suspect that the number is rather more than 12, but I shall not start counting just yet. Of course, I understand the intense feeling among the people of Gibraltar about the harassment that takes place against them; nor do I remotely think that it is justified or necessary. I am involved in these negotiations, even at the risk of finding that, just at the moment, I do not have majority support in Gibraltar. I am glad that it is not my constituency, but that is okay because I know that the

741
people of Blackburn support me in this endeavor, as I suspect do the people of Walsall, although we have no need to put it to the test.
Even though I understand some of the difficulties and complexities of the issue that faces us at the moment, I am involved in the negotiations precisely because I am concerned about that harassment and those obstructions by the Government of Spain. But I also look ahead down the track and see a different environment, in which Gibraltar will have to operate whether or not we reach agreement. I cannot say what the final conclusion will be, but we are working in the best interests of the people of Gibraltar, as well as the United Kingdom.
In case my hon. Friend did not hear this right at the beginning, there is no question that the people of Gibraltar will lose their British citizenship, or their British way of life. Those are absolutes; we made that clear to the Spanish Government at the start, and to lift the veil a little on the negotiations, they have accepted both points. If they had not done so, we would not still be involved in the negotiations.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that many hon. Members on both sides of the House can smell the stench of betrayal and sell-out wafting out from underneath the doors at King Charles street? If, as he says, the people of Gibraltar have an arm-lock on the results of the negotiations and given that he knows perfectly well what the results of the Gibraltarians' considerations on his negotiations will be, would it not be much better for his extremely clever and dedicated team of staff in the Foreign Office to get on with something rather more worth while?
Mr. Straw: The value and importance of this process were recognised 18 years ago by a distinguished Conservative former Foreign Secretary, now Lord Howe, and it was pursued with the active support of the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher. We supported the process at that time precisely because of the problems faced by Gibraltarians. There has to be a process of discussion.
As we have heard, despite all the bluster from those on the Opposition Front Bench, they support the process, too. I have not heard one proposal this afternoon from any of those who have a slight difference of emphasis from me in regard to the negotiations about what they would do other than to engage in discussions to seek to resolve the problems for the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Doug Henderson: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that there are Labour Members who support the hard work that he is putting in to try to resolve an anachronistic constitution in a modern Europe? People in business in Gibraltar recognise that, if there are no changes to its constitutional status, their businesses will not prosper in the future and they will be denied any real independence. That view is widely held.
Mr. Straw: I have always admired my hon. Friend's independent judgment and the quality of the arguments that he advances.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: If the Foreign Secretary accepts the principles of decolonisation and
742
self-determination, why are the British Government and the Government of Spain, who wish to become the colonising Government in Gibraltar, attempting to construct a joint sovereignty arrangement over the heads of the people of Gibraltar? Such an agreement will be turned down by the people of Gibraltar, because they cannot be bought in that way. However, the agreement will remain as a rebuke and a threat to Gibraltar for long afterwards and in defiance of the people's wishes and, indeed, of the principle of self-determination. What principle of international relations or international law is the right hon. Gentleman following, or is this really about the demands of the Spanish Government and the convenience of the European Union?
Mr. Straw: The principle is that international negotiation is a far better process to follow than the alternative. However, Conservatives Members baulk at that suggestion. We have problems with Spain over Gibraltar, and the Gibraltarians have even greater problems. There are two ways of seeking to resolve such problems. The first is by force of arms and the other is by force of argument. I believe—international law requires this—in using force of argument. Moreover, it is utter nonsense to suggest that we are going over the heads of the people of Gibraltar. We are going to the people of Gibraltar and we shall not just ask for their opinion, because they have a veto over the final conclusion that we come to.
Mr. George Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is part of his thinking that the Government of Gibraltar's engagement in this process would enable them to improve Gibraltar's identity and place in Europe? It would also improve and strengthen relations between Britain and Spain and between Britain and the Government of Gibraltar and would not allow those relations to wither away, as they are at present. Does he agree that, although those Labour and Opposition Members who use the language of betrayal and sell-out may be genuine friends of Gibraltar, they do not help the process and are making it even harder for him to accomplish what he is trying to do?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is exactly right. I do not believe that using such misplaced and inaccurate descriptions helps anyone, least of all the people of Gibraltar. I find it difficult to understand how such labels can be attached when the process is open and we want the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to be involved in the negotiations. As that has not been possible to achieve, we are consulting him as much as we can.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that we do not have a dispute with Spain? The right of the Gibraltarians to be involved with the United Kingdom is recognised in an international treaty that is almost 300 years old. What we are experiencing is the unreasonable behaviour of Spanish Governments and the Spanish people. Can he tell the House—if he truly believes in democracy—whether the people of Gibraltar came to the British Government to ask for help in negotiating joint sovereignty with Spain so as

743
to remove some of the problems, or whether they asked him to intercede to get a co-member of the European Union to behave in a civilised and reasonable way?
Mr. Straw: It is a matter of record that the request for the Brussels process arose from discussions between the then Conservative Government and the Spanish Government. It did not arise directly from a request by the Gibraltarian Government. However, we have received many requests for us to sort out the difficulties in Gibraltar. I repeat that the only way to do that is by discussion. That has to be within the Brussels process because the die was cast in 1984 by the Government whom the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen supported. One part of the negotiations deals with sovereignty because that was what was agreed between the Government of Spain and a Conservative Administration.
Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend been offered from any quarter practical proposals on how to get rid of the restrictions on the people of Gibraltar other than by entering into discussion and negotiation? Can he explain why those who oppose the process think that the status quo, which includes those restrictions, is acceptable and why they think that a process in which the people of Gibraltar have the final say in a referendum is not self-determination?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The answer is no; there have been no alternative practical proposals for resolving the problems—none at all.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Foreign Secretary said that there were only two choices: to go to war or to negotiate. There is a third choice, however: to maintain the status quo. That has been successfully achieved in facing down other regimes and can be successful in Gibraltar. Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe that even if restrictions are removed for the duration of a referendum campaign and the vote goes against the acceptance of shared sovereignty once he has done his dirty deal with the Spanish, those restrictions will not immediately be reimposed by Spain?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is not using his usual analytical skills on the arguments. I was talking about the two choices that are involved in the process of negotiation; he is talking about the outcome. If proposals are agreed between this Government and the Government of Spain, that outcome will be put to the people of Gibraltar. If and when a referendum takes place, the arguments for those people to consider will be either to maintain the status quo or to have a different future. In the end, that is a matter for the people of Gibraltar.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) explained, no other colonial situation has had such a degree of effective self-determination. It did not happen with Hong Kong—those negotiations were carried out by a Conservative Administration who just handed Hong Kong over to China without any suggestion of a referendum—so I do not want to hear any more nonsense about self-determination from the Conservatives.
Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar has
744
made it clear for some time that he would be more than happy to negotiate with Spain on the restrictions placed on Gibraltar because of the effects that Spain claims they have on it? That has not happened because Spain will not talk about anything unless sovereignty is at the head of the agenda. The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that the referendum in Gibraltar, whenever it is held, will result in a resounding rejection by the Gibraltarians. We must therefore ask what his agenda is. Does he mean to say to the United Nations that Spain and Britain have agreed on the future of Gibraltar and the problem is merely that Gibraltar has yet to come to terms with it, and all other options are closed?
Mr. Straw: Sovereignty is part of the agenda; it is not a prior condition, but it was agreed as part of the Brussels process. The hon. Gentleman asked me to predict the outcome of the referendum. My track record is poor. I was an active member of the no campaign in 1975. When the four-week campaign began, there was a 2:1 majority in favour of a no vote; at the end, there was a 2:1 majority in favour of a yes vote. I am therefore making no predictions. During that process, people listened to the argument. I hope that if we again agree proposals with the Government of Spain over time and through discussion, we will be able to discuss them in more detail with the people of Gibraltar. In any event, I made it clear yesterday that it will be their decision; we will respect it and we will stand by them whatever it is.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the concept of "two flags, three voices" is fairly similar to the device used in discussions with Argentina and the Falkland Islands, which did not lead to betrayal of the interests of the islanders, any more than my right hon. Friend's present negotiations will lead to betrayal of the Gibraltarians? Will he reinforce his point that a Spain that has to come to the negotiating table knowing that the people of Gibraltar will have the final say on their future is also a Spain that has to negotiate in good faith? He was therefore right in his statement that the process of negotiation is the best way of getting rid of the artificial impediments to Gibraltar's progress imposed by Spain.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sage observation about negotiations concerning south America and the Falkland Islands. I repeat: we need a process to deal with these problems, and this is the best way of achieving that. I very much wish that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar was taking part in the negotiations. I believe that we have made it possible for him to do so; he takes a different view, which I respect. The invitation remains open.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Can I help the Foreign Secretary to retain at least a fig leaf of credibility in these shoddy dealings, and respond to questions that he has been asked repeatedly by Members on both sides of the House? Will he state categorically that in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting the stitch-up, which they surely will, the negotiations and anything relating to them will be taken off the agenda once and for all?
Mr. Straw: In the event of a no vote, the proposals will not be implemented. I cannot rewrite history in the

745
event of a no vote. If there is a no vote, the hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench are asking me to rush to the archives and tear up—
Mr. Ancram indicated assent.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says yes; we are to be like Arthur Andersen and shred the records. It is the Enron approach to foreign affairs: to negotiate, to agree proposals, and then when people do not like them—as obviously the Opposition do not—to rush back and destroy all the evidence that there had ever been agreement. I am sorry, I am not following that line; I believe in being straight with the people of Gibraltar, which is what we shall be.
Mr. Chris Bryant: Is not it true that the Little Englander mentality of people who refuse even to countenance the idea of any kind of talks can only harm the long-term interests of the people of Gibraltar? Is it not true also that the old Franco mentality of people in Spain who refuse to countenance any change in their position can only harm the future of Spain? Would it not make much more sense for the Government of Spain to renounce their long-term aspiration to sole Spanish sovereignty of Gibraltar and for the Government of Gibraltar to take part in the talks as soon as possible?
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. Spain has imposed restrictions on Gibraltar which we do not accept and do not believe are justified. There is a parody of Spain and the Spanish people among some hon. Members which bears no relationship to the truth. The Kingdom of Spain is a democracy and a member of the European Union. Fifteen times as many British people live happily in Spain as live in the British colony of Gibraltar, and they live there voluntarily. Many Gibraltarians, notwithstanding the restrictions, have a stake in Spain as well. Moreover, although I do not accept most of what is said, if one is going into negotiations, it is a good idea to understand where the other side is coming from. Whether we agree with them or not, some of the concerns of the other side have a foundation that we cannot ignore. The purpose of the negotiations is to try to find a way through. Again, I repeat that not once in the past 40 minutes of discussion has there been any proposal for resolving the problem for the people of Gibraltar, except through the Brussels process.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Why not—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could have the attention of the Foreign Secretary. Why not three voices and three flags?
Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer. Because of the treaty of Utrecht.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: In view of the deep hostility felt by the people of Gibraltar towards falling under Spanish sovereignty, shared or otherwise, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what unpleasant circumstances and trick question he is preparing for the referendum?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend asks me a disobliging question. She should not judge the Government by her own standards.
Tim Loughton: If the Foreign Secretary cobbles together some deal with Spain which involves the diminution of Gibraltarian sovereignty, and if that question is asked in a referendum and wholeheartedly rejected, as it will be, will he guarantee that the rights of the Gibraltarians as British subjects will be no less vigorously protected by his Government, and that he will no less vigorously pursue the iniquities of the Spanish treatment of Gibraltarians through the EU, which he should have been doing rather more vigorously for some years?
Mr. Straw: I said yesterday, as I have already repeated twice in the House, and I said in Barcelona that if the people of Gibraltar decide to reject the proposals, as they are fully entitled to do—I hope that they will not reject them if we agree them, but I accept the possibility that they may—we will stand by not only our legal but our moral and political obligations to the people of Gibraltar.
One reason why I am committed to this process for resolving the problems faced by Gibraltar and those that arise in respect of Gibraltar in the European Union is that, in my experience as Home Secretary, we ran into difficulties time after time with a number of instruments, when Spain raised problems, sometimes with justification, because of the application or otherwise of the instrument to Gibraltar. The proposals are a way of resolving those problems, as well as making a better future for the people of Gibraltar.
Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend mentioned what might happen if there were an agreement between the Government and the Spanish Government. Will he speculate on what may happen to the people of Gibraltar, their economy and their future if there is no agreement with Spain?
Mr. Straw: That, in the end, is a matter for the people of Gibraltar, but my hon. Friend raises an important question. One thing is certain: the, as it were, duty-free, low tax status of Gibraltar will end over the next four or five years. That has nothing directly to do with the Government of Spain or the UK, but results from decisions principally by the OECD and the EU against such tax-free status. That will change the environment in which Gibraltar operates, and there are some people—I accept that they are a minority at present in Gibraltar—who understand that and believe that Gibraltar has a far better future in a wholly open environment as a full member of the EU. That is likely to be my view, but in the end, it is a matter for the people of Gibraltar to make the choice, because it is their life, not ours.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it was strange and indeed discourteous to the House that at no time during last Thursday's debate in Westminster Hall did the Minister

747
for Europe ever mention the fact that further talks would be taking place yesterday? Does not that illustrate why the House is so suspicious of what the Government are doing?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He owes an expression of regret to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, because we made that announcement.
Mr. David Heath: Is it not the case, in respect of the events of the past few years, that trying to negotiate an agreed constitutional settlement that is acceptable to the people of Gibraltar is simply hopeless without the prerequisite of confidence-building measures on the part of the Spanish Government? Such measures need to be in place over a period. The suggestion that there are no diplomatic levers that the UK Government can use with Spain short of sending a gunboat into Cadiz is frankly ridiculous.
Mr. Straw: I do not think that that view is shared by Liberal Democrat Front Benchers or by many other people. Between 1987, when the airport agreement failed, and the resumption of negotiations under the Brussels process last year, this Government and previous Governments have sought—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Foreign Secretary answer the question.
Mr. Straw: In that period, various diplomatic negotiating devices were tried by Conservative and Labour Administrations. None of them worked, so the proof is there that the Brussels process provides us with the best possible means of solving this matter.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not supremely unedifying for our Foreign Secretary to presume to know better than the people and elected Government of Gibraltar what is in their best interests? If he wants to put the issue of sovereignty to rest, should not he quite simply refuse ever to discuss it with Spain? Will he bear it in mind that the last time we tried a joint sovereignty solution—in the Falkland Islands—it merely increased the appetite of those who had malign intentions towards British territory and citizens?
Mr. Straw: I dealt with that point at some length, so I refer the hon. Gentleman to earlier answers.
I should like to point out to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that, in Westminster Hall on 31 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe specifically announced that
"the next in the series of ministerial meetings in the Brussels process will be held in London on 4 February."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 31 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 138WH.]
The right hon. Gentleman owes my right hon. Friend an apology.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House the difference between our relationship with Gibraltar and that of Spain with Ceuta and Manila? Why are there not two separate sets of
748
negotiations in which Spain can change its relationship with Ceuta and Melilla while his Government are seeking to change our relationship with Gibraltar? Furthermore, he said that Gibraltar was in the dock in the European Court of Justice for not applying directives. Of course, it had no political representation concerning those directives. Neither Gibraltar nor its people were represented in any discussions whatever, as they have no directly elected Members of the European Parliament. Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm the words of the Minister for Europe and tell us that Gibraltarians will not only be guaranteed British citizenship, but have the right to elect their very own Members of the European Parliament?
Mr. Straw: We have already accepted that judgment and work is in hand. Gibraltar would have to be part of another constituency. Let me explain to the House that we have got this problem because of an unsatisfactory outcome to the negotiations in 1713 following a slightly inconclusive result in the war of Spanish succession. That is the truth: in 1713, insufficient attention was given to the prospects 300 years later for negotiations with Spain. That is why we are in a unique legal position in respect of the sovereignty of Gibraltar. Had the treaty of Utrecht resulted in the United Kingdom gaining Gibraltar without any first refusal for Spain, we would not be in our current difficulties. However, the legal base of our title to the Rock is different, and so the problems exist.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: The Foreign Secretary claims that there is no serious alternative to his proposal. Why has not he considered the obvious alternative of giving the people of Gibraltar the same rights as the people of the overseas territories of France and Spain, and allowing them the option of full integration into the United Kingdom?
Mr. Straw: That proposal has not been put before us, but if it happened, all Gibraltar's economic and tax advantages would go.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I declare my interest as an active member of the all-party group on Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary has said repeatedly that he wants constructive suggestions about the way forward. Would not he be wiser to recognise that his job as British Foreign Secretary is to represent the British people of Gibraltar in their complaints about Spain's bad behaviour? Since he refuses to do that, will he acknowledge that he has caused additional offence, as one of my Gibraltarian friends with family in my constituency said, by appointing as the Minister responsible someone who is less British than the people of Gibraltar?
Mr. Straw: That shows a certain poverty of argument. Of course I try to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar in the negotiations; I am the only person at the head of a delegation on our side. I should much prefer Peter Caruana, the elected representative of the people of Gibraltar, to sit alongside me so that there could be two flags and three voices. I look forward to the realisation of that hope.

Ofsted Annual Report
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, to lay the 2000–01 report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools before Parliament. Let me begin by thanking and paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson, whose last annual report we are considering. He has made a huge contribution to education as a teacher and inspector, and I know that he will continue to do that after he steps down from his current post in April. I also thank the inspectors and those who work for Ofsted for their professionalism and dedication
Ofsted has shown the value of an independent inspectorate, identifying the strengths and weaknesses in our education system and telling it as it is. I congratulate the schools that appear on this year's list of outstanding schools and all those who work with them. We also congratulate and thank the more than 200 schools that have been removed from special measures this year.
Today's report shows that the quality of education is getting better. Our education system was recently acknowledged as a star performer by the programme for international student assessment study. We can be sure at last that we have a good and improving education system. We know that further improvements are needed; big challenges are ahead that need to be addressed.
Quality of teaching and school leadership is key to raising standards. The report describes teaching in the past year as the best ever. The proportion of lessons found to be unsatisfactory is the lowest ever recorded and the proportion of teaching found to be good or better has never been higher.
Schools are reported as being increasingly well led and managed. That is a tremendous achievement and I thank and applaud teachers, heads and all those who work in our schools for their hard work.
The chief inspector's report acknowledges the enormous gains that have been made in recent years through reforms to primary education. Between 1997 and 2000, the proportion of children attaining level 4 by the end of key stage 2 increased by more than 10 per cent. for both literacy and numeracy. This year saw continuing improvements in science, but results for literacy and numeracy levelled off. Although that was disappointing, the chief inspector acknowledged that
"we cannot expect progress to be even, year on year,"
and that
"We should, however, remind ourselves of how far we have come."
As levels of achievement rise, it is inevitably more difficult to maintain the rates of improvement that we have seen to date. As we move towards our goals, the challenge will be greater, but we are determined to meet it.
At secondary level, too, management and leadership continue to improve, with the proportion of schools in which Ofsted judge these to be unsatisfactory now down to just one in 20. Achievement has also risen, with the Government's target of 50 per cent. of our children attaining five A to C grades at GCSE achieved one year ahead of schedule.
The chief inspector reports that in most special schools, pupils are achieving well, and that that improvement has been particularly marked in schools for children with
750
emotional and behavioural difficulties. In the mainstream, too, the achievements of pupils with special educational needs are showing welcome improvement. As a result of the further improvements in teaching and leadership, the number of schools in special measures has fallen again, and those that do fall into special measures are recovering more quickly. This year, 137 schools were placed in special measures, compared to 230 the previous year, and 194 schools have improved sufficiently to remove them from special measures altogether.
The report contains some encouraging findings, but we should not be complacent about the scale of the challenge still ahead of us. We have much more to do, as is also set out in the report. The chief inspector comments on
"the variation in performance between schools."
He says that
"the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large."
Ofsted goes on to report that, while the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing at primary level, it has widened at secondary level. Closing this achievement gap is one of the main aims of the Government's policies and we are determined to make even further progress. As the report notes, our literacy and numeracy strategies have closed the gap in primary schools, and we will further address the secondary school gap as part of our secondary schools reform.
While standards of achievement are rising for the majority of our pupils, Ofsted believes that some children continue to be failed by the system. It has been a national disgrace that children in care leave school with so few academic qualifications. Our children in care programme shows that there are early signs of improvement, but being able to say that the latest figures show that only 37 per cent. of young people leaving care in 2000–01 obtained one or more GCSEs or GNVQs—up from 30 per cent. the previous year—reveals just how far we have to go with that group of people.
The performance of certain ethnic groups is still one of significant under-achievement, but although there is still some way to go, improvements have been made. The youth cohort study published in January 2001 reveals a significant improvement in the achievement of many ethnic groups at GCSE level. Although there is as yet no similar national data source for the primary sector, the latest key stage 2 test results show that inner-city local education authorities with high ethnic minority populations are among the most improved in the country. This year we are introducing new national data collection arrangements, which will help the performance of ethnic minority pupils to be monitored locally and nationally. That will help us to ensure that resources are better targeted at need.
I am pleased that HMCI draws attention to the value of the excellence in cities programme for pupils in our urban areas. It is already making an impact because standards in schools benefiting from the programme are rising faster than elsewhere. The latest key stage 3 English tests showed an improvement in inner-city schools four times the improvement elsewhere. I am progressively extending the programme to more schools in clusters of deprivation beyond the inner cities. Twelve new excellence clusters are now operating, and I intend 12 more to start in September. They will be in Barnet, Bishop Auckland,

751
Crewe, Derby, High Wycombe, Hillingdon, Lancaster, Milton Keynes, Norwich, Peterborough, Stockport and Wigan.
The fundamental challenge, of course, is to improve the quality of education for all our children. That is what we have set out to do through our White Paper, which is an agenda that aims for nothing short of the transformation of secondary education. That programme is given added weight by the report we have received today.
At the core of secondary transformation is the key stage 3 strategy. Too much time and previous gain is lost in the transition from primary to secondary school and we know that dissatisfaction with schooling can take hold at that stage. We need to turn that around and use those early years of secondary education to build on achievements at primary level and to provide a solid platform for attainment in the 14-to-19 phase.
We are investing £489 million in our key stage 3 strategy between now and 2003–04 and early feedback from Ofsted and schools is very encouraging. From September this school year, the strategy began to impact on 1.8 million of our children, building on the best of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to achieve a similar step change in performance at secondary level.
Schools will also have to be structured more to meet the needs of the individual pupil. We have made progress with individual pupil targeting, learning mentors for individual students and encouraging secondary schools to have a distinctive mission and ethos and to accept their responsibility to other schools and the wider education community. That is where beacon and specialist schools have an important role to play. We want all schools to develop a sense of mission and, in doing so, to develop centres of excellence and networks that lead to innovation and higher standards for all children.
Yesterday, I announced the biggest ever expansion of the specialist schools programme. By September 2002, we shall have 1,000, each teaching a full and balanced curriculum, using their additional specialism as a catalyst for whole-school improvement and increasingly sharing that expertise with other schools.
The best ideas on school improvement are so often developed in the schools themselves. We want our best schools to be the innovators of educational reform. That is why we are giving them greater autonomy and supporting innovation so that it has an impact on the whole system, but none of that can happen without teachers.
The report acknowledges, as we do, that teacher recruitment and retention continue to pose a challenge, but the chief inspector acknowledges that the measures that we have introduced are beginning to bear fruit. Apart from rapidly increasing numbers of people starting training and joining the profession, the alternative routes are expanding fast too.
Retention is mentioned by the chief inspector as a particular concern. A great deal has been asked of teachers and we need to make sure that they are supported to do their jobs. I know that work load is a key issue. I see giving teachers the time that they need to teach as critical to raising standards of achievement. At the end of April, the School Teachers Pay Review Body will make recommendations on work load.
Behaviour in schools is reported by Ofsted to be generally good, but the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is reported as a significant factor in teachers'
752
decisions to leave the profession. To help teachers to tackle disruption effectively, we have expanded our programme of on-site learning support units and learning mentors. About 3,000 learning mentors have been recruited and 323 pupil referral units are providing more places with better quality teaching. Our Connexions service will also offer advice to young people throughout the country when it is rolled out nationally later this year.
As The Times Educational Supplement survey reported last Friday, teaching is a profession on the up. It found that the typical teacher enjoys an improved standard of living and enjoys the job and that seven out of 10 teachers are satisfied with their jobs.
The Ofsted report is an important document. Its value is in its independence. It demonstrates the real gains that have been made and continue to be made in our schools. It also signposts for us continuing challenges, which we intend to address in raising standards further still.
The report states that one reason that teachers leave the profession is lack of esteem. They have no reason to think that their profession is anything other than one of the most important in this land. I hope that Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to teachers for what they have achieved for our children. We have it on Ofsted's authority that the quality of their work has never been better.
Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of her statement in advance, and join her in praising Mike Tomlinson and his inspectors at Ofsted.
The right hon. Lady was assiduous in picking out the positive aspects of the report, and of course no one can blame her for that. I too pay tribute to teachers and all others working in schools for the hard work they are putting in and the successes that they are seeing, but in her honest moments the right hon. Lady will admit that serious problems have been identified by the chief inspector, and that, alarmingly—she did not mention this—some are becoming worse year by year. The report reveals that the right hon. Lady's strategy of centralising and interfering as much as possible can yield some short-term successes, but it sows the seeds of its own destruction by demoralising the work force—the teachers whom she and I both admire.
Let me start with the primary sector. As the House knows, it is the part of the school system that the Prime Minister thinks has been "sorted". I hope he reads the report, and notes that of Ofsted's six main findings on primary schools one is positive, three are neutral and two are negative. This, remember, is the Government's best area of attainment—but there are many questions that the Secretary of State did not address.
Can the right hon. Lady tell us why she thinks reading standards have fallen among 11-year-olds, why performance in maths has become worse at the same stage, and why spelling is becoming worse in tests for 11-year-olds? By any standards, those are basic skills for our 11-year-old children. Can she also explain why Ofsted says that underperformance by boys—by comparison with girls—in English is becoming worse by the year?
Will the right hon. Lady address questions relating to the curriculum? Ofsted says that all the primary head teachers it surveyed are finding it difficult to sustain as broad and balanced a curriculum as they would like.

753
Indeed, using a bland phrase that it must have hoped no one would notice, it says that one school in five can provide a curriculum that is broad and exciting, and challenges pupils across the full range of national expectations.
Let me translate. According to Ofsted, four out of five primary schools are not providing a broad, exciting and challenging curriculum. Is the right hon. Lady as alarmed by that finding as I am, and does she accept responsibility? Does she accept that the very strategies about which she boasted in her statement contribute to the narrowing of the curriculum?
In the secondary sector, problems are getting worse under the right hon. Lady's stewardship. Can she tell us why the gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is becoming wider? Can she say what steps she is taking to reverse the erosion of foreign language teaching identified by Ofsted, which she did not mention? Why—most alarming—is truancy so rampant? Ofsted says that more than a quarter of our secondary schools have unsatisfactory attendance levels, and the figure rises to 37 per cent. among those that have been inspected fully. That is a terrible figure, which should really frighten the Secretary of State.
Will the right hon. Lady address herself urgently to the underlying cause of these growing difficulties—the crisis of teacher retention, which has been brought about by some of the policies of which she is so proud? Ofsted says that the quality of teaching is in jeopardy in some schools, and that this is no longer an inner-city issue. Equally important are the findings that more teachers are being asked to teach outside their specialisms, and that the proportion of poor teaching is, in Ofsted's words, "considerably higher" among temporary or supply teachers—which is what we would expect.
The right hon. Lady is asking teachers to do jobs for which they are not trained. Every interfering directive from her Department adds to teachers' work load, and persuades a few more to bale out for a quieter life. The Department is not the solution to the crisis in teacher numbers; it is the main cause of the problem.
As Conservatives, we know that every day teachers, pupils, parents and governors put in an immense amount of hard work so that our schools can flourish. We worry that the interfering, centralising, bureaucratic way in which the Government behave towards schools and local government makes that task harder. The report shows that any improvements based on centralised command and control are fragile at best. Will the right hon. Lady heed its message and for once start trusting heads, teachers and everyone else in education to get on with their job?
Estelle Morris: I thought that that was a bit grudging. The hon. Gentleman started with a sentence or two of praise but his analysis quickly declined.
I think that there is general agreement about the progress made. The chief inspector talks about the finest ever teaching, fewer lessons being taught unsatisfactorily, fewer schools going into special measures, and those that are in special measures being removed from them more quickly. That does not happen with a teaching work force who are demoralised and are not doing their job well. It has happened because there is a true partnership
754
between central Government and local authorities to support teachers, governors, classroom assistants and others to raise standards in schools.
Let us talk about central prescription. If the Government had not introduced the literacy and numeracy strategies, improvement would not have taken place in the schools that needed it most. The good schools—those that were already improving and those achieving at the highest level—would have taken what the literacy and numeracy strategies had to offer, but those that were probably not teaching effectively would not have done so.
Teachers have got to the stage where they take from the literacy and numeracy strategies, bring their professional judgment to bear and mould those strategies to the needs of individual pupils. If we had not insisted that teachers address the problem and if we had not supported them through money for professional development, that would not have happened over the past five years. Tory Members, particularly Tory spokesmen and spokeswomen, are the only people in this country who do not acknowledge that the literacy and numeracy strategies have been the success story of this Department.
Other things would not have happened without the Government, who are accused of central prescription. Mike Tomlinson said in his report that where support and effort are targeted through the excellence in the cities and education action zone initiatives, progress is made at a faster rate than elsewhere. That is a success.
We were always straight about the rate of progress. We always said that in the first four years we would prioritise primary and early years education. We did so. We delivered and it worked. At the second election, we always said that we would prioritise secondary education. That is exactly what we will do because we are addressing the difficulties at secondary school. We will build on our work in the first term. The results show that with targeted effort, financial support and partnership between the Government and others, standards can be raised.
I share the concerns of the hon. Gentleman that no progress has been made on truancy and attendance. A number of people, including the Government, must do all that they can to ensure that we improve that record. First, there is a responsibility on parents. Mike Tomlinson notes that 80 per cent. of children who miss school do so with the permission of the parents. As I say repeatedly to parents, letting their child miss school when there is no need damages their child's life chances. We must get that message across.
Schools need to do their best and they must be more assiduous in following up early absence as quickly as possible. We need to give support by spreading good practice and through measures such as electronic registration, but the hon. Gentleman is right; the report says that little progress has been made on truancy. It remains a concern. If children are not at school, they cannot learn. If they do not learn in our society, their life chances when they leave education are not as good as they should be.
On teacher recruitment and retention, Mike Tomlinson says in the report:
"Although nationally there are very few teaching posts with no one to fill them and most pupils have a suitably qualified teacher to teach them, there are real problems in recruiting teachers and in retaining them."
I know that. It is precisely why the Government have introduced golden hellos and training salaries. In the Education Bill currently before Parliament, we are

755
introducing measures to pay off loans. It is not the case that there are now fewer teachers than there were last year. In fact, there are 7,000 more teachers than there were last year and 12,000 more teachers than there were in 1997. More people are going into teacher training than at any time during the past decade. In the past year alone, 7,000 more teaching posts have been created because heads have more money in their hands. The dilemma is that additional money has led to more vacancies and I have never pretended anything other than that.
I conclude by quoting the chief inspector again:
"Action is being taken by the Government to deal with these concerns, but there are no quick fixes."
Mr. Damian Green: What about language teaching?
Estelle Morris: The United Kingdom has a long history of failure to teach modern languages. It is a cyclical problem and it is not improving. As we teach languages more ineffectively, fewer students study them at A-level, fewer take a university degree in them and fewer train to teach languages. In due course, the Government will announce how we intend to tackle the problem.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Education and Skills will shortly examine the report in some detail with the chief inspector, so I shall not ask a substantial question, but I welcome her decision to make a statement to the House today. Does she agree that the atmosphere in the school teaching profession generally has much improved with the appointment of Mike Tomlinson as chief inspector? As Chairman of the Select Committee I see great evidence of that as I travel round the country visiting schools. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new partnership is a healthy one? The chief inspector is answerable to the House through the Select Committee and we have a healthy, but not a cosy relationship with him. We have detected a clear change for the better under Mike Tomlinson's reign as chief inspector and we look forward to interviewing David Bell when he takes over.
Estelle Morris: I am also a fan of Mike Tomlinson, who has done an excellent job since taking it on at relatively short notice. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee shares my view. There is a real difference in tone, because teachers are more confident. They know that they are teaching more effectively; their performance is better and children are getting better results. It is important that Ofsted remains independent. I am glad that my hon. Friend is not too cosy with Mike Tomlinson and I trust that he will not be too cosy with David Bell either.
Mr. Phil Willis: I also thank the Secretary of State for giving us an advance copy of her statement and I share the interest of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) in the fact that this is the first time we have had a statement in the House on an HMI report—indeed on the very day when we are short of time to discuss the Education Bill. I draw no conclusions from that.
I add my thanks to Mike Tomlinson. It is not just that teachers are more confident; Mike Tomlinson has created a new ethos within Ofsted—a genuine sense that the
756
purpose of inspection is to improve schools and that Ofsted is working with teachers rather than against them. We certainly wish Mike Tomlinson well when he goes to Hackney—it is certainly an improvement on The Daily Telegraph.
I also join the Secretary of State in congratulating our schools, our teachers and our local education authorities. This report is the biggest compliment to our teaching force that we have seen for many years. I suggest that the Secretary of State put on all her literature a little statement saying that teaching in 2000–01 was the best ever. That would be a powerful statement to put on a press release and send out to all teachers.
I also welcome the compliment that the inspector's report paid to special schools, which rarely get mentioned. I hope the House will accept that the statement that they are working with children with emotional and behavioural difficulties far better than ever before is a real compliment.
We are also delighted that far more schools are being turned round much more quickly from needing special measures or showing serious signs of weakness. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will have the grace to praise local education authorities, because the vast majority of those schools have been turned round not by private sector companies but by such authorities.
However, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) is absolutely right to say that a lot of messages in the report are not being specifically addressed. How the Secretary of State proposes to narrow the gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is a mystery. We were told that education action zones will do the job, but she has abandoned them and one of the great planks of her policy is therefore missing. How does she propose to address the huge problem of the underperformance of children from Afro-Caribbean, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities? In particular, what plans has she to recruit teachers from those communities? Until we do that, we will not make the necessary impact on that underperformance.
How does the Secretary of State intend to correct the finding of this year's report—and, indeed, of last year's—that too many children are being taught by non-specialists at key stage 3? The curriculum and staffing survey should have been carried out in 2000. but it was not. When does she intend to carry out that essential research, so that we can make proper plans for the future supply of teachers?
Can the Secretary of State also explain how we will provide an adequate supply of teachers—a point that the report describes as critical? In September, delayed retirements that were initiated under the previous Conservative Government will come to fruition, and more teachers will retire this year than ever before. Given that recruitment targets have been missed every year since 1997, how will we deal with that problem, particularly in key subjects such as mathematics, science and modern languages?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to quote The Times Educational Supplement survey; in fact, she should quote the evidence in the report, which shows that one in five teachers are leaving within three years. What is she going to do to address that horrendous problem?
Estelle Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not deny me the opportunity to quote The Times Educational Supplement—it provided the first decent headline on this

757
subject in about five years. Give me a break—it was a joy to read on Friday morning. I sometimes think that our Department's headed notepaper has too many words at the bottom, but I take the general point that there is an onus on all of us to praise, and I certainly accept my responsibility to ensure that I am as generous when I give praise as when I criticise failure or demand even more from teachers. We must get the balance right. Teachers often hear words of criticism but not praise. We do not want to soft-soap them or to make their life easy—indeed, they do not want that. They want us to recognise good performance, and to challenge them when necessary.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised many issues, and I too am delighted at the performance of schools that deal with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Theirs is the toughest job in teaching and it is more difficult now than ever, because of the nature of the society in which such children are growing up.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) mentioned closing the achievement gap, and I want to return to that issue because I may not have dealt with it fully. He will acknowledge that, as Mike Tomlinson says, we have closed the achievement gap in primary schools. We did so through a universal programme for the literacy and numeracy strategies, but we also provided extra targeted help for those who were under-achieving. Where there was an entitlement to resources and training, every single primary school in the country was offered extra training and support, as well as help for those who needed it most. If my memory serves me right, we began with the 15 per cent. with the lowest level of achievement each year, and moved on to the next 15 per cent. We raised the standards year on year, and that is exactly what we will do with key stage 3.
We will have a universal strategy for key stage 3, and every single school in the country will feel its impact. Every school will get money and every teacher will get training, but those who need it most will get more help from the consultants—in fact, those schools will get more of whatever is going. What we do not want to do—and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the danger—is to hold the top schools back while the bottom ones catch up. I know that he would not wish that to happen either. The report shows that standards in the least well performing secondary schools have risen, but so have those of the top schools.
Our approach is always to give help to everyone, and to give extra, targeted help to those who need it most. I am confident about that approach, because it worked in primary schools. We have learned from that experience. We are good learners, and I hope that our secondary school strategy will have the same impact.
I also take seriously the difficulty caused by the lack of specialist teachers in early key stage 3. We have already discussed the situation regarding modern foreign languages, and we know how difficult it is to get enough maths teachers. However, I have always been straight enough to say that I cannot promise that we will recruit for teaching 40 per cent. of the maths graduates leaving university this year. That is the proportion that we need to reach our target.
758
We have to do more, and the key stage 3 strategy allows us to train teachers to teach maths who have not achieved the necessary qualifications. People who do not have degrees need extra teaching; they do not deserve to be driven from the classroom. We have to tackle the problem on all fronts.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough knows that we have made progress in recruiting teachers to teach maths, and I shall not go through the list. However, I accept that more needs to be done with regard to training those who are already in schools but teaching out of their subject. That is an integral part of the key stage 3 strategy.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the problem of recruiting ethnic minority teachers. Again, we must break a cycle—people who do not do well at school do not go to university because of their bad experience of school, and they choose not to go back to school. Some years ago, the Teacher Training Agency agreed to have targets for the recruitment of ethnic minority teachers. Progress is slow, as it involves breaking a cultural tradition.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will know that most progress on the matter is being made in areas such as Tower Hamlets. In inner-city Birmingham, sometimes more than half of the people working in a school are from ethnic minorities. That is good, but we must keep to the targets. Advice from any quarter—inside the House, and outside it—on how we can do more in regard to recruitment of ethnic minority staff will be welcomed. I know that the notion of a role model is very important for many youngsters going through secondary school.
Ms Bridget Prentice: I am deeply disappointed that only three of the four outstanding schools in Lewisham—Brindishe, St. Winifred's and New Woodlands—are in my constituency. However, another school in my constituency—Launcelot—is coming out of special measures. The progress being made in my area is therefore remarkable.
Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how outstanding schools can help others in the same borough to achieve more? Will she also say something more about the problem of truancy? She will know about Lewisham council's initiative on truancy, and the consultation that is in hand at present. What does she believe should be done to ensure that children who become disaffected with school return to education and become achievers?
Estelle Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having three outstanding schools in her constituency. There must have been an awful lot of Ofsted inspections in her area this year, but I hope that she will send the schools my congratulations. I especially congratulate the school that has come out of special measures. It is tough for a school to go into special measures, and it is tough while those measures apply, but it should be an immensely joyous moment for staff when a school comes out of special measures. Today is a day of celebration for those teachers, as well as for the staff in the couple of hundred schools in the same position. I also pay tribute to the work that Lewisham has done.
Schools that are not performing well should learn from the ones that are. The answers can be gleaned from good teachers, not from Government. Our job is to make the

759
links, and many of the initiatives and structural changes proposed in the Education Bill to be discussed later are about freeing up and encouraging good schools to twin with underperforming schools. In that way, staff can learn from one another.
It is important to remember that learning is not a one-way process. I have never known a good school help an underperforming one and not learn something of value. I hope that that will remain the case in Lewisham and elsewhere.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State said that, in their first Parliament, the Government concentrated on primary schools. Will she therefore offer a little more explanation of what appears on page 22 of the chief inspector's report? In one of his main findings, the chief inspector states:
"Many aspects of primary education have again shown some improvement this year, but in some key areas there has been little or no measurable progress."
What is the right hon. Lady going to do to improve that over the next 12 months?
Estelle Morris: Transforming 17,000 primary schools, with 17,000 head teachers and governing bodies and hundreds of thousands of teachers, will take some time. The mess we inherited after 20 years of Tory misrule was such that—I apologise to the House—it will take us slightly more than four years to put everything right. However, I am immensely proud of what the Government have done and immensely proud of the progress that has been made in primary schools. Yes, we shall take on the progress that still needs to be made. Yes, we shall look at closing the gap further. Yes, we shall look at those schools that are still in special measures. Yes, we shall look at the underperformance of ethnic minority pupils. What is absolutely clear, however—and not just because I say it, but because Ofsted and Her Majesty's chief inspector say it—is that there is more progress than falling back. As Mike Tomlinson says, the report is a good one and primary schools are indeed a success story.
Mr. David Clelland: The Secretary of State and the Government deserve our congratulations, as well as our thanks for the continued success of the Government's education policies, for their recognition that more needs to be done and for their commitment to do it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Dunston Hill community primary school in my constituency has been singled out in the report as being particularly successful? Will she join me in congratulating the teachers and, in particular, the pupils on their hard work in achieving that? Does she agree that the school thoroughly deserves to be awarded beacon status?
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the hard work being done in Hadrian special school in Newcastle, which is a model of how to help and assist young people with special educational needs?
Estelle Morris: I am happy to do that. If I heard my hon. Friend rightly, that sounded like a bid for beacon status. I am sure that the school stands a good chance and that it will be considered in due course. I also hope that those schools gain recognition locally. The media in my hon. Friend's area give education good and positive
760
support. During the next few weeks, I hope that the performance of schools that have been nominated as outstanding will truly be recognised and rewarded.
It is important to remember that some of the schools in that list serve the most challenging areas of the country. They have the most difficult job—breaking the historical link between poverty and underachievement. That is what lies behind the words in the report. My hon. Friend's constituency includes many such areas and I am delighted to join him in his tribute.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I agree with the Secretary of State that there is much to celebrate as regards the success of our schools outlined in the Ofsted report. However, as a fair person, the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that the improvements in our schools did not take place over five years—they go further back than her period in office.
I pay particular tribute to a school in my constituency that was mentioned in dispatches—St. John's middle school. The Secretary of State will be aware that there are many outstanding schools in my patch and we offer our congratulations to St. John's on its mention this year.
May I ask the right hon. Lady about her plans for the teaching of foreign languages? After many years of relative failure, that is a great disappointment to all of us. Does the right hon. Lady have any plans to exploit our links with the European Union—for example, by creating teacher scholarships or initiating teacher exchanges—to tap into the resources available to our partners in Europe to provide competent modern language training?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Lady's comments on foreign languages are positive. My reply is similar to the one I gave the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about maths teachers. If we carry on in the same way, there will be no change and things will continue to get worse. I hope that the hon. Lady can be patient because in the not too distant future we shall make an announcement about the teaching of modern languages. As she suggests, we should use modern foreign language expertise wherever it may be—using our connections not only with schools in Europe, but with language departments in universities and elsewhere. We should exploit that. Imaginative and creative thinking will break the logjam. I very much hope that when we make further announcements, the hon. Lady will find much to applaud, but I accept that we have much to do in order to catch up. I feel a great sense of shame when I meet my European counterparts and they talk about the quality of English teaching in their country, given our lack of ability to teach foreign languages at all in primary schools—let alone teach them effectively in secondary schools.
Ms Joan Walley: When my right hon. Friend makes her announcement on foreign languages, will she examine the way in which Endon high school is trying to improve its teaching of modern languages?
I welcome and appreciate the hard work that has gone into the report. In Stoke-on-Trent and in Staffordshire, we are starting to see real improvements on the ground. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use the report to persuade her Cabinet colleagues that we need urgently to review the standard spending assessments and the area cost adjustments.

761
The report highlights the outstanding achievement of St. Margaret Ward Roman Catholic high school. The inspector says:
"It achieves very high standards in art and music because teachers have very high expectations to which pupils respond very well."
Robbie Williams, who is an ex-pupil of that school, has donated £50,000 towards specialist college status and is absolutely desperate—as am I, as well as the six primary schools that are feeder schools to that school in Stoke-on-Trent—to get specialist college status for the performing arts. When my right hon. Friend considers the next round in March, will she look very closely at what the inspector has said? I hope that it will not be too long before I am welcoming the fact that we have achieved that specialist college status in Stoke-on-Trent.
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend is a fearsome advocate for the schools in her constituency. The area started from a low base and has been traditionally neglected in allocating additional resources. It certainly suffers from not having the best standing in the standard spending assessment allocation table. I grant all that, but my hon. Friend will not like what I am going to say. I certainly look forward to a further application for specialist school status from the school in her constituency that she mentions, but that teaches us that being an outstanding school is not sufficient in itself to achieve specialist school status. Achieving that status is about schools working with other schools, spreading their expertise elsewhere and taking on even more demanding targets and using the extra resources to meet them, but it is clear that that school has very good foundations on which to work. I know how disappointed the school was not to be successful this time, but I hope that the report gives it the confidence to try again.
Mr. David Heath: I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that, in the list of schools accorded specialist schools status yesterday, she included King Arthur's school, Wincanton, and Frome community college, which are in my constituency. I congratulate the governing bodies of those schools on all their hard work. That status brings an enormous benefit to the local community and the schools with which it interacts. However, all schools should have access to the extra resources that allow them to develop their capabilities. The right hon. Lady may recognise the fact that governing bodies go through agonies in trying to make the areas of excellence in their schools conform to the established framework, underpinning the whole curriculum and not just a single subject. Does she accept that there may be an argument for more flexibility in the categories of specialist schools to enable those schools to have the freedom to follow their noses towards the excellence that they can provide in the local community?
Estelle Morris: I am pleased that two schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were designated as specialist schools. He is probably pleased that his hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who speaks from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, did not have the chance to abolish the status before his schools achieved it. The Liberal Democrats have more
762
than spent the penny on income tax; they do not have enough money left to grant all the money to all the schools that might want specialist school status.
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the sorts of specialism. We have expanded the categories this session, as he knows. Our minds are never totally closed to what will happen in the future, but it is probably important that we develop the criteria in a way that is manageable for us, by working with our partners, as we see the demand arise. For example, in developing engineering schools, we have worked with the Engineering Employers Federation and the universities, which find very difficult to recruit people for engineering degrees.
I would not want to say, "You have a specialism in whatever you like and let us know." I know that that was not what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but there would be a real danger that such an approach would undermine the rigour of the system. I assure him that we will expand the programme as quickly as we can, as standards rise. We will not say that we will never again consider the need for further specialism to be added to our current list.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I associate myself with the remarks about Mike Tomlinson. He has brought a different tone to the Ofsted inspection, which has benefited the process. My right hon. Friend may care to note that The Daily Telegraph has dispensed with the employment of a certain columnist. I do not know whether any assessment has been made of the individual's competence.
Mr. Willis: They probably deserve each another.
Mr. Shaw: Indeed. When my right hon. Friend introduces the Green Paper on the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, will she take account of the fact that many boys in secondary schools find that a purely academic curriculum does not suit their needs? That may be one of the factors that explains the lack of improvement on truancy. If a curriculum is completely alien to young people and they do not feel that it meets their aspirations, they are not likely to embrace it with much enthusiasm, and the result will be more truancy.
On special measures, is my right hon. Friend concerned that schools that are designated as having serious weaknesses may slip into special measures? Perhaps local authorities might focus their good work on schools in the serious weaknesses category, so that they do not get worse before they get better.
Estelle Morris: On disaffection, truancy and disengagement from the curriculum, I know that my hon. Friend did not suggest this, but the mere fact of young people being fed up at school does not mean that they should play truant. There should be no misunderstanding about that—there is never an excuse for not sticking with school. However, it may sometimes be an explanation.
For too long, this country has not valued vocational work. The routes and pathways through to higher education and continued learning for youngsters who are interested in vocational work have not been as clear as they should be. I have always paid tribute to the last Conservative Government, who tried to put that right with

763
general national vocational qualifications and national vocational qualifications. Although their introduction did not work as it should have done, I have always said that they were an honest attempt.
We will shortly introduce our plans for 14 to l9-year-olds, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be pleased with that and will feel that it goes some way to meeting young people's needs.
Mr. John Randall: The Secretary of State will know my concerns about recruitment and retention in the London borough of Hillingdon. I therefore give a cautious welcome to Hillingdon's inclusion in the excellence clusters. Will she congratulate the London borough of Hillingdon on the priority that it places on education? In particular, will she congratulate two schools in my constituency—Abbotsfield school and West Drayton primary school—that have come out of special measures? May I also take this opportunity, on behalf of those schools, to invite her to visit them, so that she can see the excellent work that they have done?
Estelle Morris: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those schools. I know that, as a local Member, he takes a strong interest in what goes on in the schools in his constituency, and I have received delegations from him. He has always been present on those occasions on which I have attended Hillingdon schools in the past. He is an enthusiast for education, which is greatly to be welcomed.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that his constituency is in an excellence cluster. It will make a difference. Like beacon status and specialist school status, the excellence cluster is a part of Government policy that people criticise but which, if one is on offer, they want for themselves. I do not have a problem with that. I have no doubt that I shall return to Hillingdon in the future, and I shall certainly bear his kind invitation in mind. Meanwhile, if he could pass on my best wishes and congratulations to the two schools, I should be grateful.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome this year's Ofsted report. I also point out to my right hon. Friend that the results in primary schools are reflected clearly in the primary schools in Barnsley. If anybody has any doubts about that, they should visit the primary schools in my constituency.
I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to achievement in secondary schools in coalfield areas generally. It is clear that schools in those areas lag behind. Will she consider what additional measures may be taken in education action zones, which have been very good in coalfield areas, to ensure that we can lift the attainment rate to the national average as quickly as possible?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has made a very fair point. If we look at performance in the coalfield communities, we see that the nature of their difficulties is very different from those in the inner cities. The coalfield community of Barnsley has underperformed, as has my city of Birmingham, but the causes of that underperformance are totally different. As ever, we need to examine why that underperformance is taking place, and then provide targeted help. A one-size-fits-all approach to raising achievement is not appropriate. I have
764
visited the coalfield communities where it is traditional, as it is in some other areas, to work in one sector. As a result, there has not always been a connection between doing well in education and getting work. My hon. Friend might not share that view, but historically there has been a link between living in an area and getting a job. We need to change that culture and raise people's expectations.
We should learn from each other. I know that the coalfield communities form a strong network. My hon. Friend knows that we are working with local authorities in such areas, especially Yorkshire. By providing extra support in the key stage 3 strategy and by ensuring that communities benefit from the best of the education action zones and the excellence cluster, and that they benefit from the "Aim Higher" campaign, which is designed to encourage young people to aspire to higher education, we are sure that over the years we will make progress. I am delighted to have my hon. Friend as a partner in that.
Mr. Mark Hoban: I congratulate Uplands primary school, which is one of several outstanding schools in my constituency. Another outstanding school is Cams Hill secondary school. Before Christmas, its head teacher had to deal with his recruitment and retention crisis by recruiting teachers in Sainsbury's. In that context, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the key issue outlined on page 90 of the Ofsted report, which says:
"Teacher shortages are leading to the increased use of temporary supply teachers and the use of permanent teachers to teach subjects in which they are not adequately qualified; this commonly leads to weaker teaching, lower expectations and less effective learning."
What impact will that have on standards? Does not the Secretary of State think that that will put them at risk, especially in light of the recruitment and retention crisis in teaching, particularly in London and the south-east?
Estelle Morris: I shall not go over the figures again, but they show not only that there are more teachers but that more are in training and more have applied to train. It is common sense that continuity of teaching helps children to learn most effectively. Even short-term contracts are not as effective as a teacher being in a school for a longer period. Of course I accept that.
We also have to accept, however, that every school will need supply teachers at some stage, either to cover for teacher absence, because someone has to teach the class, or to cover for teachers who are engaged in professional development. One of our dilemmas is that the increase in demand for supply teachers is partly due to the fact that we are providing more opportunities for professional development. We have reflected on that and know that we need to do something about it. That is why we have taken action. Unlike other Governments, we are ensuring that training opportunities are also available for supply teachers so that they can be trained in literacy and numeracy. It is not fair to them or the children to put them in schools without the training that they need.
Many people, especially women, would sooner work as a supply teacher than have a permanent contract because it gives them flexibility. My opinion is not significantly different from the hon. Gentleman's on that. I do not want to demean or downgrade the work that supply teachers choose to do, but I would never claim that a supply

765
teacher is preferable to a permanent teacher if that is the head's first choice, because a permanent teacher offers the child continuous teaching. That is why we have put so much effort and resource into improving recruitment and retention even further.
Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the report's comments on the variation in progress between schools and the need to raise standards at key stage 3. Will she look at improving the links between primary schools that have achieved beacon status for English and maths and the early years of secondary school, because there is much that they can teach other schools about the best way to make progress in those subjects?
Will my right hon. Friend also consider suggesting to Ofsted that it examine the way in which schools use new technology to improve their teaching, because some schools are far better at utilising that than others? While she is considering the need to provide extra training for those who are teaching maths but are not qualified to do so, will she not forget the large number of teachers who have for many years been teaching English in secondary schools when their first qualification is in another subject? Will she ensure that they receive extra training as well?
Estelle Morris: The answer to all those questions is yes. My hon. Friend made an important point about primary school literacy and numeracy teachers teaching in secondary schools. I must tell secondary teachers that they have been rather slow in waking up to progress in primary schools. The more they go to primary schools to see what is happening, and the more primary schools work with them, the greater is the progress. The only change for a child between years 6 and 7 is the six-week summer holiday. However, we have changed the whole system—the school, the timetable, the routine, the hours, the teachers, the expectations, the lot—and we have not managed that transition as well as we should have done.
My hon. Friend made an excellent suggestion. We have made available £10,500 for all secondary schools from this April, and they can spend some of that on exactly that sort of teacher exchange. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend's other suggestions, including making sure that teachers without an English qualification who are teaching English get extra support; all of those issues are being addressed by the Government.
Chris Grayling: May I start by endorsing the comments of hon. Members about our teaching profession, whose members deserve great credit for many aspects of their work that are highlighted in the report? The Secretary of State makes disparaging comments about the previous Government. Given that she came to the House a few months ago to praise our educational system after the publication of the report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which highlighted the excellent performance of our 15-year-olds, she would do well to remember that those 15-year-olds spent nine of their 11 years of education under the Conservative Government.
When heads in my constituency tell me that they are losing young teachers because they "want to get a life", should I believe them? When they tell me that they are
766
deluged by bureaucracy and that their jobs, as well as those of their teaching staff and their governing body, are becoming more difficult all the time because of Government initiatives, should I believe them? When they tell me that they are increasingly frustrated that they are not getting support from the Government on discipline in the classroom, should I believe them? And when the chief inspector of schools starts to highlight the future impact of those issues on future examination performance, should we believe him?
Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. I have acknowledged again today that we ask more of our teachers now than we have ever done before. Teaching is such an important job; the truth is that we would not have achieved the highest standards in primary education without asking more of teachers. The Government have launched a lot of initiatives. Should I believe the teachers who tell me that our initiatives have raised standards? The initiatives are not bad, but teachers find it difficult to manage them along with everything else that they are asked to do.
It is not just a case of too much paper and too many initiatives; the problem is more complicated than that. I do not want teachers to stop pupil-level target setting, or stop monitoring achievement and sending information to parents. I do not want them to stop looking at best evidence or what other schools do well. However, each of those demanding tasks asks more of teachers. The challenge is more sophisticated than we may think; it involves looking at things that teachers do not need to do, and providing support from people with other skills wherever possible. I outlined my ideas on that in a speech to the Social Market Foundation last year, and it is the core of what is being considered by the School Teachers Review Body.
I tend to think that the hon. Gentleman should not believe teachers who say that the Government are not offering extra support to deal with bad discipline. There are 3,000 learning mentors in schools; Ofsted said today that they are making a difference. There are 1,000 learning support units in schools, which were not in existence in 1997; Ofsted and teachers say that they are making a difference. However, that does not detract from the fact that, doubtless, there are heads in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who find it tough. They must be aware that we are aware of that; parents need to do what they can. However, the problem is not caused by lack of support; it is the nature of the challenge which many teachers face today from the children who attend school.
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is a tribute to her work and that of her predecessor, both of whom presided over one of the most rapid periods of improvement in achievement in British education that the country has ever witnessed. On the OECD report on the programme for international student assessment, while I welcome the enormous achievement of the United Kingdom, is it not the case that those countries that systematically performed better than the UK—I am thinking of Canada, Finland and South Korea in particular—had adopted universal comprehensive secondary education? Does my right hon. Friend draw any conclusions from that? Does it not remain a feature of our system that the impact of the

767
individual school on the pupils' achievement is greater than in almost any other OECD country? Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the move to greater diversity will deal with the problems of differential achievement by individual schools?
Finally, my right hon. Friend mentioned the Ofsted research on the excellence in cities programme and the rate of improvement in excellence in cities schools. Is there in the report any similar evidence on faith schools and their levels of achievement or rate of improvement? If not, has Ofsted produced any relevant information since the 2000–01 report was published?
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend raises a number of points. With regard to the PISA report, there may have been one country—I will not cite it, as I cannot recall exactly—that was better than us in all the aspects that were tested. Although in each of the areas there were between two and four countries that performed at a higher level than we did, it was not always the same countries. There was no pattern of our always being outperformed by five or six countries.
As far as I know, the PISA report made no correlation with the way in which schools were organised. However, it stated, and it is right, that the impact of the individual school was greater in the UK than in other countries, as was the link with poverty and social class, which was a greater determinant of educational success in this country than in any of our competitor nations. That, as my hon. Friend knows, concerns me a great deal and we need to examine it.
My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that that matches up with the view of Mike Tomlinson that there is still too great a difference between the performance of different schools in similar circumstances. We are a data-rich education system. Because we have those data, we must learn from the best. The good news is that for each of the categories in which there is underperformance, we can see that there are schools in similar circumstances that are performing well.
With respect to faith schools, I am not aware of anything in the Ofsted report that particularly highlights the performance of faith schools. I have never made the argument that faith schools are by nature higher performers than schools that are not faith schools, and I will not make that argument when I speak later on the amendment to the Education Bill dealing with that subject. The argument is a different one. I have always said that I think that faith schools are confident in their value base, and there is often a natural link between school and home that stands them in good stead. Equally, I have always said that schools which do not have a faith base often have a strong value base and similar links between home and school. Later, perhaps we can explore more thoroughly than we should now some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Dr. John Pugh: With reference to religious education, the Ofsted report states:
"In schools having a full inspection, the match of teachers and support staff to the demands of the subject are worse in RE than in any other subject, being good in only three out of ten schools."
What conclusion does the Minister draw from that, and what does she propose to do about it?
Estelle Morris: I draw the conclusion that teaching in RE is not as good as in other subjects. The measures for
768
recruitment, retention and training need to be assiduously followed. To make sure that we get the message right, I pay tribute to those RE teachers who do teach to a high standard. There is a danger sometimes that our conversations in the House go outside and are misinterpreted, in this case as damning all RE teachers. Clearly, the matter has been raised as requiring further improvement. Religious education is an important part of the national curriculum and is entitled to be taught as effectively as any other. If deficiencies have been identified, they ought to be addressed.
Charlotte Atkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's justified praise of teachers and school management. I note from the report that, although significant improvement has been made in the teaching of information and communications technology, further improvement is necessary. Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome the development in secondary schools of NVQs and GNVQs in ICT, which recognise that ICT is a key skill, alongside numeracy and literacy? It is a subject that appeals right across the ability range. What role do specialist technology schools such as Clough Hall in Kidsgrove have in trying to improve ICT teaching, not just in their local area but right across the LEA?
Now that they have a wider role under this Government than under the Tory Government, such development could be of key importance in improving the level of ICT teaching and leadership.
Estelle Morris: I agree. Many adults have not yet caught up with children in terms of ICT competence and confidence, and that is true for teachers as well as other adults. In our first term, we ensured that a great deal of resources—more than £1.8 billion over six years—was spent on ICT infrastructure and on training, but there is still a long way to go. I am pleased that progress has been made this year. As teachers learn, more developments occur, so we are constantly chasing the latest developments in ICT. She identifies exactly what needs to be done. Schools such as Clough Hall, which I know about from discussions with her, have a key role in ensuring that they share their teachers either through ICT links—including well-equipped specialist technology courses—or face-to-face training.
My hon. Friend spoke about spreading good practice across the LEA. Those involved should be more ambitious about that and listen for the opportunities that we offer in respect of being national leaders and creating links with other countries. If we want to be world class in education systems, we must look beyond our boundaries. She will know that there is a list of partner schools with which those who are involved must work in her constituency, and beyond. When they come to reapply for specialist school status, they will be judged just as critically on how well they have carried out their community links as on how much they have raised standards in their school. I hope that that message will go back and encourage them to work hard on both counts.
Mr. Colin Challen: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In doing so, I should like to declare an interest as a governor of Morley Newlands primary school in my constituency, which is this week celebrating an excellent Ofsted report. As a governor, I think that we should recognise—this has been

769
an occasion of praise and recognition—the work of school governors in helping us to achieve high standards. They give their time freely and have had to learn many more special skills in the past few years. The complexity that they now face is considerable. Will she not only join me in praising school governors for their work, but suggest ways in which we might recruit more governors? In certain areas, there are problems with recruitment of good-quality governors.
Estelle Morris: I am delighted that Morley Newlands school has been listed in the report and I congratulate it. Again, I thank governors for their work, as I did at the start of my statement. They ask for little reward or recognition and certainly no pay, and give generously of their time, energy and enthusiasm. A good school is the result of the partnership of everybody concerned, including the governing body. Like my hon. Friend, I worry that the schools that need the most effective governors sometimes find it most difficult to recruit. That is why, some three to four years ago, we financed the one-stop shop for recruiting, training and encouraging governors, so that governors could be recruited and placed in the schools that need them most. If things are tough and there are a lot of other pressures, head teachers will have neither the time nor the energy to go out and recruit governors, and yet they need them for support. The one-stop shop has been successful and we will continue to offer the support that it needs. None the less, I say to all hon. Members that they can also play a role. When they meet business people or others, including concerned citizens who want to play a part in education, they should direct them to schools in their constituencies where good governors are needed. I know that that will be welcomed.
Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend is aware that my education authority is carrying out restructuring throughout the service, which has placed a burden on some aspects of education in Greenwich. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the schools in our LEA without exception for the hard work that they are doing to bring about the improvements in education that we all want to see.
I also welcome today's statement and the inspector's report. We can only reflect on how much more we might have achieved in our early years in government if we had got rid of Mr. Woodhead sooner.
A friend who has worked for many years in a secondary school as a maths teacher told me that the numeracy hour means that, for the first time in his experience, young people in their first year at secondary school have a grounding in maths that allows him to start to extend them from the day that they arrive. That is testament to the Government's changes in education.
I want to make a plea about recruitment and retention in London. The cost of living, especially housing costs, is high in the capital city. Those costs bite in many schools. We solved the problem in the police service by dealing
770
with the housing allocation two years ago. Training colleges in London are now full of police recruits. That is the only solution to the problem in London.
Estelle Morris: I am pleased by my hon. Friend's comments about maths. Many secondary school teachers have had to rewrite the maths curriculum to build on what has happened in primary schools. It is therefore important that the key stage 3 strategy for 11 to 14-year-olds takes into account children's improved mathematical and literary ability.
I accept my hon. Friend's point about housing costs, which are a major cause of difficulty in recruiting in London. There appears to be a pattern: young teachers work in London for a year or two but move elsewhere when they want to buy their homes or have families. In his previous post, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the £250 million starter home initiative from which education was a major beneficiary. However, I am not complacent, and I know that there is a challenge not only for my Department but throughout Government.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and the report, especially those aspects that deal with ethnic minority children, of whom there are many in my constituency.
We have dealt a little with truancy. Will my right hon. Friend comment on parent-organised truancy, which has a devastating effect on children in my constituency? I fear that it may also have a long-term effect.
I want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about recruiting teachers from ethnic minorities and the good role models that they would make in some of our ethnic minority schools. An increasing number of young women in Keighley and Bradford are doing well and training to be teachers, but teaching in an Asian school is the last thing they want to do. We must examine that matter because they would make excellent role models.
Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend has spoken privately and on the Floor of the House about that matter, which causes her great anxiety because she knows that the best hope for her constituents' children is a decent education. I do not mean to be insensitive or critical, but it is not helpful when children are removed from school for a long time. They need to be in school to learn. When they come back to school, it is difficult for them to catch up. As a former teacher, I know that it is almost impossible to teach a class and the children who return to school after absences of six to eight weeks or even longer. There must be a clear message about that. Many members of the Asian community join us in conveying the message to give the kids a chance and not to take them out of school unless they are ill.
Mike Tomlinson said today that 80 per cent. of student absence is condoned by parents. That is not fair to the children. No matter how much we or teachers do, unless parents are true and active partners who get their children to school ready to learn, they will be left out. I suspect that the cycle will be repeated when they become adults and have children. We shall do whatever we can, but there is no easy solution. We must go on and on and convey that message.

Points of Order
5.39 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a delicate point of order of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. On 29 January, I went to the Table Office and tabled a question that was accepted. It asks:
"what the practice is in regard to the provision of holidays and other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police and the prosecuting authorities?"
That was accepted by the Table Office for a named day, Friday 1 February. Normally, I give Departments 14 days notice for written questions, but this one was rather urgent. There was no reply on Friday, and on Monday there was neither a reply nor anything in Hansard. By some alchemy, however, on coming into the Chamber this afternoon, I received a reply—not from the Home Office but from the Lord Chancellor's Department—from the Solicitor-General. My question was very precise, and the Solicitor-General answered:
"I have been asked to reply. There is no distinct provision for holidays or other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police or prosecuting authorities. However, where the court necessarily lists a case for trisl"—
incidentally, "trial" was mis-spelled "trisl". I do not want to make too much of that, but this answer was clearly hurriedly put together—
"when a witness is due to be on holiday then some provision can be made to compensate the witness for any loss incurred by way of a financial loss allowance. Alternatively, arrangements can be made to return a witness from holiday to attend court."
That did not answer the question that I asked, which was on a substantial matter about which I have a question to put to Mr. Speaker: what on earth is going on at the trial at Camp Zeist, in relation to Lockerbie? I am aware of the sub judice rules, but my question is not sub judice. It concerns something else. Mr. Speaker will know from his constituency Sunday press that there have been stories in Scotland for 10 days now asking why the Strathclyde police provided salmon fishing holidays and other treats for a witness in a forthcoming murder trial. The police have taken the key witness in the biggest murder trial in British history, namely Tony Gauchi, on salmon fishing expeditions. This is far from—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now widening his original point of order somewhat. Mr. Speaker has informed me that the hon. Gentleman advised him in advance of his question. I am in no position to comment on the substantive part of the answer to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I can say, however, that Standing Order No. 22(4) states:
"Where a Member has indicated that a question is for written answer on a named day the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given".
When a Department is unable to give a substantive answer to a named day question on the date on which it is required, the House expects the Member to be given an answer that should give some indication of when the Minister expects to give a full reply.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very briefly, and without intruding on the sub judice rule, may I ask Mr. Speaker to reflect on
772
the fact that I have had 16 Adjournment debates on Lockerbie, but am now being told that that is all a matter for the Scottish Parliament? This is a very grey area. Are Members of the House of Commons not to be allowed to ask questions on subjects that they have been considering for many years? Where is the dividing line between the Members on the Mound and those in the House of Commons? I do not ask for an answer now, but I honestly think that the Speaker should reflect on this.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been heard, but I repeat that they go much wider than his original point of order.
Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I protest and ask for your support, and that of Mr. Speaker, for Members' interests? In the past couple of hours, a report, apparently from a Home Office official, has announced Government policy in relation to what might be called identity cards or entitlement cards. That is clearly a highly controversial and highly important matter. The Home Secretary was in the House yesterday, answering questions for an hour, and he stayed for an Opposition home affairs debate. We understand that he is to be in the House again on Thursday to introduce the asylum and immigration White Paper.
Mr. Speaker and his colleagues have made it absolutely clear that matters of policy should be announced to this place and they certainly should be announced by Ministers. They certainly should not be announced by departmental spokespeople without, it appears, any press release or other information. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, make inquiries? If, as it appears, there has been no proper announcement, will you ensure that the relevant Ministers come here to make one so that Members on both sides of the House can find out what the policy is and ask appropriate questions?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am certainly not aware of the announcement to which the hon. Gentleman refers or, indeed, of how accurate it may or may not be, but he is quite right that Ministers are expected to come to the House to make statements on matters of policy.
Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, about a matter of which I gave Mr. Speaker notice this morning. Yesterday, I received a two-line answer to my written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what will be his policy at ECOFIN on 12 February regarding Germany's budget deficit: the process is as set out in the treaty and the regulations regarding the operation of the stability and growth pact. That is it—a totally inadequate answer, particularly given The Sunday Times article at the weekend in which a senior Treasury official is quoted at length and the Government's approach to the stability pact and the German deficit is spelled out in great detail.
Why are the Government able to answer the question when it is put by a journalist, David Smith, but unable to answer when it is put by a Member of Parliament? Can you use your position to request that the Treasury answer my question properly? If it is too busy to do so, could it not simply copy out The Sunday Times article?
Madam Deputy Speaker: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point

773
of order. As Mr. Speaker has frequently made clear to the House, the content of answers is a matter for Ministers. Mr. Speaker has no powers to direct Ministers as to how they answer questions. However, I understand that the Procedure Committee is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry into all aspects of parliamentary questions. The hon. Gentleman may want to pass his concerns to the Chairman, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Museums
5.48 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to clarify the respective responsibilities of trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums.
The Bill is modest, but it would be enormously beneficial to those who want great cultural objects to be displayed to best purpose and best effect. It would clarify the responsibilities of museum trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums. I take the situation of the trustees of the British museum regarding the Elgin marbles collection, which largely consists of sculptures hacked from the Parthenon in Athens.
The Parthenon is a UNESCO world heritage site, and rightly so, for it has unique symbolic importance in the history of western civilisation. Most marbles in the Elgin collection are integral components of the structural and artistic unity of the building. The Parthenon and its sculptures can be fully appreciated only in conjunction. Without the sculptures, the Parthenon is incomplete. As Neil Kinnock once so memorably put it, without the marbles the Parthenon has a gap-toothed smile. Without the Parthenon the sculptures lack important context.
A new Acropolis museum is to be built opposite the south slope of the Acropolis, in the one location in the world where the Parthenon and its sculptures can be viewed simultaneously, in a single visual experience. My Bill would allow the trustees, if they wished and if the Secretary of State agreed, to transfer the marbles to Athens to make that remarkable experience possible.
It is not a question of ownership of the marbles. The manner in which Lord Elgin obtained them is disputable, and it would be possible to argue about it inconclusively and for ever, but the marbles belong neither to the British museum nor to the British Government, nor even to the Greek government. I can imagine Socrates, who described himself as not Athenian or Greek but universal, looking up at the Acropolis as he said that. In truth, in belonging to the Parthenon the marbles belong to the whole of humanity.
The Parthenon cannot come to the marbles. They, therefore, should go back to the Parthenon. It is a potent argument. The arguments traditionally ranged against the return of the Parthenon marbles are now hackneyed and long since discredited. It is said that they were rescued by Lord Elgin. Okay, but rescue does not justify keeping them for ever. It is said that they have been in safe-keeping in the British museum. Does that include abrading the surfaces with carborundum, or holding buffet receptions in the Duveen gallery?
It is said that the Greeks could not look after the marbles properly. That is an unsustainable slur on the professional expertise of the Greek Archaeological Service. It is said that more people see the marbles in the British museum than would see them in Athens. The figures cited refer to all visitors to the British museum, not all of whom visit the Duveen gallery. Hardly any of the millions of visitors to the Acropolis would miss the marbles if they were there.

775
It is said that there is not a museum to put the marbles in. As I have said, the Greek Government have commissioned a grand new Acropolis museum with a glass-walled gallery, facing the Parthenon, reserved for the display of the marbles. I repeat that that is the only place on earth where the marbles and the Parthenon can be viewed together in a single visual experience.
It is said that returning the marbles to Athens would open the floodgates, and lead to the emptying of the great museums of the world. That is a serious argument that must be addressed, but it is exaggerated. We are talking about integral components hacked off a great immovable monument. How many of those are there in the museums of the world? We should imagine the sculptures being hacked off the Arc de Triomphe, the chariots being taken from the Brandenburg gate, Nelson's statue being removed from its column in Trafalgar square, several pillars being removed from Stonehenge, or the torch being hacked off the Statue of Liberty. Come to think of it, the latter would probably result not in an Act of Congress—or the presentation of a museums Bill to Congress—but in a coalition against the evil of cultural vandalism.
In fact there are not many such examples in the world's museums, and where there are, perhaps the case for their return should be carefully examined. The German Government provided a good example last year. Their museums contained several pieces of the Philippeion at Olympia. They have returned them, and are undertaking to reconstruct the building at their expense.
It is said that the Elgin marbles are part of the encyclopaedic collection of the British museum. That is a serious argument: perhaps they are—but they are not indispensable to it. They are exemplars of Greek culture. The Greek Government would readily supply an even more comprehensive set of exemplars of Greek culture to replace the marbles. It is said that the marbles have been here for so long that they are now part of our heritage. That argument takes my breath away, and does not merit a response.
Refuting those arguments one by one, however, is to no avail. The trustees of the British museum are forbidden by law to transfer the Parthenon marbles to Athens. So what? They do not want to anyway. The director made that clear in a recent article in The Times. But directors and trustees come and go, and in future a director and trustees may find the legal restriction irksome. My Bill would remove it. Then, at the very least, the trustees would not be in the unedifying position of hiding behind the hackneyed arguments I have just refuted, or falling back on the logical stopper of the law.
I am not talking about ceding legal title to the ownership of the marbles. The argument has moved on from that: it is now about where they should be. There is strong and increasing support in the country and in Parliament for their being reunited with the Parthenon. A 1996 Channel 4 viewers poll by William J. Stewart, with a return of 100,000, showed a majority of 90 per cent. in favour. A 1998 MORI poll and a 1999 BBC internet poll returned majorities of eight to three. A 2000 poll of MPs by The Economist, to which 200 MPs responded, showed 66 per cent. overall and 84 per cent. of Labour Members to be in favour.
The results of the parliamentary poll are consistent with successive early-day motions attracting more than 100 signatures. Early-day motion 336 has already
776
attracted 107, to which we could add the names of Ministers, Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries who have registered their support in the past but are barred from doing so now.
As I have said, my Bill is not about ceding ownership of cultural objects by the British museum or any other museum to which this might apply. Such objects could be sent on renewable loan, the lending museum sharing with the borrowing museum responsibility for their display, study and conservation. That is not a new idea; it accords with modern museum practice. In January 2000, the Museums and Galleries Commission published "Restitution and Repatriation: Guidelines for Good Practice". The guidelines were commended by the Government, by a House of Commons Select Committee and by the Museums Association. Any reasonable application of them would result in a return of the Parthenon marbles.
Great museums in America, Europe and Australia have followed this practice. Even the British museum trustees, according to their submission to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport,
"have in the past explored the possibility of reciprocal exchange of objects as long term renewable loans".
They also told the Committee:
"we could possibly examine the possibility of exchange loans"
involving the Parthenon marbles. Robert Anderson himself said:
"This has been brought up by the museum before. Where two countries have two halves of two individual objects there is the possibility of a long term loan between them. This does seem to me to be sensible."
What is there for the British museum in such a change in legal practice? Plenty. The museum would gain enormous credit for its enlightened approach to the display of such important cultural objects. Furthermore, the Greek Government are committed to replacing the Parthenon marbles in the British museum with a rotating exhibition of treasures of Greek civilisation that would otherwise rarely be seen outside Greece.
What is in it for Britain? Again, plenty. If the marbles are not returned, when the new Acropolis museum opens in 2004 the glass-walled gallery reserved for them will stand empty in living reproach to Britain in the eyes of millions of visitors to Athens from around the world. If they are returned, in the eyes of all those millions it will redound to Britain's credit that we have shown our commitment to the ideals of UNESCO by making whole again arguably the most powerful symbol of western civilisation, the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens. My Bill seeks to make that possible—
Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
5.58 pm
Tim Loughton: I oppose the Bill. I declare an interest as a member of the British Museum Society, and as one who has studied classics and archaeology.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) made a good case, and I agree with some of what he said. Certainly the marbles belong to the whole of humanity, not just to any one nation. He would be expected to make

777
a good case, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary Greece group. He was also honest enough to come clean about the fact that this is really all about the Elgin marbles. His Bill may be a Trojan horse—an appropriate phrase in this context—but that is what it is about. It should really be subtitled "Give Greece the Elgin marbles to show that we are good Europeans".
The hon. Gentleman said that his proposals were modest, but they are not. The implications for the future of all world museums housing universal collections are enormous. I oppose this latest attempt at iconoclastic decontextualisation and will judge it on the following grounds. Are the Elgin marbles rightfully in the British museum, are they in the best place to be appreciated most by the widest audience, and what are the real motives for destroying the status quo?
On the first charge, that the Elgin marbles are not legitimately in the British museum, even Greece no longer challenges the legal ownership of the marbles. In 1815, Parliament bought the marbles by paying part of Lord Elgin's costs. In 1816, a Select Committee said that they had been rightfully acquired. That judgment has been confirmed by a Select Committee report in 1999, by the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who is here today and who ratifies the judgment in his excellent article in The Guardian today.
I come to the defence of the much maligned Lord Elgin. The marbles were not housed in a private collection but given to the British museum in 1816. They became an integral part of the British museum's heritage and are intrinsic to its identity. It was Lord Elgin who saved the Parthenon marbles: without him, they would not exist. They were legally taken under a firman. Placing the marbles in the British museum led to an appreciation of the high classical style in the early 19th century, which had been overlooked in preference to the hellenistic style of sculpture. There is also a case for saying that bringing the marbles to the British museum encouraged an awareness of hellenism and the foundation of the Greek state in 1833, a far cry from the city state of Athens in classical times.
Would it not be odd if after almost 200 years of the Parthenon marbles being in the British museum, and as the British museum prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary next year, an integral part of its heritage were ripped from its walls? There is no case for saying that they are not rightfully part of the British museum. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South would be better off looking at the urgent matter of clamping down on the illegal trade in artefacts between private collections, which often goes on unprovenanced and unrecorded.
The second charge is that the British museum is not the best place for displaying the Elgin marbles. The British museum holds no place for nationalism. It is a universal museum. The idea of a universal museum is the outcome of the 18th-century age of enlightenment. It is a national museum in the great tradition of the Louvre, the Metropolitan museum of art in New York and the Berlin national museum. The British museum regards it as a privilege to display some of the finest artworks known
778
to man, and has a responsibility to promote public understanding of them through exhibitions, publications, educational programmes and, in the case of the Elgin marbles, video displays with computer graphics.
The British museum is a world museum. Forces for educational and cultural enlightenment across the globe exist there. It has 6 million visitors a year. Academics, students, school children, Greeks, Britons, South Africans, Koreans all visit for free. They are able to see the Elgin marbles not just as a single artistic treasure but in the context of the great developing panoply of archaic and classical art and architecture.
In the British museum, visitors can trace artistic development through Sumerian gudea figures, Mesopotamian site artefacts, Assyrian reliefs from Nineveh and Nimrud, Egyptian kouroi, early classical statuary and high classical, hellenistic, Roman and renaissance artefacts; the British museum itself is built in a neoclassical style. They are all under one roof, all for free and all properly explained, displayed and set in context.
Decontextualisation would be a disaster and would open a Pandora's box, whatever the hon. Member for Knowsley, South says. Mesopotamian finds dug up because of the tenacity of British archaeologists in the 1900s and previously would be returned to Iraq and Iran, perhaps never to be seen again. The Benin bronzes would go to Nigeria, despite the fact that the British museum helped to build the collection of bronzes in Nigeria itself and has done an awful lot to promote the heritage and history of west Africa. When Nelson Mandela visited the British museum just 13 months ago on the opening of three new African galleries, he praised the British museum as
"this truly international institution for enriching and cross-fertilising the world's institutions."
The wish is to send the Elgin marbles to a special museum set apart from the Parthenon—a museum that has not even yet been started and has been promised for years. They are not to go on the Parthenon itself. One of the finest metopes on the west end of the Parthenon has been sitting there for centuries in one of the most polluted cities in Europe; it has not been rescued and taken down. Fourteen blocks of the west frieze were removed in 1993 and have not seen the light of day again. The Acropolis receives fewer than 2.5 million paying visitors, less than half the number of visitors who go to the British museum, most of whom go to see the Elgin marbles in particular.
In the fifth century, Pericles and the fleet of artists under Phidias built the splendour of classical Athens not just as an impressive environment for local Athenians but as a symbol to the world of how quickly civilisation had developed under Athens' artistic and military prowess: it was the top nation of the day. No one would be more impressed by the longevity of that legacy in the British museum two and a half millennia later than Pericles himself.
What are the real motives? It is all political. Academically, there is no case to return the Elgin marbles and other works of art to Athens. They are in the ownership of the British museum but they belong to the history of world civilisation. To treat them as some political trophy that can be traded for short-term political advantage is the worst reason for ripping them out of the heart of one of the world's great museums.
The British museum should not he treated as some state Aladdin's cave to buy power and influence at random. To do so would be to return to the classical times mentality

779
of warring fiefdoms whence the Elgin marbles came, and would be deeply patronising to the modern democracy that is Greece.
No doubt the Greeks would view us as better Europeans if we made a gesture of handing them the Elgin marbles after 200 years, just as the Government want to make the Spanish view us as better Europeans by handing over Gibraltar after almost 300 years, yet it does not make our equal partners, Greece and Spain, better Europeans by pressing for such moves and expecting us to comply under duress and for all the wrong reasons.
The intentions behind the Bill are clear but the motives are entirely wrong and the implications for the academic world would be catastrophic. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South made his case with some passion, not as much as the late Melina Mercouri and certainly with fewer tears, but just as we echoed her sentiments to her in "Never on a Sunday", so I ask the House to say to the hon. Gentleman, "Never on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Monday for that matter."
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, Andy Burnham, Mr. Richard Allan and Mr. Kevin McNamara.

MUSEUMS
Mr. Edward O'Hara accordingly presented a Bill to clarify the respective responsibilities of trustees and the Secretary of State in terms of international co-operation and the exchange of cultural objects between museums: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 12 April, and to be printed [Bill 92].
Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Education Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Clauses relating to Part 3, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 5, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 7, new Clauses relating to Part 8, new Clauses relating to Part 9, new Clauses relating to Part 10, other new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 48, Schedule 4, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 66, Schedule 8, Clauses 67 and 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10, Clauses 72 to 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 143, Schedule 12, Clauses 144 to 147, Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 150, Schedule 14, Clauses 151 to 180, Schedule 15, Clause 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clauses 183 to 188, Schedule 18, Clauses 189 to 192, Schedule 19, Clauses 193 to 198, Schedule 20, Clauses 199 to 209, Schedules 21 and 22, new Schedules.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I have accepted the manuscript amendment for debate.
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move a manuscript amendment:
  That the order of consideration be amended as follows: leave out the words
  "new Clauses relating to Part 3"
  and insert in their place
  "new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9 and new Clause 12."
  Mr. Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have certainly not been informed about the change of business or the manuscript amendment and we have been sitting here quite calmly for a considerable time waiting to debate the Education Bill, half of which was not discussed in Committee. Therefore, I respectfully ask whether it is in order for the Minister to propose a new timetable without allowing us to consider it.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Will you make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we are now debating the amendment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating the manuscript amendment that I have just put to the House.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Minister, but I am slightly startled by this change of procedure. Is it common for the Chair to accept a manuscript amendment when there is a clear statement on the Order Paper of the order in which the Bill is to be debated? If that is the case, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you received notice of that manuscript amendment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is now opening up the debate. I accepted the manuscript amendment

  781
  simply for the convenience of the House, because it appeared sensible, and it has now been moved. Hon. Members are entitled to speak to the amendment and to vote against it.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Timms: I wish simply to explain the reasoning behind the amendment and I to apologise to hon. Members. The amendment resulted from recent hasty discussions. The difficulty is that, under the motion on the Order Paper, we would need to delay votes on a number of matters that we shall discuss this afternoon until the end of all the debates on part 3. The amendment would allow us to vote at the conclusion of the debates on those amendments rather than all together at the end of the discussion of part 3. It is a helpful proposal and I hope that the House will accept it.
  Mr. Graham Brady: All hon. Members are bemused by this new development. Many of us have been in the Chamber for quite some time, following the statement from the Department for Education and Skills. We have read the timetable motion on the Order Paper and feel that we have a right to expect it to be followed.
  Surely it is bizarre for the Minister to give us no notice of the manuscript amendment and to make no attempt to circulate it. Surely it is outrageous for him to bring it before the House in this way. Opposition Members can only protest in the strongest possible way that the Minister has not even attempted to give hon. Members notice. Surely the fact that Ministers and Labour Back Benchers seem unable to organise their business in a rational and coherent way does not make it acceptable for us to be faced with absurd changes to procedure without notice or adequate explanation. I really do protest and I wonder whether any steps could be taken now to allow the House an opportunity to see the amendment before we vote on it.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At this stage of the debate when we have a little more time, it would be helpful if copies of the manuscript amendment could be circulated while we are in the Chamber. In my experience, most manuscript amendments are brief and can easily be understood when they are read out. They usually involve the substitution of one name or something similar. This is the most complicated manuscript amendment I have ever heard in 28 years in the House. Is it beyond the wit of the Government to circulate some photocopies of it while the debate continues?
  Mr. David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would also be helpful if you would explain whether the amended order of consideration would have any effect on Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments as already circulated and the order in which they are to be considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we are not careful, hon. Members will be making debating points on points of order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's latter point is no, it does not.
  Mr. Willis: I am quite outraged that we find ourselves in this situation. The Bill was handled disgracefully in
  782
  Committee and we were looking forward to two days of debate to address some of its core issues. Members of the public are particularly interested in some of the key aspects of the debate that was expected today.
  Earlier today, I asked the Committee Clerk about the order in which the amendments were to be debated and voted on. I was assured that there would be a vote on each group of amendments. I even informed the Clerk that that was our intention this evening. Now, at the last minute, having sat here for the past three and a half hours, we find ourselves having to respond to a manuscript amendment without having sight of it. We are now told that all of a sudden the way in which we debate the amendments and vote on them has changed. If the Government are prepared to show such contempt for the House when it is considering legislation that engages us in a good debate, heaven help us when we consider provisions that are far more tricky politically.
  We hope that the explanation for the manuscript amendment and this change of heart will allow us to understand the Government's thinking, and will reassure us that we can debate the current marshalled list of amendments in the existing order and vote on each string of amendments, depending on whether the Opposition wish to press them to vote.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to page 473 of "Erskine May". Even though the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were present this afternoon for an education statement, at no time did the Government tell the Opposition about their intention to table this manuscript amendment. Given the total and utter contempt for the proceedings of the House that we have witnessed this afternoon, I ask you to consider carefully the passage in "Erskine May" that states:
  "Whenever possible, notice should be given of any amendments. However, in committee it is in order to move, as manuscript amendments, amendments of which notice has not been given."
  That clearly states that, in all practical circumstances, notice should be given. An education statement was made and the Secretary of State was present, but no attempt was made to notify the House of the Government's intention, so I ask you whether it is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should accept this manuscript amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already accepted the manuscript amendment and we are now debating it. This is not a matter of the content of the amendment; it was simply that I understood it to be for the convenience of the House to consider the matter in this way.
  Mr. Fallon: I make it clear that I am not raising a point of order but speaking to the debate. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke very strongly, has every reason to feel aggrieved by the way in which he and new clause 5 have been treated by this procedure. Given that it is now some 10 minutes since the manuscript amendment was moved, I should have expected the Minister at least to have had the courtesy to circulate copies of it or place them in the Vote Office. I wonder whether that can still be done, even at this late stage. It is extraordinary that a manuscript amendment of this nature has been moved without giving any notice to the House, and with no discussion between Front

  783
  Benchers, let alone with those who have tabled new clauses and amendments. The Minister will find it hard to justify that extraordinary procedure.
  What lies behind this procedure is an attempt by the Government to rig the way in which Divisions are held. The Minister needs reminding that the purpose of our presence here today is not to arrange the timing of Divisions but to consider legislation—
  Mr. John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but I want to appeal to you as the protector of Back Benchers. It is hard enough being a Back Bencher under this Government. I for one would like more time to consider this matter, so I beg to move that the House be adjourned for one hour, so that we can study it further.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am not prepared to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House at this time. We are dealing with the amendment and the debate must continue.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just checked with the Vote Office and there still is not available to us any version of this extraordinary amendment, which has been thrust upon the House. Can you please instruct that copies of it be circulated to Members? It is intolerable that our proceedings should be so extraordinarily diverted at this stage, without us knowing what we are being asked to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said about copies being made available. Before we continue, perhaps it would help if I again read out the manuscript amendment, which states that the order of consideration be amended to leave out the words
  "new Clauses relating to part 3"
  and insert
  "new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause 18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9 and new Clause 12."
  Mr. Fallon: The very fact that you have had to read out the amendment a second time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, justifies the Government's doing us the elementary courtesy of getting this thing printed so that we can all see exactly where we stand.
  Just before I was interrupted, I was saying that the Minister appears to be rigging the order in which Divisions are likely to be held. That is monstrous. We are a legislature. We are here today to debate these new clauses and amendments in the final stages of this important Bill. We are not here simply to arrange Divisions for the convenience of the Executive. As I understand it, the order of consideration for the new clauses and amendments was laid down clearly by Mr. Speaker before lunchtime today, it was published and it has been available in the Vote Office since 3 o'clock. It is quite extraordinary to be told at this late stage—some six hours after Mr. Speaker made his selection and ruling—that the order of debate will be changed. That
  784
  change is not for the convenience of the House, but for the convenience of the Government, and I urge my hon. Friends to consider pressing the matter to a Division.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Decisions taken by the Chair are for the protection of Members of Parliament and the Orders of the Day are published so that Members of Parliament can have at least a vague idea about what they are debating—something that is not always true even when they have read what they are debating. Frankly, they can have no idea of what they are debating if what is printed on the Order Paper differs from what is proposed.
  I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but the order of debate should be clear and transparent to Members, so that they know in advance when the group of amendments that they want to discuss will be debated. That is not exactly a revolutionary idea, but it commends itself to me. Because we are so dependent on the Chair for the protection of our rights, and because it is so vital that we are clear about how we conduct our business, I hope that a much more detailed explanation of the manuscript amendment will be given, even if we end up accepting the Minister's proposal. I have rarely seen such a matter handled with less finesse, and this procedure has not been particularly helpful.
  Mr. Damian Green: The House will wish to consider two separate issues at this point, the first of which is the issue of process. Like the hon. Lady, I have never seen anything handled in the House with less finesse. There are two possible reasons why the Government are behaving in this way: either the Department has been monumentally incompetent, or the Government are trying to rig the procedures of the House, not for the House's convenience but for their own. I incline toward the latter explanation, because I cannot believe that Ministers and their officials could be so incompetent. The entire ministerial team were in the House for an hour and a half for a long statement, so it would surely not have been beyond their wit to hand copies of the manuscript amendment to the Opposition parties, and to show the same courtesy to their own right hon. and hon. Friends, who are intimately involved with the debates that the Government are trying to rig. I therefore absolve Ministers of the charge of monumental incompetence, but they cannot be absolved of the charge of reaching a nadir—even by the standards of this Government—in abuse of the procedures of the House.
  6.30 pm
  The second point worth considering has to do with the substance of the manuscript amendment, with which we have not yet dealt. It is clear that the Government are trying to minimise the number of Divisions that can take place on the matter of faith schools.
  I can approach that matter fairly dispassionately, as I support what the Government are trying to achieve with the faith schools amendment. However, they must recognise that there exist other points of view in the House, and that they are legitimate. The various new clauses tabled on faith schools represent varying nuances of view. The Opposition oppose those views, as do the Government, so this is not a partisan matter between Opposition and Government Front-Bench Members.

  785
  The question of faith schools engages the House in a non-party way, and it also engages the British people. It is an abuse of power by the Government to seek to minimise hon. Members' capacity to vote fully, clearly and competently on such a matter.
  I think that the Minister is at heart a decent man. I can only urge him to withdraw this wretched amendment before we have to vote against it.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend the Minister explain to the House—or at least to Labour Members—whether the manuscript amendment is linked in any way to the numerous calls that I and other hon. Members received at the weekend? The Government are clearly somewhat sensitive about how we might wish to vote on the matter of faith schools. Will he make clear what effect the manuscript amendment will have on the votes on new clauses 1 and 18 in particular? The explanation that he has given so far has not assuaged my suspicion about the Government's motives.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I underline that point. I am sure that the Government's motives are not malign, but I am just a simple Back Bencher. When the Minister responds to the debate, will he say what effect the amendment will have on when we vote on the clauses relating to faith schools? What are the implications for the timetable of votes?
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I have been in this House for 14 and a half years, and I cannot remember ever finding myself in this position before in connection with a subject of such considerable interest to the outside world. Suddenly, the House, having been given no notice at all, is debating a manuscript amendment—
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to allow hon. Members to speak in this debate who were not even in the Chamber when the manuscript amendment was moved?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady must leave these matters to the Chair.
  Mr. Brazier: I have one question for the Minister. If the Government are determined to curb hon. Members' right to put their points of view on this extremely controversial issue—on which I have spoken a number of times in the past, and about which the Minister knows that I share his views—where will it all stop? Has the House of Commons become nothing more than an extension of the Labour party's internal battles?
  Mr. Beith: I am not a cynic by nature, and it is just conceivable that the Minister might be trying to help the House. If so, however, I wish he would wear a sign on his forehead saying "I am trying to be helpful", or something similar. The process that he has taken us through could hardly have been more unhelpful. It has left suspicion in everyone's mind.
  The manuscript amendment that the Minister has moved cannot be understood or construed without the most careful examination of the motion that appears on the Order Paper.
  786
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the amendment out most clearly, but at a speed that could not be called dictation speed for people who cannot take shorthand. We were fairly lost until—eventually, and after much pressure—we obtained a photocopy of the amendment.
  We now have to decide whether it means what some of us think that it means. I sought advice, from which I glean—I think—that the amendment would allow new clause 18 to be voted on after we have voted on new clauses 1 and 2. The Minister did not trouble to mention that point in specific terms in his opening remarks. If the amendment was intended to be helpful, it still defeats me why some minimal notice of it was not given, or why some fuller and more intelligent explanation was not given at the start of the debate.
  One of my reasons for speaking now is to give the Minister an opportunity to give us an intelligible explanation, and to remind him that there are better ways to do something like this
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, I shall repeat that it was my belief, in accepting the manuscript amendment, that it would be helpful and for the convenience of the House. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will explain clearly why it is to the benefit of the House to deal with the matter in this way, and that he will convince the House of the need for the amendment.
  Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we all know, it is the burden and task of the person in the Chair to defend the interests of Back-Bench Members. I am a member of the Chairman's Panel, and I know that you, more than most in this House, will always seek to do that.
  It is clear, from what I have heard of this short debate, that ample opportunity existed earlier this afternoon for the matter to have been discussed through the usual channels. That does not seem to have happened. Hon. Members have tabled amendments—with which I profoundly disagree—and they surely have a right to be consulted.
  Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider suspending this sitting of the House for ten minutes to allow hon. Members—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point has been put to me already, and I have said that I will not do that.
  Mr. Damian Green: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the very helpful point that you made immediately before calling the Minister to respond, you invited him to convince you that the manuscript amendment was in the interests of the House rather than of the Government. When you have heard the Minister's speech, will it be in your power to withdraw your acceptance of the manuscript amendment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I invited the Minister to convince the House, not me.
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we invite the Minister to say whether he would welcome a short adjournment of a few minutes, not an hour—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to decide on such matters. It is for the Chair, and the Chair has decided.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who correctly drew the House's attention to the fact that my intention is to be helpful. I emphasise that the amendment will not affect the order of consideration of the groups of amendments before the House, and neither will it affect the content of the debate in any way. What it will do, however—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Timms: Not just yet. The amendment will allow us to take, one after the other, votes on all the new clauses in the second group of amendments relating to faith schools. The original procedure would have allowed votes to be taken only when we had completed debating all the matters in part 3. It would help the House to be able to take those votes together, instead of after what may have been a lengthy period of debate of other matters in between.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: No. That is the intention behind the amendment, and I hope that the House—
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I want to finish this point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] That is the intention behind the amendment, and I hope that the House will agree that its effect is indeed helpful.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. When did he decide to make this change? When did he write out the manuscript amendment, and why did he not have the decency to tell the Opposition?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman puts a fair question. An error in the drafting of the amendment came to our attention very late in our proceedings. I regret that, and I expressed my regret a few minutes before I rose to move the manuscript amendment. I hope that, after the explanation that I have provided, the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will be helpful for the House to vote on all those matters together, rather than having a long gap between votes on matters that will have been debated together.
  Question put, That the amendment be made—
  The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 178.

  Division No. 154]

  [6.40 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  David, Wayne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dobbin, Jim

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Austin, John

  Doran, Frank

  Baird, Vera

  Dowd, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Drew, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Foulkes, George

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Bryant, Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Havard, Dai

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Cohen, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoey, Kate

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  789

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  Joyce, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Organ, Diana

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Linda

  Khabra, Piara S

  Picking, Anne

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pond, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pope, Greg

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lammy, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Linton, Martin

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian

  Ross, Ernie

  Luke, Iain

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lyons, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Joan

  McCafferty, Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacDonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacDougall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKechin, Ann

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Helen

  Mann, John

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meale, Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Miliband, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mole, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moran, Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Julie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  790

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wilson, Brian

  Vaz, Keith

  Winnick, David

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  Watts, David

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  White, Brian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and Dan Norris.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Garnier, Edward

  Allan, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Amess, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Goodman, Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Grayling, Chris

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bacon, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Baker, Norman

  Greenway, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baron, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Barrett, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hammond, Philip

  Bellingham, Henry

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Hayes, John

  Brady, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Brake, Tom

  Heath, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  Hendry, Charles

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Hoban, Mark

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Holmes, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Horam, John

  Burnett, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnside, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cameron, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Laws, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Loughton, Tim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Luff, Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Dodds, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Oaten, Mark

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Öpik, Lembit

  791

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Ottaway, Richard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Page, Richard

  Swire, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Syms, Robert

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Price, Adam

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prisk, Mark

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Randall, John

  Thurso, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Webb, Steve

  Whittinadale John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wiggin Bill

  Ruffley, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willetts, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

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

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Spink, Bob

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Streeter, Gary

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House proceeded to a division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at arms to check whether the division bells are functioning properly.
  The House having divided: ayes 312, Noes 169.

  Division No. 155]

  [6.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Bryant, Chris

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cairns, David

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Battle, John

  Casale, Roger

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caton, Martin

  Bell, Stuart

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benn, Hilary

  Challen, Colin

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Best, Harold

  Chaytor, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Clapham, Michael

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Borrow, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clelland, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  792

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cruddas, Jon

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Joyce, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  David, Wayne

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Doran, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Drew, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lammy, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Efford, Clive

  Lepper, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Etherington, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lyons, John

  Foulkes, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McCafferty, Chris

  Galloway, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDougall, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John

  Havard, Dai

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Merron, Gillian

  Heppell, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hermon, Lady

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Heyes, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Hill, Keith

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoey, Kate

  Mole, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Moran, Margaret

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Julie

  793

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mudie, George

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mullin, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  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

  Organ, Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Owen, Albert

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Touhig, Don

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rammell, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Vaz Keith

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Vis Dr Rudi

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ward Ms Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ryan, Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wilson, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sheridan, Jim

  Woolas, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and Dan Norris.

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Survey)

  Brake, Tom

  Allan, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnside, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baron, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Barrett, John

  Cameron, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  794

  Chidgey, David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Oaten, Mark

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Paice, James

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Pickles, Eric

  Evans, Nigel

  Price, Adam

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prisk, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Pugh, Dr John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flook, Adrian

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rendel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Robathan, Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gibb, Nick

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Goodman, Paul

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gray, James

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

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

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Spink, Bob

  Harvey, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Heald, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Heath, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hendry, Charles

  Swire, Hugo

  Hoban, Mark

  Syms, Robert

  Holmes, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thurso, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Viggers, Peter

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Webb, Steve

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Laws, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Lidington, David

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mrs.Cheryl Gillan and Dr. Julian Lewis.

  Malins, Humfrey

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Education Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Clause 1, new Clause 2, new Clause

  795
  18, new Clause 3, new Clause 4, new Clause 7, new Clause 8, new Clause 9, new Clause 12, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Clauses relating to Part 5, new Clauses relating to Part 6, new Clauses relating to Part 7, new Clauses relating to Part 8, new Clauses relating to Part 9, new Clauses relating to Part 10, other new Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule I, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 48, Schedule 4, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 66, Schedule 8, Clauses 67 and 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10. Clauses 72 to 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 143, Schedule 12, Clauses 144 to 147, Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 150, Schedule 14, Clauses 151 to 180, Schedule 15, Clause 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clauses 183 to 188, Schedule 18, Clauses 189 to 192, Schedule 19, Clauses 193 to 198, Schedule 20, Clauses 199 to 209, Schedules 21 and 22, new Schedules.

New Clause 5

  POWER OF LEA TO INNOVATE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
  '(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.

  (2) A local education authority may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the authority contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by children or adults in their area.

  (3) Subject to subsection (4), the authority may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the authority.

  (4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a local education authority as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the authority.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Power of school to innovate without permission of the Secretary of State (No. 2)—

  '(1)This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.

  (2) A maintained school governing body may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the governing body contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.

  (3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.

  (4)The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the governing body.'.

  New clause 10—Automatic exemptions from curriculum and pay and conditions provisions—

  '(1) Regulations shall designate curriculum or pay and conditions provisions as attracting exemptions for all maintained schools, subject to subsection (2) below.

  (2) Regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a school or category of schools will not benefit from automatic exemption under subsection (1), in which case section 6 shall apply.'.

  796
  Amendment No. 79, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
  'except section 317 of the Education Act 1996 (duties of governing body or LEA in relation to pupils with special educational needs).'.
  Amendment No. 64, in clause 6, page 4, line 34, at beginning insert—
  'Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)'.
  Amendment No. 67, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
  '(e) make further provision for the pay and conditions of persons employed to work at the school to be settled by agreement between or in a manner agreed between teachers and local education authorities or teachers and governing bodies and to be given effect in such manner as may be prescribed.'.
  Amendment No. 65, in page 5, line 10, at beginning insert—
  'Subject to the provisions of subsection (3A)'.
  Amendment No. 66, in page 5, line 19, at end insert—
  '(3A) No order may be made under subsection (2) nor may any provision be made in such an order unless the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales as the case may be is satisfied that such order or provision may be made without detriment to the education at the school of pupils having special educational needs.'.
  Amendment No. 68, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
  '(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to maintain a balanced and broadly based curriculum.'.
  Amendment No. 130, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
  '(6) No regulations under subsection (1) shall limit or reduce the provision of Special Education Needs in any qualifying school.'.
  Amendment No. 131, in clause 7, page 5, line 37, at end insert—
  'and, in particular, parents of pupils with Special Education Needs.'.
  Mr. Willis: I am delighted to be able to begin this debate at last. I hope that the next day and a half will be as interesting and as entertaining as the last hour.
  I want to concentrate on the two new clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have tabled, both of which deal with autonomy. One of the great features of the Bill as it was presented to the House on Second Reading—and one of its great features that was presented in Committee—was that it would encourage schools to innovate and that it would encourage a plethora of approaches to raising standards. Schools would be able to present new ideas and thoughts.
  New clause 5 deals with the right of local education authorities to be able to present new ideas, innovate and initiate, whereas, during the passage of the Bill, the Government envisaged that local authorities would be passive—they would carry out the wishes of the Government or facilitate the wishes of schools. For some reason, the Government rejected the idea that local authorities should be able to innovate.
  Earlier today, the Secretary of State made one of the longest statements ever heard by the House, and we now know why. She did not respond to a question that I asked her about local authorities. The way in which schools are being turned round, in terms of coming out of special measures, is largely due to the brilliant work being done in the vast majority of local authorities. Although the

  797
  Ofsted report clearly states that a number of local authorities are failing to meet the required standards, a significant number are doing so. If new clause 5 were added to the Bill, local authorities would have exactly the same powers but they would not have to ask the Secretary of State for them, provided that they do not show serious signs of weakness in their inspection process, whether it is carried out by Ofsted or the Audit Commission.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a couple of interesting new clauses, which are certainly worthy of due consideration. In relation to the point that he has just made about weaker authorities, new clause 5 does not contain a provision to allow Ofsted or the Secretary of State to identify and remove the right to innovate from an underperforming authority. Will he tell us how that might be done?
  Mr. Willis: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has applied his diagnostic brain to the new clause. Let me reassure him. Subsection (4) states:
  "The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a local education authority as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the authority."
  That includes advice given by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools and the Audit Commission. The new clause has been carefully drafted by expert draftsmen to ensure that the Secretary of State has that backstop.
  Chris Grayling: I interpreted that phraseology as relating to individual areas of regulation rather than to a wholesale power of the Secretary of State to remove from an LEA the right to innovate because it is underperforming. That is what I am trying to clarify.
  Mr. Willis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave before—[Interruption.] Hon. Members make a telling point, and I accept the compliment—if it was one.
  The Minister will tell us whether the new clause will achieve the objective that I desire.
  Mr. Fallon: The problem with the drafting, which the hon. Gentleman calls "expert", is that subsection (4) gives a power to the Secretary of State that is mandatory, not discretionary. Subsections (2) and (3) say that local authorities "may" do this or that, but in every circumstance the Secretary of State has to do it because it says "shall". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to reflect on that with his experts, unless he can explain it more fully.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of such matters as a former Minister in a former Government, now gone. I reassure him that I did not use the same draftsmen as the Government used to draft their manuscript amendment. However, I take his point. Subsection (4) tries to give the Secretary of State a backstop if she believes that there are reasons why a local authority should not be given powers to innovate. I am sure that hon. Members will regard that as a reasonable way to proceed rather than giving local authorities unlimited powers, irrespective of whether they are performing well.
  Mr. Fallon: The problem is that subsection (4) does not give the Secretary of State a power to be exercised
  798
  under certain circumstances when she feels like it. Instead, it makes it mandatory that she shall in every circumstance designate any of the requirements. There is no choice about whether to do that.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in wanting his points clarified. We want the Secretary of State to make proper provision to ensure that local authorities in special measures and those that are a cause for concern do not get the power to innovate. For that to happen, the Secretary of State has to have the powers and must use them. That is the purpose behind new clause 5.
  7.15 pm
  New clause 6 is important and I intend to divide the House on it. It goes to the heart of the Bill. The Government claim that they want to move away from appearing to have total central control of everything that schools do, but the Bill does just that. It takes unto the Secretary of State powers that did not exist before. A school cannot innovate or receive earned autonomy unless the Secretary of State agrees to it. That is the most preposterous level of centralisation ever.
  I concede that, in the past, schools perhaps had too much autonomy to do what they liked. That regime went with the introduction of the Education Reform Act 1988, Ofsted and the rigorous inspection of our schools. Mike Tomlinson's report contains evidence that schools have adjusted to those regimes. They now regard inspection and audit as an essential tool within the school improvement process. Schools see the new tenor of inspections, especially the light touch inspections, that Mike Tomlinson has introduced as part of the process rather than something to be dreaded at the end of four or six years.
  We have put in place a national curriculum and developed a clear sense of audit and inspection, and schools now operate within that climate. New clause 6 is simple: unless a school is in special measures or showing serious signs for concern, it should automatically be given the right to innovate. It should not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State and say, "This is what we'd like to do. Please can we have permission to do it?"
  Mr. Andrew Turner: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and it surprises me that he has been hostile to innovative projects introduced by previous Governments. Would new clause 6 allow a school that promotes the raising of educational standards to charge for admissions, to decide not to admit pupils with brown eyes or curly hair, or to extend the school day without the agreement of the teaching staff? It seems that the new clause could achieve that.
  Mr. Willis: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not going to spend the next day and a half engaged in a hostile debate. I am trying to be helpful. I thought that with his vast consultancy experience in such matters he would applaud the measure. He is far too intelligent not to accept that the Secretary of State has to lay down the parameters within which innovation and autonomy can be exercised. We do not have a problem with that. Indeed, we have co-operated well on that aspect of the Bill. Having set

  799
  down those parameters, however, schools should not have to go back to the Secretary of State every time they want to instigate an innovation within those broad parameters.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. Is it to be inferred that one of the benefits of new clause 6 is the absence of a bureaucratic process of informing the Secretary of State about an innovative project that a governing body of a school might undertake? If that is the case, how does the hon. Gentleman expect the Secretary of State to know whether or not it would appropriate to invoke new clause 6(4) and seek to restrict the ability of a governing body to undertake that kind of project?
  Mr. Willis: First, I have made it clear that, under the new clause, I hope the Secretary of State will lay down the condition that schools that show serious weakness, require special measures or are under-achieving in the eyes of Ofsted, are not entitled to apply for earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That is one safeguard. Secondly, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, local authorities were rightly given a duty to raise standards in their schools. The relationship that local authorities now have with their schools is largely positive; they engage in positive dialogue. That is another safeguard. It is also recognised that governing bodies have a duty because they carry most of the legal powers in a school. If they are to ensure that their ideas for innovation and powers of autonomy are realised, they have got to act reasonably.
  We cannot have it both ways. If we argue that schools should be given powers to innovate, if we want a diverse and exciting secondary education system and if we want a plethora of different arrangements in the 14 to 19-year-old sector, we must free schools to get on with the job. That is an exciting concept, and to realise it, we should not confine schools to having to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I do not want to detain him while he is developing his argument. However, new clause 6(4) gives rise to a problem that is similar to the one in new clause 5(4), as it does not seem to allow for the possibility for which the hon. Gentleman argued. He said that there are authorities or qualifying bodies generally, as well as school governing bodies, that may not meet Ofsted requirements. However, the purpose of subsection (4) is not explicitly to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain qualifying bodies from the power to undertake innovative projects. Its purpose is, by order, to designate certain requirements under education legislation which, by extension, would apply to all qualifying bodies. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to give the Secretary of State the freedom to choose certain schools that were counted as failing schools, why did he not write that into the new clause?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not want to put anything unnecessary into the Bill. Sadly, an awful lot of things that should have been included in it will be introduced in secondary legislation.
  New clause 6(4) is clear. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the fact that it is a catch-all for the Secretary of State, who can lay down regulations
  800
  under which all schools can innovate. I am arguing strongly that, if we want the innovation in schools that most hon. Members want, we must free schools to achieve it. The Secretary of State says that she wants to trust schools, and the chief inspector says in his new Ofsted report that we have better school management than ever before, so we cannot simply say, "Ah, but we just do not trust you enough." We must address that issue.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key to the new clause is the definition of innovation? As drafted, the new clause hands considerable powers to the Secretary of State to define innovation. Does he envisage that under his new clause admissions policy is an area in which a school can innovate?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman knows my views on admissions policy, which is key to having an education system that all youngsters can access as a level playing field. One of my great criticisms of current admissions policies—I am being dragged into another part of the Bill—is that there is a plethora of different arrangements, which tier admissions and result in children being creamed off. I do not favour that, but we should have a genuine debate with the Secretary of State about the parameters of innovation. As for individual schools, the new clause tries to ensure that a school does not have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State every time that it wants to innovate. We want to set down guidelines within which schools can automatically innovate, provided that, for example, they are not in special measures or another category.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, as drafted, the new clause would allow a school to innovate in admissions policy, and would certainly give a future Secretary of State enormous powers to transform admissions policies by the back door?
  Mr. Willis: I must confess that when I wrote the new clause, I envisaged that a Liberal Democrat would be in power. The hon. Gentleman knows that we would apply certain rigorous conditions if we were in government. There is a failing in the Bill regarding earned autonomy; eventually, we learned that only 10 per cent. of schools would get earned autonomy. Many schools that were announced today as having outstanding Ofsted reports would not be in that 10 per cent. We want to pin the Government down; we want them to say what innovation means and what its parameters will be. The Secretary of State must know that when she introduces regulations, there will be certain areas in which schools will not be allowed to innovate; I hope that admissions is one of them.
  Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) hit on a key flaw in the Bill? Under clause 2, the Secretary of State would have the power to permit selection by ability or aptitude; charging by schools in the maintained sector; and the suspension of special educational needs provision. The power would be limitless. The hon. Member for Bury, North hit on what is wrong in a Bill that gives the Secretary of State enormous power, without providing any constraints or giving the House the capability to control what he or she intends to do with it.
  Mr. Willis: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said; he put his finger on a great problem with

  801
  which all Opposition Members have had to wrestle during the passage of the Bill. In Committee, we had insufficient time to examine the meaning of much of the Bill's contents. On Report, we find ourselves with ludicrously little time to deal with crucial issues.
  While it is interesting to analyse a Liberal Democrat new clause, our aim is to try to ensure that the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State give a proper explanation of the Bill's intentions. Hon. Members should remember that we have not had much of the promised guidance that would provide an explanation of the Bill.
  Mr. Fallon rose—
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Mr. Willis: I shall make a little progress. I realise that the hon. Gentlemen are so enthralled with the debate that they want it to continue until 10 o'clock at least.
  An illuminating aspect of the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon on Mike Tomlinson's latest report for Ofsted was her response to questions about the increasing division, particularly at secondary level, between schools and children making excellent progress and those not doing so. The whole House shared a sense of frustration that children from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, from Bangladeshi and Pakistani backgrounds, travellers' children and children in care were not making the progress that we had hoped for. The 2001 GCSE results last summer showed that 30,000 young people were leaving school without a single GCSE between them. That is an indictment of our system. It is not a credit to any of us.
  7.30 pm
  In answer to questions this afternoon about raising standards at key stage 3, the Secretary of State's vision was that children should have more of the same and be tested more, and that somehow, although that had failed at key stage 2, it would suddenly be a success at key stage 3. I found it an incredibly sad response.
  Many of the children who are switched off by the age of 11, and many of the children, especially from ethnic minority homes, for whom the curriculum is a turn-off as well, attend schools in the lower quartile of the league tables. According to the Government's current policy, as reflected in the Bill, none of those schools will be allowed to innovate. They will all have to follow a tightly controlled prescription from the Secretary of State.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister shake their heads. I am happy for them to intervene to explain that that will not be the case. In reality, that is what is envisaged. The very schools that most need to innovate will be the ones that cannot. New clause 6 deals with that issue.
  Mr. Fallon: I understand that for the Government, freedom is control. The House must be willing to simplify their extraordinary proposal whereby schools will have to beg for their freedom. Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the weakness of new clause 6, especially subsection (3), is that under the guise of innovation, a
  802
  school could exempt itself from almost anything—not just admissions, as the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) pointed out, but from obligations on attendance, truancy, discipline, testing or almost anything else? The drafting of subsection (3) is too wide, in almost the same sense as the drafting of subsection (4) is too narrow.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has his point of view, which he has expressed clearly. In the circumstances that he described, two things would occur. First, the local authority, which has a duty in this regard, would have to intervene. Secondly, when Ofsted inspected, it would fail the school on all those factors and put it into special measures. The school's powers to innovate would thus be lost.
  I have great faith in schools. Of course, at times, like my two newly acquired dogs, they let me down. I should tell the Secretary of State that I have two lovely new dogs, but at times they are a huge disappointment to me. However, I do not want another "Diary" piece on the subject. Generally speaking, I believe that schools are desperate to do a good job.
  As a head teacher for almost 20 years before entering the House, there were times when I looked back and felt that I should have done things differently. Things should have been performed in a better way. We should have taken different decisions. That will inevitably be the case.
  If we want to attack some of the problems in our secondary schools and deal with the issues of under-achievement and of youngsters being turned off, we must free schools so that they can be innovative, and so that they do not have to go to the Secretary of State every time they want to do something different.
  Chris Grayling: May I say how much I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the free schools policy that we advocated at the last general election? As regards the positioning of the new clause within the Bill, would it not cause a legislative problem were the clause to be accepted by the House tonight? In a sense, although the clause might deliver to schools the freedom to innovate that all of us would welcome, it would come directly head to head with the provisions on earned autonomy.
  In one part of the Bill, we would be saying to schools that they had the freedom to innovate, subject to the Secretary of State's imposition of a number of restricted areas, but in another part of the Bill, we would be saying that a school had to apply for the right to innovate. In order to introduce the new clause into the Bill, would we not need to delete substantial chunks from the rest of the Bill?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a good point. We never got to the bottom of why the provisions on innovation and earned autonomy were not meshed within the Bill. In many cases, they seem to be one and the same. When we reached the provisions on earned autonomy, which we are not dealing with tonight, we were staggered for two reasons—first, because earned autonomy meant the ability to disapply the national curriculum, or it applied to pay and conditions. That was the extent of earned autonomy.
  Secondly, the Committee was staggered to learn that the extent of the Government's confidence in our secondary schools was that by the end of the Parliament,

  803
  10 per cent. of them would have achieved that. That would mean that some of the schools that had been granted specialist status or beacon status would not be considered good enough for earned autonomy. I am trying to deal with that controlling element through the new clause and the amendments. I am sure that when he has the opportunity, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will speak eloquently and fluently on these matters.
  Dr. John Pugh: Conservative Members seem to be struggling with the meaning of innovation and autonomy. If those are difficult concepts to follow, they are at any rate embodied in the Bill and probably would be involved in any Conservative free school proposals. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Conservative Members are in danger of missing the point of the new clause, which is essentially to decide who has autonomy and the capacity to innovate, and who legitimately should have it?
  Mr. Willis: The short answer to my hon. Friend is yes. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) disowned the Conservative policy on education at the last election, and one can understand why. It was a discredited policy and the Conservative party suffered a landslide defeat because it had no real policies on education that people understood. I understand that the hon. Member for Ashford has learned the error of his ways. The party is a reformed party and he is much more friendly and considerate. In that tone, I am trying to engage members of the Conservative party and meet them half way. I am delighted to be able to do so.
  I shall make a little progress—
  Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham)rose—
  Mr. Willis: I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman. It would be most discourteous of me not to do so.
  Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For those of us who are new to the debate on innovation and autonomy, I want to clarify the aim of new clauses 5 and 6. I understand that the aim is to give every school the power to innovate, which seems entirely reasonable. From the hon. Gentleman's comments, it seems that the range of areas in which a school can innovate will be set by the Secretary of State. Although the new clause would allow more schools to innovate, there is a risk that the Secretary of State would narrow the areas in which schools could be innovative.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I congratulate him on it. How much better that we know the parameters within which schools will be able to innovate than schools spending inordinate amounts of time making presentations to the Secretary of State, only to be told, "I'm very sorry, but that is not an area in which you can innovate." It is that sort of bureaucratic nonsense that I am trying to do away with. Whether or not the drafting of the new clause is as precise as it should be, if the Government were to accept it—I understand that they will accept the principle—they would redraft it in their
  804
  own image, although it is to be hoped that they would do so slightly better than in respect of the order of consideration.
  Mr. David Cameron: I still do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point about subsection (4) of new clause 6. Presumably, it would allow the Secretary of State to designate areas in which innovation is not possible. New clause 6 therefore has a push-me-pull-you element, as subsection (3) says that all schools can innovate, while subsection (4) says that the Secretary of State can decide where that is not possible. If he wants free schools, why is he prepared to give so much power to the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. I do not want free schools. Indeed, I do not want what the Conservative party proposed at the last election, which was simply a free-for-all. He knows what we said about admissions, which were one of the central planks of the Conservative proposals on free schools. I am not proposing free schools, as I accept that there should be parameters in which schools should work. My argument is simple; indeed, it is so reasonable that I cannot understand why the Government would not accept it. After the parameters have been drawn—it is up to the Government to decide them—all schools should be given the same powers, provided that they are not in special measures. Surely, that is an easy concept for the Government to understand.
  I have tabled a number of minor amendments that feature in this group. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 would protect schools so that the guidance from the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has to be taken into consideration. I think that that is eminently reasonable. Amendment No. 66 takes into consideration special education needs. Again, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have any problem with that. It is important that, whenever a school is innovating, it thinks very carefully about the effect on children with special education needs. There is a great fear that, in terms of innovation, we will drive out of our schools some of the youngsters who need their school most, so the amendment seeks to ensure some protection.
  Amendment No. 68 seeks in respect of the powers to innovate to ensure that schools have a duty to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. It would not be a prescribed curriculum of the sort that we have now, but it would have to be broad and balanced. Amendment No. 67 would establish negotiating structures for schools exempted from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. One of the features of the Government's plans in the Bill is a disapplication in respect of teachers' pay and conditions. Although that may be desirable in some cases, it is crucial that teachers have the power to negotiate, and that is what amendment No. 67 seeks to ensure.
  This has, I hope, been an interesting presentation. I appreciate the way in which hon. Members have engaged on the new clause and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), especially after enjoying so many interesting exchanges with him in Committee in the past few weeks. His exposition was very much in keeping with what we heard in Committee, where

  805
  we had useful discussions and found an enormous amount of common ground, sometimes in surprising quarters. The hon. Gentleman and I have not always found ourselves in agreement in the past few years, so such common ground is a measure of the depth of some of our concerns. We are anxious not about the Government's objectives in dealing with innovation and autonomy—we all agree that they are laudable—but about their whole approach, and that anxiety is reflected in the extent to which not only Liberal Democrat and Opposition Members, but sometimes Labour Members who are aware of the potential effects of the Bill, have found common cause.
  7.45 pm
  It is important to consider the provisions in the context of what happened in Committee. It is also important, not least in terms of our exchanges about the change to the order of consideration, that we consider the Minister's own words about the way in which he believes that education legislation should be developed. First, I cite the remarks that he made in the very first sitting of Standing Committee G on the morning of Tuesday 11 December last year:
  "I make no bones about my third introductory point: we want more education measures to be passed through secondary legislation than has traditionally been the case. Education measures have been out of step with other legislation, and thus have been unnecessarily inflexible and unduly prescriptive. The Committee will discuss the many instances in which greater flexibility would help to meet the different circumstances of communities throughout the country".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 13.]
  Thus, the Minister stated in very bald terms the preference of Ministers as to how the legislation should be taken forward, which is that as little detail as possible should be included in the Bill and that as much as possible should be left to ministerial discretion and dealt with through secondary legislation with a lower standard of scrutiny.
  Mr. Cameron: My hon. Friend talks about a lack of detail in the Bill. Will he try to tell us where in the Bill the concept of innovation is explained? It appears in the new clauses tabled both by Opposition Members and by the Liberal Democrats, but it does not seem to be defined properly in the Bill.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Even if I cannot refer him to a definition of innovation, I can at least cite a definition of what the Minister believes it to imply, because he gave a most helpful and instructive explanation in the Committee's second sitting on the afternoon of 11 December. When I pressed him on what innovation should be, he replied:
  "The term 'innovation' implies something new".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.]
  Thus far, all hon. Members would be with him, but many of us would believe that innovation is a continuing concept in which any entity, whether it is a corporate body, school or public body, would want to engage
  806
  continually in order constantly to improve its performance. That is the nub of what Opposition Members would like the term "innovation" to embody.
  Chris Grayling rose—
  Mr. Hoban rose—
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friends will have to wait a little longer to hear the rest of the Minister's definition. I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Grayling), who was on the Committee.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he recognise how disappointing it was in Committee to encounter so many different situations—they are epitomised in the issue of innovation and autonomy—in which Ministers said, "This is what we want to do, but you'll have to take our word for it." We were effectively told that the Secretary of State would provide a definition of innovation through regulations. That does not sound very innovative to me.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. It was a cause of anxiety throughout our proceedings in Committee that insufficient flesh was put on the Bill's bones.
  Mr. Hoban: Clause 6 is entitled "Exemptions available to qualifying schools". I took it refer to subjects such as the curriculum and pay and conditions, in relation to which innovations could be made. For the benefit of those of us who did not serve on the Committee, may I ask whether the Minister explained any of the draft regulations that the clause covers and suggested the parameters of the scope for innovation that schools could enjoy?
  Mr. Brady: The Minister gave a broad idea of the Government's thinking. However, I shall deal with that later, when we consider new clause 10. The Minister's words did not allay our reasonable fears about the use of the provisions. There are two intertwined concepts: innovation and earned autonomy. If my hon. Friend will be a little patient, I am currently trying to deal with the new clauses that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough tabled on exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who made a point about the definition of innovation, for my delay in reverting to it. Rather than defining innovation, the Minister defined what was not meant by it. Conservative Members would like innovation to be part of schools' culture and thus improve standards and quality in a key public service. However, the Minister said:
  "it would be a bit odd to talk about innovation carrying on for decades. By definition it would no longer be innovation, and should be dealt with in the ordinary legislative way. These powers are appropriate for trying out new things."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 54.]
  What a bizarre approach to education policy! The Minister suggests that the only new ideas are those that are knocking about in Ministers' heads or locked in a filing cabinet that is not available to other hon. Members.
  Mr. Lansley: I am doing a little catching up on the terms that are being used. Is my hon. Friend suggesting

  807
  that the Government want a period of innovation but not the diversity that would exist in a normal system with freedom to innovate? They want a period of innovation, no diversity, and the ability to reimpose uniformity.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend may have hit on the truth. I am delighted that he is catching up with the terms, because he has made an important contribution. Ministers do not regard innovation as continual, but as happening for a defined period. The Bill defines a period for which innovation would be deemed appropriate, but allows for the possibility of extending it for a further finite period. However, Ministers reject the suggestion of continuing innovation. That is especially important when we consider the scope of the powers to innovate.
  As we have already established, the powers to innovate are not specific; they are powers to make exemptions from the requirements of education legislation.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that reducing bureaucracy in schools would be a genuine innovation? Will he enlighten hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee about whether a discussion took place on the sort of bureaucratic procedures that a school would have to undergo to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to innovate?
  Mr. Brady: Such a discussion did, indeed, take place. It is worrying that although schools are drowning in a sea of red tape and regulation, the Bill provides for even more. Commercial entities face specific circumstances when they tender for a lucrative project. They can place a major burden on such an organisation. Ministers are trying to replicate those circumstances for schools that apply to innovate. They do not know the circumstances under which Ministers may be prepared to deem that innovation can take place.
  The Bill includes a definition of the breadth of the exemptions from education legislation. That lies at the heart of new clauses 5 and 6, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I almost called him my hon. Friend, but that proves that we have been in too close proximity for the past few weeks. We shall shortly return to a more natural state.
  The exemptions from education legislation that are relevant to innovation include the ability to make an exemption from any provision of the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1967, the Education Act 1973, the Education Act 1980, the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983, the Further Education Act 1985, the Education Act 1986, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the Education Reform Act 1988, the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, and the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The list goes on.
  It may not apply to other hon. Members, but in my five years in Parliament, I have never come across a Government Bill that allows not only exemption from any provision of any existing measure but from the Bill that we are considering. That is the most remarkable attempt
  808
  by a Government to seize all discretion and power. The Minister confirmed that in terms in Committee on 11 December. He referred to my contribution and said:
  "His other point, which was new"—
  innovative, perhaps—
  "was what he described as the self-referential issue in the Bill. I refer him to clause 2(1)(a), which states that the applicant would have conferred exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation including, of course, those elements of education legislation that are in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 49.]
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend's point is spelled out in the explanatory notes, which state:
  "The clauses allow the Secretary of State … to suspend legislative requirements and, if necessary, modify legislation or confer new powers."
  I suppose that it is some comfort that those powers are limited to primary and secondary education legislation.
  Mr. Brady: We must beware. Earlier in our proceedings, we had an example of the Government tabling amendments without giving notice to the House. We must be careful that other Departments do not take such practice as a model. The exemptions that are relevant to innovation mean that the measure is not simply an Education Bill, but the last Education Bill. It marks the last occasion that any Government have to come to the House to obtain powers.
  Given exemptions in other clauses that we shall examine later, the powers will be sufficient to allow Ministers to do whatever they want. I say that without qualification. The new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives try to constrain the powers a little. In Committee, I suggested that although we had heard a great deal about Henry VIII powers, the Bill was a Charles I measure. It tries to dispense altogether with the need to consult Parliament.
  I have given some details of the powers to make exemptions from education legislation. I also took the trouble to obtain a note from the Library on the length of time it had taken the House of Commons to consider all the education measures that clause 2, a small provision, can suspend.
  8 pm
  In 1962, the Second Reading, Standing Committee, Report stage and Third Reading of the Education Act took the House of Commons 47 hours to consider. The House took only five hours to consider the relatively minor matters in the Education Act 1967, but spent a rather more serious 129.25 hours considering the Education Act 1980. I wonder whether any current Labour Members were here at that time—I am not sure whether any of those present have clocked up that length of service—but no doubt they were doing their jobs, as they were permitted to do in those days, by scrutinising the legislation properly.
  I shall not go through all the figures, but 206 hours were spent on debating the Education Reform Act 1988. All the education legislation which under clause 2 could be suspended by ministerial fiat took the House of Commons alone 786 hours to consider. In Committee, we were able to give the current Bill 44.25 hours, and we had just six hours on Second Reading.
  Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was equally shameful to use the knife in our debates in

  809
  Committee on some of the key parts of the Bill—notably the early stages relating to innovation and earned autonomy, which are the crux of the Bill? At the end of our proceedings, we were awash with time to debate issues in relation to which there was no debate, while in the early stages we had nothing like enough time to devote to the issues in the Bill that really matter.
  Mr. Brady: I take issue with the latter part of my hon. Friend's point, because even in the later stages of the Committee when we were debating less controversial matters, although we were moving as quickly as humanly possible—I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will bear me out—we were barely able to deal with all the amendments that had been grouped together for those later sittings. The effect was even more damaging when the so-called knife was applied in the earlier sittings. It is a matter of record that huge swathes of the Bill could not be debated in Committee.
  Mr. George Osborne: I want to make an historical point. My hon. Friend said that we spent more than 40 hours discussing the Bill in Committee. I believe that the House spent more than 40 days in Committee debating Balfour's Education Act. Such things have changed under this Government.
  Mr. Brady: That is a perfect illustration of why I am so pleased to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in the neighbouring constituency to my own, and of how much things have improved in that regard since last June.
  The effect of the knives in Committee was that we did not conclude our deliberations on clause 11 and we had no debate whatever on clauses 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17. We were allowed a brief discussion on governing bodies under clause 18, but there was no discussion on clauses 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23, which covers federations of schools, all of which are key provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brady: I cannot resist.
  Mr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is perhaps that the Government see the House and its Committees as a legislation machine rather than a scrutiny machine? They regard the most efficient kind of legislation machine as one that pumps through the maximum number of clauses—and, doubtless, regulations—in the minimum amount of time. Those of us who see the role of the House as that of a scrutinising machine view it in terms of how it protects the subject against an over-mighty Executive, ensures that those who work in the public sector are protected—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must learn the distinction between an intervention and a mini-speech. He must be much more succinct in an intervention.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a telling point—a telling point that could have been made at any stage during the last five years. In one sense,
  810
  however, the Bill goes a stage further, in the sense that it will create a position in which the House of Commons will move on from being a legislative machine to being totally redundant and having no future role in education legislation. I shall not continue with the long list of clauses that we did not discuss in Committee.
  Mr. Eric Forth: While my hon. Friend is making this point about time, may I ask whether he is aware that 15 or 16 further groups of amendments to this part of the Bill are still on the Order Paper to be considered? What confidence does he have that the House can possibly do justice to that amount of material—some of which is very substantive and controversial—in only one further sitting?
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will not be tempted to pursue that line. We should come back to the terms of the new clause that we are debating.
  Mr. Brady: I am most grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, some more experienced Members of the House may on occasion take advantage of the relative inexperience of others. I am grateful to you for protecting me from my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that I shall continue to give him the best protection that I can.
  Mr. Brady: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have also given me the opportunity to move on a little in my consideration of this group of new clauses and amendments.
  Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brady: Well, I am trying to move on, but I will take a brief intervention.
  Mr. Lansley: My intervention relates to a point that my hon. Friend was making about the extent of the powers that the Government propose to take in clause 2. They are immensely wide-ranging powers to disapply or modify existing education legislation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating new clause 5, and I hope that we can come back to that subject.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Lansley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brady: I certainly will, so long as my hon. Friend will take note of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lansley: Absolutely, and, in this respect, I am following the point that my hon. Friend was making: that new clause 5 seeks to extend to local authorities—as new clause 6 extends to qualifying schools—some of the powers in relation to innovation and earned autonomy that

  811
  would be available without the Secretary of State's scrutiny. The point that I was trying to make is that the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State is seeking to take are on the application of a qualifying body. Is my hon. Friend aware of any intention on the part of the Government to solicit applications from qualifying bodies to secure modifications of legislation of a kind that the Government are seeking?
  Mr. Brady: I am not aware of any intention to solicit such applications, but Ministers might wish to make their position clear in that regard when replying to the debate on this group of amendments.
  Chris Grayling: Under new clauses 5 and 6, the qualifying body would not have to make an application. It would be able to take the decision in its own right, and the Secretary of State would then have to stop it.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. This is where the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—in new clauses 5 and 6—and our own new clause 10, to which I shall return shortly, seek to shift the balance of this legislation in an important way. A thread runs through the Bill—whether in regard to clauses on exemptions for innovation or on earned autonomy—which suggests that it is up to Ministers to decide when it is appropriate or possible to take such action. The new clauses would make the legislation more permissive by freeing up the whole process and, without suggestions being solicited, schools or other qualifying bodies could make precisely those moves, which is a positive step.
  Mr. Cameron: Will my hon. Friend clear up a worrying point that I put to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough? The hon. Gentleman is lending his support to new clauses 5 and 6, but in both, subsection (3) would give autonomy to governing bodies and LEAs while subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take it away in many circumstances. For the benefit of Conservative Members, will my hon. Friend describe the areas in which the Secretary of State would want to curtail the freedom of schools and governing bodies in such a way?
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an intelligent point—the Liberal Democrat new clauses would have that effect, but I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I do not necessarily support the new clauses, I have enormous sympathy with their thrust. My hon. Friend might sympathise with the hon. Gentleman and be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt had he been with us as we sat through the debates in Committee, during which we were ground down by the Government's relentless attempts to regulate and control so that we might occasionally fall into the trap of believing that that ought to be allowed.
  Before I move on to new clause 10 and the earned autonomy provisions, I must focus briefly on the extent of the exemptions available for innovation. For the convenience of hon. Members, I shall consider amendment No. 79. The origin of the thinking behind it lies in a debate in Committee about the extent to which Ministers are taking unqualified, untrammelled powers to suspend legislation without exemption.
  812
  The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) may be interested to know that we probed the extent of that freedom by raising with the Minister the hypothetical question whether it would be possible to disapply certain aspects of the Education Act 1996 by removing sections 449 to 462, which prevent maintained schools from charging for places. The Minister was good enough to give confirmation:
  "Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman's worry could be valid. but"—
  he was very clear about this; I make no bones about it—
  "I assure him that we would not allow an innovation that would introduce charging or end the right to free education."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 December 2001; c. 90.]
  How many hours of debate in the House took place and how much energy, belief and passion were expended in this place to ensure that children in this country have a right to free education? I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister seeks to remove that right, but Members on both sides of the House should be greatly disturbed that the best he could do in response to my question was, "We have no intention of doing it."
  8.15 pm
  No matter what Members of the House believe about the principle of free, universal education, they will no longer able to rely on it being provided by statute if the Bill becomes law. It will be provided at the whim and discretion of Ministers, which is a matter of grave concern.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point about those pillars of the Bill and I would be interested to hear the views of Liberal Democrat and Labour Back-Bench members of the Committee, but none are present. Does he agree that the specific situation that he has identified effectively shows that the Bill would give this Labour Government and the Secretary of State the power to do certain things—those which would give the hon. Member for Bury, North nightmares—although one might accept that they do not intend to do them?
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can only imagine that Labour and Liberal Democrat Back-Bench members of the Committee expected to debate the red herring amendments on faith schools and were surprised by the change to the programme motion. They must have been lulled into a false sense of security, or perhaps they expected to debate these more central matters another time. They have been confused by what the Government Whips chose to do without giving notice to Members on either side of the House.
  Moving on from the point that we established in Committee—the exemption from any provision of education legislation might run as far as allowing maintained schools to introduce fees or charges—we come to amendment No. 79, which raises another concern. I freely admit that we could have tabled a raft of similar amendments, as Ministers seek the power to suspend any provision of education legislation, but amendment No. 79 simply picks on a particularly important aspect of those powers.
  I say again that I accept that Ministers may have no immediate desire to allow charging, but unless we accept amendment No. 79 it will be possible for a maintained school to make such an application to a Minister.

  813
  Furthermore, in the spirit of good will, which we have tried to re-establish, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) described this Minister as a reasonable and honourable man, although his judgment is occasionally lacking in matters of procedure.
  I see that we shall now gain the enormous benefit of the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We look forward to being enlightened, and hearing his views on the powers the Government are taking to obtain exemptions from legislation that potentially allows maintained schools in his constituencies to charge for places.
  More relevant to amendment No. 79 is the possibility that the Government may accept an application from a qualifying body for that body to be exempted from section 317 of the Education Act 1996. That section deals with the duties imposed on a governing body or local education authority in relation to pupils with special educational needs. As Members on both sides of the House accept, such pupils need special protection and education that meets whatever their needs may be. They may have autistic spectrum disorders, or physical disabilities. In any event, the 1996 Act currently provides a guarantee—a degree of certainty—that the special needs of a pupil in a maintained school will, as far as is reasonable, be met by the governing body and the local education authority.
  I hope that Ministers will give a warm welcome to the amendment, which would give them an opportunity to guarantee the protection of children with special educational needs—not just in the generality of schools or in the specialist colleges whose expansion the Government are announcing, but in schools granted exemptions for purposes of innovation.
  It is not beyond the realms of credibility that a school might make a bid for exemption from some requirements relating to special educational needs. It might avoid considerable costs by doing so. It is not far-fetched to imagine that at some point a school, while not saying that it did not want to make any SEN provision, might say that an aspect of such provision placed too heavy a burden on it. At present, Ministers are insisting on retaining the power to disapply that obligation. Amendment No. 79 would have the important effect of presenting such disapplications.
  I hope Ministers will not just accept the specific terms of the amendment, and the fact that its aim is right, proper and important, but understand from the two examples given by the Opposition—the first, in Committee, relating to the introduction of charges and the second, on Report, relating to protection for those with special educational needs—that there is real concern about the limitless scope of the powers that they seek.
  New clause 10 is particularly important. The theme was established by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled new clauses 5 and 6. New clause 5 seeks to allow a local education authority to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission—although, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, subsection (4) would give the Secretary of State some power to control that freedom. New clause 6 would allow a school to innovate without the Secretary of State's permission, with a similar caveat in subsection (4). I know that the Secretary of State is keen to have powers to control the
  814
  process, but she is clearly confident that the new clauses will find favour on both sides of the House, as she has not felt it necessary to stay in order to witness that support.
  New clause 10 takes the whole issue by the scruff of the neck. It attempts to change the balance. Opposition Members strongly support the move to give schools more autonomy. We believe that they are generally better able than Ministers to run their affairs, raise educational standards and give children the best possible education. In almost all circumstances, schools, heads, teachers and governing bodies should be left to get on with their work with the maximum freedom that is reasonable.
  Chris Grayling: The importance of the new clause was highlighted in today's Ofsted report, which says:
  "Problems in the recruitment and retention of suitably qualified teachers have increased; the situation is considerably worse in London than elsewhere.
  Teacher shortages are leading to the increased use of temporary supply teachers and the use of permanent teachers to teach subjects in which they are not adequately qualified".
  Does my hon. Friend recognise that the freedoms that the new clause would give heads and governing bodies may go some small way to providing the flexibility that would enable them to overcome the recruitment problems which are causing the difficulties highlighted by the chief inspector in the report?
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful for the point that he makes.
  To give Ministers credit, they have recognised that there is a severe problem of retention and recruitment in the teaching profession. They know that problems and difficulties are being caused for many schools, not just in the south-east, but in much of the country. They have responded by introducing provisions for earned autonomy—autonomy related to school performance, as they phrase it—but as is typical of their policies as a whole and as is endemic in the Bill they miss the point. They say, "Autonomy is a good thing, schools should be free to make more decisions for themselves—but only when we say so." They bring the whole thing back to the Secretary of State's office. Ministers decide when autonomy is a good thing and when it is not. That is not autonomy; it is central control. That is where the Government increasingly fall down, even when they have some inkling of the right direction in which they should be travelling.
  The documents that the Minister gave to Committee members and has now given to other hon. Members to provide some detail of how the Government envisage allowing autonomy in certain circumstances raise more concerns than they settle. Many people have cast doubt on the validity of using free school meals to decide whether a school is performing well or not compared with other schools in its band. The use of the free school meals measure has been widely discredited. Normally Ministers would accept that, but they are so baffled as to how to measure plausibly which schools should be allowed autonomy and which not, that they have fallen back on the free school meals criteria.
  Mr. Hoban: May I give my hon. Friend an example of the problem with using free school meals as an indicator of performance? I was talking to the head master of a

  815
  local secondary school, who pointed out that the take-up rate for free school meals in his school was 6 per cent., but in feeder primary schools it was 9 per cent. Families do not suddenly become richer when their children move from primary to secondary school. The use of a crude school measure such as free school meals seems lamentable.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right. I will be interested to hear what the Minister's justification is for the use of the free school meals criteria, because Ministers do not normally give credence to that measure of social need in regard to school performance.
  The extent to which Ministers have sought to put flesh on the bones of the provision does not merely fail to answer questions, but raises many more issues that need to be settled. The Government have taken an odd approach whereby they claim to believe in autonomy for schools, but then attempt to row back from it and explain how they might interpret when autonomy is appropriate and when it is not. It is an extremely odd provision. New clause 10 would turn the Bill away from the plethora of ill-thought-out draft regulations that Ministers have in mind.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Cameron: To be fair, my hon. Friend should put some flesh on the bones of new clause 10, which seeks to give all maintained schools freedom over pay and conditions but then states in subsection (2) that there may be circumstances in which a school will not be eligible for automatic exemption. Surely my hon. Friend should explain the circumstances in which his proposed regulations would apply.
  Mr. Brady: Absolutely. I plead guilty and I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend identify an apparent irregularity in the expert drafting of new clause 10. I should point out that I was charitable when he sought to make similar points about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I plead the same defence as I allowed the hon. Gentleman to use.
  The Bill gives Ministers total control, discretion and freedom. They can do precisely as they wish. So whatever we attempt in new lauses—even if we allow Ministers reserve powers and trust them in a way in which they do not trust schools—in some circumstances it may be necessary to constrain autonomy or the freedom to innovate.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in his comments. Our respective new clauses reiterate the same principle. We want the Government to set out in regulations, or in new legislation, the conditions in which schools would not get either earned autonomy or the power to innovate. That would be much healthier, as it would cut out a whole raft of bureaucracy involving schools having to apply and then being knocked back. We have all suffered from the whole business of bidding, which is something we want to avoid.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Transparency and clarity are crucial to schools that may want to take advantage of the earned autonomy provisions. If we do not have that transparency and
  816
  clarity, schools will end up wasting more time—which they can ill afford to do—and more of their resources will be taken up with bids and projects which ultimately do not come to fruition, but which they have no earthly way of knowing will not find favour with Ministers.
  New clause 10 would improve the Bill as it provides for regulations setting out the circumstances in which automatic exemption would not be appropriate. However there is a more important reason for accepting new clause 10: it would change the burden of proof. At present Ministers assume that schools are guilty until proved innocent. Ministers believe that schools are not capable of managing their own affairs and that it is not reasonable for them to have autonomy except in specific circumstances that Ministers have approved.
  New clause 10—I accept that new clauses 5 and 6 take somewhat the same direction—seeks to shift the burden of proof and establish a different premise. If accepted, it would make it clear that we trust schools, head teachers, teachers—whether professional staff or the volunteers who do such important work in making schools function—and governors to do their job. The less Ministers interfere in what such people are doing, and the more freedom and discretion they are given, the better the job that they are likely to do.
  Mr. George Osborne: I very much welcome the new clause that my hon. Friend is introducing. In Committee, did the Minister give some idea of take-up by estimating the number of schools or local education authorities that will apply under the unamended clauses? Without such an estimate we should surely err on the side of giving many schools freedom, which is what the new clause would provide.
  Mr. Brady: As far as I am aware, the Minister did not estimate the number of schools that are likely to gain exemptions relating to innovation.
  Mr. Timms indicated assent.
  Mr. Brady: The Minister says that I am correct, but he did estimate the number of schools that might initially qualify for earned autonomy. He suggested that an initial figure of 10 per cent. would be expected gradually to increase, although—perhaps reasonably—he was not prepared to predict a timetable for how soon a given percentage would qualify.
  Of course, that figure depends greatly on the criteria set out by Ministers in the draft regulations. It is impossible to predict exactly how many would qualify against such an arbitrary yardstick as the free school meal test, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, can differ from school to school, from area to area, and perhaps from year to year. In principle, under this measure Ministers might grant a school so-called earned autonomy in one year because it was in the top 25 per cent. of the free school meal band, but if the number of free school meals subsequently fell because a new factory or business opened nearby and brought new jobs to the area, the band would change and the school—without any change in its performance or the individuals educated there—might no longer qualify. I doubt whether Ministers intend to withdraw earned autonomy in such circumstances, but these rather odd provisions leave open that possibility.

  817
  New clause 10 deals with a matter of principle—the extent to which we in this House are prepared to trust and respect schools, and give them dignity, by accepting that they are better at doing their own job than Ministers are. It would shift the emphasis away from the assumption of Ministers that—at the moment, at least—90 per cent. of schools are not capable of qualifying for earned autonomy, to the assumption that schools are capable of so qualifying, unless there is a reason why they should not.
  I am not going to estimate the number of schools that might be expected to qualify for earned autonomy if the new clause were accepted, but if Ministers do not accept it they should reflect on the balance that they are seeking to enshrine in the Bill. Accepting new clause 10 would send the positive message to schools that we want them to have the freedom to flourish. Without new clause 10, the Bill will send the negative message that Ministers do not trust schools to perform, other than in the circumstances that Ministers prescribe.
  I therefore commend new clause 10 to the House.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I confess that some of the distinctions and definitions in the Bill with which hon. Members have been wrestling are new to me, but I think that I have comprehended them sufficiently to be able to make a small contribution to the debate. I know that other Conservative Members want to participate as well, so I shall not tarry too long.
  The new clauses under debate make it clear that there is a commendable desire among Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members to provide that requirements in relation to the curriculum and pay and conditions are lifted from schools, except where specific circumstances mean that those requirements should be reimposed. I understood the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to say that, with new clause 6, he was thinking in particular about the reimposition of those requirements on schools considered, broadly speaking, to be failing. I suspect that the same is broadly true with the proposals in new clause 10, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), in relation to the earned autonomy provisions.
  Mr. Cameron: I was wondering also whether subsection (2) of new clause 10 would be used to exempt failing schools from the freedom suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal could be used to exempt schools of a certain size? Many smaller schools, especially smaller primary schools, might not want to have extra freedom. Could not new clause 10 be used in that way?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have wrestled in my area of Cambridgeshire with the extent to which schools seek the devolution of budgets. Secondary schools in Cambridgeshire—in the main, they should properly be described as village colleges—are happy to have delegation of budgets, and will take it on. However, many primary schools have not
  818
  been as confident about taking on that responsibility. They either want the process to happen in stages, or they want to take on delegated budgets in concert with other schools, in partnership arrangements or under the umbrella of one of the schools to which they feed their pupils.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous to set such hard and fast rules as perhaps were implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)? Some very small schools were extremely successful as grant-maintained schools. They include the famous school in Cheshire that had more governors than pupils when it became grant maintained.
  Mr. Lansley: I will always defer to my hon. Friend in his knowledge of the successes and experiences of schools that used the autonomy available under the grant-maintained scheme. I shall not dwell on that matter, save to say that it is possible, under new clause 10, to have a permissive arrangement by which schools that do not benefit from automatic exemption can opt themselves out of the process, so to speak. However, I suspect that we will soon find that, as schools use autonomy and demonstrate the benefits that accrue from that in terms of raising standards for pupils, other schools in the area will think of going in the same direction. Happily, that is what was increasingly becoming the case with grant-maintained schools.
  It seems to me that Conservative Members want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of a power to innovate for schools, except for those schools whose governance, demonstrated accountability and performance are clearly inadequate when it comes to using that autonomy constructively, and which must therefore be excluded. In other words, do we want to ensure that there is a presumption in favour of autonomy for schools, except for a category of schools that have not demonstrated that there would be reasonable confidence in their communities that they would use that autonomy well? If so, would these new clauses deliver that effectively?
  8.45 pm
  We have not dwelt much on new clause 5. I have the greatest respect for my local government colleagues. Indeed, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association I declare an interest, and I want, wherever possible, to support the views of local government. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will repeat what he said on 11 December: where there is to be a substantial use of the powers, it will be done through and in consultation with local education authorities. That point is important for the LGA and its members would be happy for the Minister to reiterate it.
  That should not mean that new clause 5 is implemented, however. There is a risk that, by freeing LEAs from the constraint that the Secretary of State must remove any requirement placed on them, LEAs would be able to establish schools and to overturn existing planned infrastructures; for example, if they did not welcome measures taken by a school to take over LEA responsibilities or to implement its own schemes for admission and so forth. That would be undesirable.
  The autonomy that we want will be exercised by schools on behalf of their pupils. That is the boundary that we want to set. If LEAs are offered the possibility to

  819
  exercise that exemption from education legislation on their own behalf, it would be a much wider extension of their powers than we want. The Secretary of State might then have to reimpose limitations on LEAs, as their ability to act autonomously would be far too wide.
  Such powers are incompatible with the nature of a local education authority as distinct from a school. An LEA is, in essence, a creature of statute. With the exception of certain recently introduced general duties to the population of the area, people in LEAs—like those throughout local government—know that they are operating within statutory confines. They know where their powers lie; they know what lies within those powers and what is outside them.
  In that sense, a school is not a creature of statute. It is a community that may have been established outside statute, but has been brought into the maintained sector because of the funding stream. If we gave an LEA the autonomy proposed in the new clause, it might act in such a way that it became difficult to hold it accountable because it had disapplied its statutory limitations. A school, however, is inherently accountable to its own community.
  Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend's point gives me an opportunity to deal with an aspect of new clauses 5 and 6 that I failed to address during my earlier remarks. If we consider the new clauses as a suite—one relating to LEAs and one to schools—it might be reasonable to assume that the power to innovate under new clause 5 related to the LEA own activities rather than to those of schools. However, has my hon. Friend considered that, taken separately, new clause 5 might allow LEAs to take and implement powers with regard to schools in the area without the permission, consent or agreement of those schools?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is following the same line of thought as me. New clause 5 would enable an LEA to disapply legislation affecting it. In effect, the LEA could take upon itself the power to restructure its funding relationship with all the schools in its area and to change the planning framework. As my hon. Friend made clear, the LEA could restructure its responsibilities for special educational needs and the statementing of pupils. Given the nature of the powers in clause 2 that new clause 5 would vary, the LEA would also have the power to restructure its services and activities in relation to schools and pupils outside its area. In effect, we would create competing authorities.
  Competition may be a good thing, but we have not contemplated competition between local education authorities that are free to disapply education legislation and enter into a free-for-all in an urban area. I am not sure that it would be wise to contemplate that on the basis of new clause 5, which seems to contain none of the subsequent safeguards that should be imposed, whereas I feel much less perturbed by new clause 6. Under new clause 6, such freedom would be given to the governing bodies of maintained schools. That would fit the philosophy of many schools, as they were established as self-governing communities, so new clause 6 seems perfectly reasonable.
  The issue therefore with new clause 6 is not whether it is right in principle, but whether it is effective, or defective, in practice. That is rather different, and it is
  820
  where I part company with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Under subsection (4) of new clause 6, with the stroke of the Secretary of State's pen, all the control that the Secretary of State wished to exercise over the power to innovate could be reintroduced, but that could be done in a more damaging way because of its drafting. To prevent schools from using the powers that they would be given under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would probably have to designate many of the requirements imposed under education legislation as a whole.
  Under new clause 6, the Secretary of State would not be allowed to designate those requirements imposed under education legislation in relation to a specific subset of schools. It would be sensible, for example, to think of a new form of qualifying school, as is implied in subsequent clauses that we shall be discussing, and apply that to new clause 6.
  Mr. Willis: I follow the drift of what the hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that new clause 10 has the same defects? Unless the Bill stated the ways in which schools would be allowed innovate, we would fall into the same trap. I am trying not to inhibit schools from innovating in the ways that they want to innovate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is also trying not to do that. We do not know how schools will innovate; if we did, we could prescribe much more easily.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was speaking of two defects in new clause 6, the first of which, as he implies, could be also attributed to new clause 10. Again, under subsection (2) of new clause 10, the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce all the restrictions that might otherwise apply. The second defect in new clause 6 is that the order re-imposing requirements would not discriminate between classes of schools, but there is no such defect in new clause 10. That is important because it links directly to the principle of earned autonomy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West so ably explained, earned autonomy is presumed; it is not the exception.
  On the defect by which the Secretary of State could reintroduce all those restrictions with the stroke of a pen, new clause 10 is safer because it is specific about the areas in which earned autonomy would be presumed to be extended to schools. New clause 10 makes it clear that earned autonomy would relate to specific parts of the curriculum and to pay and conditions. By extension, it would be difficult for the Secretary of State, by order, simply to disapply new clause 10. It would be easy for schools then to say, "Why not let us have that freedom and that possibility?"
  After the Bill is passed, Ministers will come to use their order-making powers. I hope that they will behave like Ofsted, which is trying to ensure that not only do outstanding schools deliver exceptional results for their pupils, but that the great many schools that are comfortable to be in the middle of the performing range—and do not see the necessity of increasing their performance so that it becomes among the very best—realise that they have the freedoms and autonomy to deliver.
  Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Ministers and Government Whips

  821
  have spent the last 10 minutes in a huddle, instead of listening to his excellent speech. Is that because, as I suspect, this part of the Bill is receiving more scrutiny than they had hoped?
  Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, I have not been a Member that long, but I have been here long enough to realise that to expect Ministers to listen to what Opposition Members are saying is a stretch too far. However, I am glad to see that I have regained the attention of the Minister for School Standards.
  If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will forgive me a tiny digression, I must point out that, as a former civil servant, I recall that, from time to time, what Members say in the House is read, if not by Ministers, by their officials. That can produce some benefit in the subsequent implementation of legislation, often through the use of Ministers' pens, even if their minds are not necessarily wholly engaged. We shall see what happens in this case.
  I must sit down in a minute, because I have said nearly all the things that I wanted to say—and a few more. However, I want to endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about amendment No. 79 by comparison with the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, particularly amendment No. 66 and the amendments that are consequential on it. It seems that the Liberal Democrats are trying to reinsert some protection through amendment No. 66, whereas, in fact, the protection already exists in legislation.
  Parliament expressed a specific intention in 1996 in relation to special educational needs. When Parliament has been clear in the past about a particular obligation that it wishes to be fulfilled under all circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend made clear, to endorse such an approach today and not give Ministers the freedom to disapply Parliament's intentions at their whim in the future.
  As I explained, I cannot support new clause 5. New clause 6 is defective, and, although some of the criticisms might be applied to new clause 10, they are not sufficiently valid. I therefore have every confidence in supporting new clause 10.
  Chris Grayling: This group of new clauses and amendments apply to what I regard as the most important part of the Bill. If the Bill is passed—whether or not as amended by the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady)—it will have a profound effect on our education system. At least in theory, it will take us back in the direction of the aspirations of the last Conservative Government for grant-maintained schools, and in the direction of those that the Conservative party has subsequently espoused for free schools.
  As we have heard tonight, a question remains about the degree to which the Bill—far from delivering the aspirations in it—will take us towards greater centralisation by putting more powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. To that end, I applaud this group of new clauses, even though I find some of the detail of the new clauses extremely difficult to endorse, as they contain particular flaws.
  822
  9 pm
  New clause 5 extends the power to innovate to a local education authority. It gives it the right to implement an innovative project that it believes will help to raise educational standards achieved by children or adults in its area. A fine-sounding ambition—except that it does not address how the relationship between the LEA and the school would work and how a decision on an innovative project taken by the LEA would work when set against the school's decision to innovate.
  Let me clarify that by giving a topical example. If an LEA decides to restructure a school's academic year and move to a system of five and six terms instead of three, what right would schools have to say, "No thanks. This is not something that we want to pursue"? I know that people in education and LEAs are interested in that, but equally schools desire stability. They want an end to the seemingly relentless process of change and to allow the initiatives that are in place to bed down.
  What would happen in those circumstances? Would the LEA have the power to impose the new school year on schools in its area or could those schools turn around and say that it is not right for them? I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough if he wants to clarify that.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to respond. He makes a valid point. The omission from new clauses 5, 6 and, with respect, new clause 10 is that they do not address the relationship that schools have with their local authority, so it would be necessary to clarify joint arrangements. However, it is not our intention—the hon. Gentleman might have to take my word for this—to make local authorities go back to the old days when they controlled schools. I am sure we all accept that those days have gone. New clause 5 would ensure that innovative projects could be used to raise standards. Inevitably, that would mean working with schools, not ordering them to do things. I would expect the regulations by the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman was invited to intervene, but it still has to be an intervention, not a speech.
  Chris Grayling: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that clarification. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for responding to my comments.
  My second concern about new clause 5 relates to subsection (3). It would allow an authority
  "to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the authority."
  It is not clear whether that would simply apply to legislation as it relates to the LEA itself or whether the LEA would have the right to intervene to prevent a school from deciding to innovate and exempt itself from a piece of legislation. That point of clarification would be required were the new clause to become law.
  My third concern relates to new clauses 5 and 6, which would create areas of conflict between the Secretary of State and a school. In subsection (4) of both new clauses, the hon. Gentleman sets out that
  "The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation … as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification"

  823
  by either the LEA or the governing body of a school. None the less, unless the Secretary of State sets out detailed processes of exemption, there may be regular conflicts between schools that are seeking to innovate and a Secretary of State who, for example, seeks to protect the national curriculum.
  Suppose that a school decided to innovate in modern languages and move away from simply offering French and German, the most common languages offered by secondary schools. It would lose those languages from the curriculum and adopt other languages that would give it a distinctive position in its catchment area. It could offer Japanese and Spanish as prime languages in the curriculum rather than the conventional languages. In such a situation, the Secretary of State might conceivably say that she did not want that, then seek to intervene to prevent that innovation.
  There would therefore be a conflict between the school and the Secretary of State about what precisely the school could do. I am concerned that new clause 5(4) and new clause 6(4) are too vague about the areas in which the Secretary of the State has the power to intervene and say that something is not acceptable. If we are going to give schools the freedom to innovate, which, undoubtedly Conservative Members would like—I suspect the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough increasingly wants it too—we need to define carefully in legislation which areas are covered; otherwise, schools do not have guidance to decide when they can, and cannot, innovate.
  Mr. Lansley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would make it possible for a school governing body to disapply all its data collection, information and accountability functions? In effect, the Secretary of State would not have to be told about that; she would simply discover that the school governing body had taken that action when the figures stopped coming in or when Ofsted was turned away at the school gates.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that a school would only discover whether it was allowed to do something when it tried it; the Secretary of State might then have to intervene to say no, which would give rise to conflict.
  Conflict could also arise with faith schools, which could use the powers enshrined in new clause 6. It is particularly appropriate to consider faith schools, given the participation of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in tabling later new clauses. One could easily envisage a faith school wanting to innovate in a way deemed inappropriate by the Secretary of State. It might wish to restructure the curriculum, change admissions policy, change religious education in the school, and so on. It is conceivable that a school may seek to innovate, then discover that it was in conflict with the Secretary of State who, again, would have to intervene after the event to say, "No, you may not do that."
  Mr. Hoban: Is not one problem that, by applying to the Secretary of State for the power to innovate on a case by case basis, a great deal of uncertainty is introduced into the system? For example, the current Secretary of State is very much in favour of faith schools. If, however, she was replaced by the right hon. Member for Holborn
  824
  and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he might veto proposals on faith schools, although the right hon. Lady would accept them.
  Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes a good point which speaks for itself. New clauses 5 and 6 are admirable in their aspirations, but their detail would create too many complexities and problems for the House to accept them in their current form, given that we have a duty to try to produce the most effective and best-quality legislation which works in practice.
  I have a particular concern about the way that the two new clauses and the part of the Bill that they seek to enhance would work in relation to admissions procedures. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is offering schools greater freedom to choose their own admissions procedure. The Government claim that to some degree schools have that. I recently experienced in my constituency the limitations of the freedom that schools currently enjoy.
  Blenheim high school in my constituency, an enormously popular school, has this year been forced to turn away 180 pupils seeking places at that school, despite the fact that only a few months ago the school sought to change its admissions policy to enable a number of those who have been turned away to attend the school. That change to the admissions policy was overturned by the schools adjudicator, following a complaint by the London borough of Sutton, which is controlled by the party of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—a decision that I very much regret, because of the difficulty that it is creating for young people in my constituency.
  We know that school admissions are a difficult matter. A school might choose to amend its admissions policy not necessarily for any reason related to selection by academic ability, but simply because it wants to reflect a local geographic issue. If the Secretary of State retains the power to intervene and tell the school that it cannot do so, that creates a potential conflict between schools and the Secretary of State.
  On new clause 10, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for the aspirations that the clause reflects. One of my great disappointments in the Bill and in the Government's handling of education has been the lack of tangible action to address the great disparities in the rewards offered to the education profession in different parts of the country.
  Those disparities were clearly shown in the answer to a written question that I tabled this week. I asked the Department what the ratio was between the salary of a newly qualified teacher three years in the job and average house prices in London, Surrey, Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. The disparities are enormous. Essentially, a teacher who has been in a job for three years on average earnings for that profession can afford to buy the average house in the north-east and in Yorkshire. In London and the south-east the ratio of an average teacher's salary to the average house price is 1:8.
  The practical reality is that costs in the south-east of England are making it massively more difficult for our schools to attract teachers. I mentioned the Ofsted report. It is worth dwelling on the comments made about the

  825
  issues dealt with by new clause 10. The report highlights the problems of schools in London, the south-east and other areas where housing costs are high. It states:
  "In all types of school, the situation in London is considerably worse than elsewhere in the country. Vacancy levels in London primary schools in January were 3.3 per cent."
  Those are fundamentally difficult problems for schools in London and the south-east. We need tangible action to solve those problems. One way of doing that is to give schools greater flexibility to set different pay and conditions to meet individual recruitment needs. I know about specific cases in which schools needed to bend the rules to bring in teachers, after they had advertised time and again for vacancies to be filled and not received applications.
  Mr. Lansley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the work that was done in examining changes to the area cost adjustment in the revenue support grant system, which looked at specific costs, as they are called? Although there are national pay scales, the use of flexibility within those pay scales is already evident in response to local labour market pressures. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to what is required under the Bill, there should be allocations of funding to local authorities and to schools to reflect those different costs? For example, it cannot be right for a school in Hertfordshire to receive £277 per pupil more than a school in Cambridgeshire.
  9.15 pm
  Chris Grayling: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that, if the Government accept new clause 10, it will give schools the flexibility to adjust their pay and conditions to meet local recruitment needs. If that happens, the Minister should then go to the Treasury and make the strongest possible representations about support for our education system that reflects the very disparate needs of teachers in different parts of the country. I hope that the Government will help our head teachers to fill the gaps that they currently have great difficulty in filling, remove the need for them to recruit from abroad to such a degree and provide real solutions to a problem that is becoming serious and which the inspectorate said would have an adverse impact on exam results in future years. If we start down that road by implementing a provision such as new clause 10, we will begin to address the issue and to provide our schools with the flexibility in the system that is necessary for tackling the problem.
  Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 deal with the importance of special educational needs. In Committee, the Opposition tabled a significant number of amendments merely to clarify the role of schools, governing bodies and LEAs in relation to special educational needs. It was disappointing that the Government systematically rejected them. Amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131 restate the importance of special educational needs and give the Government the opportunity to change their mind and accept that they could enhance the Bill in relation to SENs and send out to the country a clearer signal about their importance. The amendments would clarify for governing bodies this area of responsibility and the decisions that they cannot take.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonable to go further and say
  826
  that if the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 130, 131 and 79, they will effectively be demonstrating that they do not give proper attention to special needs and are unwilling to safeguard special needs education in the way in which members of the Committee and the Opposition would wish them to do?
  Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She makes the case for the amendments very clearly. There is no reason for the Government to say no to them. If they accept them, they will send out a powerful signal about the importance of SEN provision in our schools and demonstrate that we care about and are committed to the educational interests of children of all abilities, including those with particular needs as well as those with particular abilities. If they reject them, they will be sending out a wholly negative signal on this important matter.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Government will accept new clause 10 and amendments Nos. 79, 130 and 131, as they are significant contributions to tackling the financial problems of our country that would also send a clear signal about the importance of special educational needs. I hope that they will accept that the amendments would be an important part of the Bill and should go forth as such from the House.
  Mr. Cameron: I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6 and 10. I have to tell the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that I have misgivings about new clauses 5 and 6, for reasons that I shall explain. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I see a lot of merit in new clause 10.
  New clauses 5 and 6 would basically extend the power to promote innovative projects to two groups other than those envisaged in the Bill—LEAs and governing bodies. New clauses 5 and 6 suffer from the problem of push me, pull you, which I mentioned earlier. They give extra freedom with one hand and take it away with the other.
  The Bill is a "Whitehall knows best" measure. The first lines of the first chapter demonstrate that by stating:
  "The purpose of this Chapter is to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may … in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England".
  I stress,
  "in the opinion of the Secretary of State".
  No one matters except the right hon. Lady. With great respect to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I am not sure whether new clauses 5 and 6 help.
  We all support allowing schools to be innovative to improve education. However, it is remarkable that the ability to do that will be at the whim of the Secretary of State. I want to make some detailed points about new clauses 5 and 6.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that someone else would be better qualified than the Secretary of State to make decisions, or more accountable? Is he one of the people who believes that we should keep politics out of politics?
  Mr. Cameron: My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire beat me to it when he said earlier that

  827
  schools should have more power to make the decisions. In the Bill, it appears that only the Secretary of State's opinion counts. We should give schools the freedom to decide. New clauses 5, 6 and 10 would partly achieve that, but I am worried that new clauses 5 and 6 confer a power and then take it away.
  New clauses 5 and 6 and the Bill deal with innovation, but it is difficult to find a definition in the measure or the explanatory notes. What exactly does the Secretary of State hope that the schools will achieve? Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that, in Committee, the Minister had described innovation as simply something new.
  New clauses 5 and 6 appear to envisage a narrow definition of innovation and innovative projects. New clause 6 describes them as contributing
  "to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school."
  It should go further. Some projects may benefit future pupils more than current pupils. Is "educational standards" too narrow? Perhaps some schools want to develop projects with other parts of the community. The definition should therefore be wider.
  The real problem with new clauses 5 and 6 is the push-me-pull-you element. In new clause 5(3), the local education authority and in new clause 6(3), the governing body
  "may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project"
  from education legislation, as the Secretary of State can do under the Bill. That is a laudable objective; schools should have the power to do that. However, in both new clauses, subsections (4) give the power to the Secretary of State
  "to designate any requirement imposed by education legislation … as not subject to exemption".
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough gives with one hand and allows the Secretary of State to take away with the other.
  Mr. Willis: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with increasing frustration. Is he saying that the Conservative party would allow schools to do exactly what they wanted, including ordering all students to appear nude or beating them with sticks?
  Mr. Cameron: Of course not, but when I intervened on the hon. Gentleman and asked him to be more specific about the powers that he would give to the Secretary of State, answer came there none.
  New clause 10 is a much better provision. As my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire and for Altrincham and Sale, West suggested, it contains a presumption in favour of the freedom to give all maintained schools—except a very small number of them—power over pay and conditions. In Oxfordshire, there is a serious problem with recruiting and retaining good teachers—a problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) also referred—and the average price of a house in west
  828
  Oxfordshire last year was £180,000. I am not sure what formula my hon. Friend might apply to that in his work-out, but such issues create huge problems.
  Mr. George Osborne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the purchase of a house by the previous Member for Witney raised the average house price in west Oxfordshire?
  Mr. Cameron: My hon. Friend is tempting me to say something that I am sure the occupant of the Chair would not allow. That purchase probably fell in a different year, but that may well have been the case.
  Mr. Dobson: Not many teachers could have bought it.
  Mr. Cameron: That is true. You could fit a lot of teachers in it, though, if you wanted to. Probably more than enough, in fact.
  There is a problem for teachers who need to be able to afford housing in Oxfordshire. New clause 10 would help them, and that is why I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West when the matter is put to a vote tonight.
  Mr. George Osborne: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 10, which has been so ably introduced by my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). I often think that the west of Sale does not get the recognition that it deserves when he is referred to.
  There is a welcome recognition in the new clauses and amendments of an important principle, which is that more freedom, more autonomy, and more innovation in our education system is a good thing. The fact that that principle is embodied, albeit inadequately, in an Education Bill introduced by a Labour Government shows just how far the education debate has moved on from the days of Tony Crosland, when Labour Governments wanted to make all schools exactly the same. It also illustrates the progress that Conservative Governments made in establishing the principle that excellence lies in diversity in our education system.
  I welcome the principle of freedom and innovation behind the new clauses, and I welcome the fact that that has been accepted by those on the Labour Front Bench; I suspect that such principles do not seep deeply into the Labour Back Benches, but we shall see. My hon. Friends the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and the hon. Member for Harrogate—
  Mr. Dobson: And Knaresborough.
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) reminds me. I am sorry that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman only in interventions today. Many of us were looking forward to a more lengthy contribution from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down then!"] Labour Members do not want these clauses to get the scrutiny that they deserve. We saw the shenanigans of the Labour Whips earlier today, and it is a good thing that these important parts of the Bill have indeed had the scrutiny that they deserve.

  829
  The Government are saying to schools, "We will decide when you can have freedom from central Government, and when you can't." Well, that is no freedom at all. I know that it is new Labour's idea of freedom, but it is not real freedom if the power lies with the Secretary of State. It is, however, completely consistent with the trend that all education legislation introduced by this Government has taken. Everyone involved in education knows exactly what that means; it means more bureaucracy for schools, more form filling and more red tape. Wilmslow high school in my constituency went through a lengthy process of applying for specialist arts status, only to have it refused. That school knows what it is like to go through that process. We can all imagine that a similar range of red tape and form filling will be required for schools applying for innovative status.
  9.30 pm
  Real freedom involves a presumption in favour of autonomy. Real freedom is embodied in new clause 10. Real freedom is the freedom to innovate, set teachers' pay and conditions, decide the structure of the school day and year and opt out of certain prescriptive elements of the curriculum. There are important exceptions, which are embodied in subsection (2) of the new clause and the amendments exempting special educational needs children, but freedom should be the rule, not the exception. That is why I support our new clause.
  Mr. Timms: We have had an extensive debate on the changes. Let me pick up some detailed points. I stress that the proposals on the power to innovate, which new clauses 5 and 6 address, are intended to support innovation generated by those who deliver the education service on the front line. We want LEAs and schools to make proposals, drawing on their expertise, that contribute to higher educational standards. That will be the acid test in deciding whether to accept their proposals. We are confident that that power will contribute to supporting schools and LEAs in making far-reaching changes, but we must bear a number of important principles in mind.
  First, under the Bill as drafted, an order would have to be made on all decisions to waive primary legislation, which would mean that everybody knew what the law was, and the absence of such a provision is a significant flaw in the new clauses. Secondly, the proposals contain no mechanism to check the actions of any LEA or governing body, no matter what its record. I was interested in the characteristically courteous rebuke offered by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in reminding him of that problem. Thirdly, no parliamentary process is envisaged. Governing bodies and LEAs would have the power to determine the law in their area across a wide range of provisions with no parliamentary process being observed. Our view is that there should be parliamentary accountability. The new clauses would set that aside.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I cannot, given the constraints. Let me make progress, if I may.
  830
  On earned autonomy, given the nature of the freedoms, we must ensure that they go to schools in the best possible position to use them in the interests of their pupils. Autonomy must be earned; it will not be unconditional. I think that that is right and that, on reflection, the House will think it right too.
  Of course, as standards continue to rise over time and as leadership improves, more schools are likely to be in a position to use those additional freedoms. We shall review the criteria in the light of experience with the aim of increasing the number of schools involved, but, in the initial stages, we shall evaluate and learn from the experiences of our best schools. That will help us to consider what further flexibilities and what deregulation will benefit the school system as a whole.
  That is the right approach, as it complements the innovation proposals in chapters 1 and 2. It is important for the House to recognise the distinction between the power to innovate in chapter 1 and the proposals on earned autonomy in chapter 2, which have been confused.
  Adam Price: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I cannot, given the number of points to which I must respond. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  Entirely understandable concern was expressed about special educational needs, so I am grateful to the Members who raised the matter for the chance to reaffirm our commitment to ensure that all schools, including those with earned autonomy, continue to meet in full their obligations to children with special educational needs. Nothing in earned autonomy will in any way change the responsibilities of schools or LEAs with respect to those children. If a child has an LEA statement including particular curricular requirements, for example, those must still be met by the school, whatever curriculum changes it may decide to introduce. I hope that that provides some reassurance on this important matter.
  As for the power to innovate and special educational needs, I can give similar reassurances, particularly in response to amendment No. 79. As we have been reminded a couple of times, the purpose of the power set out in clause 1 is to facilitate innovative projects that may contribute to the raising of standards. In the case of proposals that would not raise standards or that would benefit one group at the expense of another, the power could not be used. There is no reason why innovative proposals from schools or LEAs are any less likely to relate to children with special educational needs, and I am sure we all want such pupils to benefit from them. It is important to repeat, however, that proposals will be accepted only if the Secretary of State believes that they are likely to contribute to higher educational standards.
  The 1996 Act makes it clear that the school curriculum should be balanced and broadly based, a requirement that is retained in the Bill. The power to make variations relates to the national curriculum, which is only one element of the basic school curriculum.
  I hope that, in the short time that I have been given to respond to a very full debate, I have been able to reassure Members. We think it important to provide new avenues for innovation. I hope that, on the basis of my assurances, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will feel able to withdraw the motion.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for speeding up his response; I will do likewise.
  I accept that new clause 5 does not make clear how it would apply to schools, and I will not press it to a vote. New clause 6, however, establishes a principle on which we clearly disagree with the Government. They want to control the level of autonomy, and to ensure that all schools must apply to the Secretary of State. We believe that they should set parameters whereby all schools can automatically have autonomy.
  Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: No.
  One of the flaws in new clause 10 and, indeed, in the Conservatives' arguments is the fact that they want freedom for all schools, but accept that there must be some limits to that freedom. I accept that too, and I think the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right to say that the Secretary of State should make the decisions.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

  POWER OF SCHOOL TO INNOVATE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE (No. 2)
  '(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in sections 1 to 4 of this Act.

  (2) A maintained school governing body may resolve to implement an innovative project which in the opinion of the governing body contributes to the raising of educational standards achieved by registered pupils at the school.

  (3) Subject to subsection (4), the governing body may resolve to exempt, relax or modify any innovative project from any requirement imposed by education legislation on the governing body.

  (4) The Secretary of State shall by order designate any requirement imposed by education legislation on a school governing body as not subject to exemption, relaxation or modification by the governing body.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 315.

  Division No. 156]

  [9.38 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Amess, David

  Burnett, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burnside, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Bacon, Richard

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Barker, Gregory

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baron, John

  Cameron, David

  Barrett, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  Brake, Tom

  Chidgey, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Chope, Christopher

  Breed, Colin

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  832

  Collins, Tim

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Conway, Derek

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cotter, Brian

  Mercer, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Norman, Archie

  Dodds, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Doughty, Sue

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Flook, Adrian

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Rendel, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Greenway, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spink, Bob

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Streeter, Gary

  Hoban, Mark

  Stunell, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Swayne, Desmond

  Horam, John

  Syms, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Thurso John

  Keetch, Paul

  Tredinnick, David

  Kennedy Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Tyler, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Webb, Steve

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Laws, David

  Wiggin, Bill

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Lidington, David

  Willis, Phil

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bob Russell and Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Baird, Vera

  Banks, Tony

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Barron, Kevin

  833

  Battle, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Edwards, Huw

  Benn, Hilary

  Efford, Clive

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Best, Harold

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Borrow, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bryant, Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burnham, Andy

  Goggins, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Challen, Colin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Havard, Dai

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Petertorough)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heyes, David

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, Iain

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  David, Wayne

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kelly, Ruth

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  834

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Price, Adam

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lammy, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lucas, Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  MacDonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacDougall, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

  McKechin, Ann

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Southworth, Helen

  McNulty, Tony

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  MacShane, Denis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mallaber, Judy

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mann, John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Meale, Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Merron, Gillian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Miliband, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Todd, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Touhig, Don

  Moffatt, Laura

  Truswell, Paul

  Mole, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Moran, Margaret

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Morgan, Julie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Norris, Dan

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Watts, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  White, Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Organ, Diana

  Owen, Albert

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Pearson, Ian

  Wilson, Brian

  Perham, Linda

  Winnick, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Wood, Mike

  Pollard, Kerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pond, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  835

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Angela Smith and Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received notice of an intention on the part of any Minister of the Crown to come before the House with a supplementary business statement? As a result of the private notice question, this afternoon's long statement and the incompetent way in which the manuscript amendment was presented to the House, the debate on this very important Bill started a great deal later than even the Government intended. Have you received information that the Government intend to extend debate on the important matters that remain on the Order Paper to another day?
  Mr. Speaker: I came to the Chair only 15 minutes ago. No one has approached me since then.
  We now come to new clause 10, to be moved formally.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Not moved, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The new clause is not being moved. No one tells me anything.
  Further consideration adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [31st January] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

  Street Crime
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now asmourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  9.56 pm
  Jane Griffiths: In the academic circles that deal with crime, it is understood that there is something of a paradox about fear of crime. That is put most succinctly by Professor Jason Ditton from the university of Sheffield. He states:
  "Most surveys discover that people apparently fear most being a victim of precisely those crimes they are least likely to be the victim of."
  He goes on to say:
  "Little old ladies apparently worry excessively about being mugged, but they are the least likely to be mugging victims."
  It is generally thought that young men worry the least about being mugged, although they have the highest risk of being a victim of it.
  Reading, East is a young constituency. According to the 1991 census, 65.9 per cent. of its population is of working age, which makes it 20th in that league among all the constituencies in the country. With only 14.7 per cent. of the population of pensionable age, it ranks 596th in the league table for population of pensionable age.
  The fact that Reading, East is young is emphasised by the fact that 26 per cent. of my constituents—more than a quarter—belong to the 16 to 29 age group. That proportion is the 23rd largest of all constituencies in the country. That is not surprising, given that the House of Commons Library says that Reading, East is home to more than 7,000 of the almost 10,000 full-time students at Reading university.
  I am a young MP—I still like to think—representing a young constituency. A large amount of my work is with young people in Reading and Woodley. Just over a year ago, I held a forum and invited thousands of young residents from Reading and Woodley to an evening at a local late-night bar. They even got the first drink free. One of the issues raised with me was crime, particularly crime against young men. However, crime was something everyone was concerned about, with young men being the particular victims.
  I have continued to talk to people who came along that night, and to those people who apologised for not being able to come but who had an interest and wanted to talk to me about crime. I have also spoken to other young people who have contacted me subsequently. Crime comes up regularly as an issue of concern during meetings such as I have described. Frequently, crime is something that young people in Reading, East are angry about.
  Young people are angry about curtailments on their freedom caused by crime and the fear of crime. People are worried about crime happening in places where I, as a woman, would be happy to walk on my own. Yet places where I feel safe walking on my own are places where young people in Reading often do not like to walk. If they do walk in such areas—and more of them walk than drive—they do not feel safe.
  One person who has been the victim of mugging a number of times suffered another mugging on Boxing day. It happened at 9.30 in the evening. He was on a main

  837
  thoroughfare that is well lit. Even on Boxing day evening, there was a lot of traffic and many people were around. That time, he lost his mobile phone and £4.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  Jane Griffiths: Fortunately, some people living nearby took the young man in, talked to him and helped him to feel confident enough to go out again. Young men who have suffered in that way have had their freedom seriously curtailed. The young man that I described is aged 20 and is more than 6 ft tall.
  We hear much about mobile phones and crime. In fact, I was contacted about the debate by a spokesperson for the Mobile Industry Crime Action Forum. I noted what was said, but I believe that more can be done by the manufacturers and by the firms selling air time to make mobile phones less attractive to steal and to find ways to prevent their use by people who have not bought them.
  We have also heard much about the decline in sales of mobile phones. One thing that has not been talked about is the impact of crime and the fear of crime on sales. Young women to whom I talk still consider their mobile phones as a fashion accessory. The look and functions are important: having the right phone matters to them. However, the young men to whom I talk do not seek out the newest mobile phones; they make do with a cheap, old-fashioned model. It is less expensive to replace if it is stolen and less desirable to steal. I see them walking along, holding cheap, clunky, old-fashioned phones, as if to say to everyone: "This is the only phone I've got, so it's not worth robbing me". So, not doing more to tackle the problem is actually resulting in depressed sales for the manufacturers.
  I have heard time and time again about young people's experience of crime, especially young men's experience of mugging and street crime. The young people of Reading, East have presented me with a large amount of anecdotal evidence and I wanted to find out if any information or figures had been published about the phenomenon.
  I found that most of the research and statistics concerned young men as the perpetrators of crime. Little research has been carried out on young men as the victims of crime. That is not especially surprising due to the way that young men are seen by the criminal justice system. Young men, especially groups of young men hanging around without much to do, are the stereotypical cause of fear of crime.
  In the Reading with Wokingham police area that covers my constituency, 664 young people between the ages of 10 and 17 offended in the 15 months between October 1999 and December 2000. That is 2.3 per cent. of the population of that age range. A quarter of those offences were committed by young women; less than 1.75 per cent. of young men between 10 and 17 had offended during that period. Of the 664 young people who offended, 16 per cent., or 106, had committed offences against the person. To put that into context, the Reading with Wokingham area covers about 300,000 people.
  838
  The youth justice plan for the area states that most of those offences were committed against other young people. Young people who commit crimes do so mostly against other young people.
  Obviously the 575 crimes in Reading, East committed by young men are 575 too many, and I support strongly the work of the local youth offending team in reducing such crime. However, I believe strongly that all young men should not be stigmatised because of those who commit crime. Because some young men commit some crimes, it is most important that we should not lose sight of the fact that some young men are the victims of crime, too.
  As I said, I was looking for figures and research to get a true picture of crime against young men. In 1979, a study was carried out in two Sheffield schools, but work on young men as the victims of crime only really started in the 1990s, when work in Edinburgh over nine months revealed that half the sample had been victims of assault, threatening behaviour or theft. Follow-up work in Glasgow found that 82 per cent. of a sample of 208 12 to 14-year-olds recalled having been victimised in the previous year.
  In 1992, the British crime survey, using a sample of 1,350, found that a third of 12 to 15-year-olds claimed that they had been assaulted at least once, and I want to highlight that fact. That was the first time that that survey had asked about young people being the victims of crime, but I do not recall that gaining much serious news coverage at the time. If an elderly person is attacked, it is front-page news in the local papers, if not the national papers. We can only imagine the outcry if a third of old ladies had suffered from such crime.
  The 1998 British crime survey showed that young men aged between 16 and 25 were at the greatest risk of violence. That statistic was repeated in the reports carried out in 2000, and in the early figures released from the 2001 crime survey, although that records a welcome 19 per cent. fall in the number of violent crimes between 1999 and 2000. In particular, I was pleased to read that of the four categories that comprise violent crime—wounding, common assault, robbery and snatch theft—the largest fall, at 34 per cent., was recorded in wounding, which is described as assault resulting in more than trivial injury.
  As I said earlier, many young men who have spoken to me have not reported the crime they have suffered, so the figures for reported crime do not reflect the reality; nor do they reflect the extent of the problem facing young men. It is widely accepted that the crime survey, based on a statistically significant survey, is a more reliable guide to true levels of crime. According to that survey, there were 406,000 muggings in the United Kingdom in 1999.
  As well as asking about the number of crimes, the survey asks people to rate the incident on a scale from nought to 20. The average score for violence was 6.3, while the average seriousness score for mugging was 7.5—the highest for all violence. The figure for mugging has stayed the same each year. The important part of the survey that relates to violence covers the risk of violence to a person. On average, 4.2 per cent. of adults in England and Wales were the victims of one or more violent crimes. The figure is slightly higher for men at 5.3 per cent., than for women, at 3.3 per cent. However, more than

  839
  20 per cent. of men aged 16 to 24 were victims of violence once or more in 1999. A fifth of men aged 16 to 24 were the victims of violence in a year.
  I represent the entire centre of Reading and have talked in a previous debate about the growth in nightlife. On the whole, that change is welcome, given the extra jobs that it has created, and there is now much greater choice when going out. Indeed, going out at night in my constituency is safer than it was five or 10 years ago because of the number of people around, but many people say that the increase in nightlife has resulted in increased violence. Everyone involved in the night-time economy, as well as the police, had a part to play in tackling the increase in violence in the town centre that occurred in the two years from April 1992. However, saying that Reading is sloshing in blood just increases the fear of crime and helps no one.
  I join my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) in the campaign for more police officers on the streets at night. I am pleased that the chief constable of the Thames Valley police has found the money to civilianise 27 posts in Reading this year as part of a pilot scheme. I also congratulate the police authority on taking the decision to increase the authority's budget by £5 million to extend the civilianisation. I look forward to those officers being on the streets of Reading and Woodley.
  I referred earlier to someone who had been mugged a number of times and suffered again on Boxing day. That crime, like the others he has suffered, was not reported to the police. That is not an unusual response by young men to that kind of crime. As a result, the police do not know where such crime happens; nor do they find out whether patterns occur at certain places. In fact, they have no record of most of the muggings against my constituents.
  The British crime survey shows us that most muggings take place on the street, that 70 per cent. of them involve more than one person, and that in 93 per cent. of cases at least one of the offenders is male. In 40 per cent. of the violent incidents, victims judged that the offender was under the influence of alcohol, but that is least likely for mugging, where the figure is 17 per cent. As the survey says, that is probably a result of the premeditated nature of the offence.
  We therefore know that mugging is most likely to involve a group of males in the street, but that knowledge does not get us much further forward. We also know that mugging has been very unlikely to take place in the centre of Reading since the welcome introduction of closed circuit television. However, I have talked to young men in my constituency, and it seems that mugging happens most frequently to young people on radial routes into and out of the centre of Reading and Woodley in the evening and at night.
  I would like crime reduction officers from the police to visit young men where they are—in the schools, colleges, offices and the university. I would like those young men to talk about their experiences in Reading of street crime and to talk about the places where it happens and what happens. The aim of that is to try to get young men to understand the importance of reporting street crime and to try to get them to think that people are interested in hearing about what they have experienced. I do not want some young men to get into street crime themselves because they believe that no one takes it seriously. I do
  840
  not want the victims of street crime to become its perpetrators. I would like information to be collected as intelligence.
  I started this debate as a result of the approaches that I had received from young men in Reading, East, and I hope that that remark will not be misconstrued. When they had told me about the levels of crime that they were facing, I was astonished. I must admit that I found it hard to believe that young men in Reading and Woodley could be facing so much violence. I want there to be Government action to tackle this problem for our young men. I want action to be taken to show them that someone cares about what happens to them. Most of all, I want action to show young men in my constituency that, if they get involved, talk to the authorities and engage in dialogue, they can change things. Politics does work.
  10.11 pm
  The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on obtaining this debate and on raising such important issues. Her description of Reading, East very much reminded me of my constituency of Manchester, Withington: it contains many students and young people and there is much activity on the streets at night because of the range of facilities that are available. As a Minister and local Member of Parliament, I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns and I welcome the way in which she described the problem to us. I know that the whole House is united in wanting to prevent crime, in wanting offenders to be brought to justice and in wanting to ensure support for victims.
  In responding to my hon. Friend's points, I particularly want to focus on what we are doing for victims. But I first want to outline the measures that we are taking to reduce violent crime and to increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend provided a range of statistics that reinforce the need to tackle these issues.
  Increasing confidence is particularly important because, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, far too many crimes go unreported. The 2000 British crime survey revealed that only a quarter of young male victims reported crimes to the police. Those young men accept being a victim as a way of life—as something about which they can do nothing, or in some cases about which they are afraid to do anything. If they are not prepared to report crimes against themselves, it is not surprising that they are unwilling to come forward to make a statement or give evidence when others are victimised. That makes our fight against youth crime all the more difficult. However, it remains one of our key priorities to tackle the problem.
  Let me outline some of the many measures that we have implemented across government. First, we have focused on the family, with initiatives such as sure start to improve the life chances of pre-school children.
  Secondly, we have focused on factors that can lead to crime, and we are spending £600 million to tackle school truancy and exclusion.
  Thirdly, we are tackling deprivation, with the £900 million that we are investing in England's most deprived neighbourhoods where we know that crime and delinquency are particular problems.

  841
  Fourthly—my hon. Friend mentioned this—we are transforming the youth justice system, with the establishment of the Youth Justice Board and a network of local youth offending teams to co-ordinate efforts against youth crime as never before. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those teams on the work that they are doing in local areas. They are making a difference and are pulling agencies together as we try to find solutions to the problem.
  Fifthly, we are introducing other measures and programmes such as the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which will focus on the hard core of young offenders and help to tackle youth offending more effectively.
  We have also provided substantial investment to address the problem of robbery, most of which, as my hon. Friend rightly explained, is committed by young men against other young men. We have provided the five metropolitan forces with an additional £20 million to develop and assess initiatives. We want them to establish and share good practice with other forces such as the one that covers my hon. Friend's constituency. We have set them the challenging target of reducing street robbery by 14 per cent. by March 2005.
  The recent surge in the theft of mobile phones will make that target even more challenging, but that is not just a problem for the police; it concerns us all. We are working with the mobile phone industry to find ways to make phones more secure. We have considered measures that United Kingdom phone operators can take to make stolen phones unusable and therefore worthless. Parents and teachers also need to provide better advice to young people about how they can avoid becoming the victims of such crimes.
  When a crime takes place, it is right that there should be a robust sentencing policy. The guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice last week related specifically to robbery rather than theft. Robbery is an offence that involves the use of force and, frequently, violence, threats and intimidation. It is a serious offence that deserves a serious punishment.
  It is essential, however, that more cases get to court so that magistrates and judges can give appropriate sentences to offenders who appear before them. For that to happen, we obviously depend on victims and witnesses being prepared to trust in the criminal justice process so that they participate in the actions of the court. The sad fact is that most victimised young men have no such trust. Whether consciously or not, they weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of reporting the crime, and nearly three quarters think that it is not worth the bother. If they know the offender, and many do, they fear retaliation. If they have offended previously themselves, and some have, they fear the police will not believe them. They might think they will not receive support as the case progresses, and could be daunted by the prospect of giving evidence in court.
  842
  Since we took office, we have implemented a programme of measures which in time should begin to allay those fears. We have more than doubled the grant to the voluntary organisation, Victim Support. The £25 million it now receives annually ensures that it offers a wide range and better quality of service in every part of England and Wales.
  The previous Government established a victim and witness support service in the crown courts. From this April, we will have extended that to every magistrates court. Support will be available from the very beginning of the process, and cases will be less likely to fail or collapse.
  The police now routinely inform victims when a suspect has been charged, and the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing a system to ensure that it communicates its decisions about cases to victims. With the witness support service, it ensures that the victim receives all the required pre-court support—consistent, of course, with the need to, safeguard a fair hearing or trial. Through the victims personal statement scheme, implemented last October, we have ensured that victims are able to make a written statement outlining the effect of the crime on their lives, which includes an opportunity for them to let the criminal justice agencies know if they fear further victimisation so that effective preventive measures can be put in place.
  The package of measures that I have highlighted tonight demonstrate, I hope, the priority that we are giving to tackling crime and supporting victims. It is essential that they feel empowered and not marginalised by the criminal justice process. That is a long-term strategy that depends on every agency working closely together and, in turn, every agency fulfilling its responsibilities to victims. We need to convince the public generally and young male victims in particular that justice can be secured if they take positive and constructive action.
  We have made a start, but I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and support the need for more police on the streets; the use of CCTV cameras; and her views about the way in which crime reduction officers could be used more effectively in schools and colleges to address young men's fears and problems with the system. My hon. Friend brought those issues home to us effectively tonight. She clearly recognises that work has been done, but we all accept that much more needs to be done if we are to tackle the problem of street crime; people not reporting crime; people not wishing not participate in the criminal justice system; and, in this case, the sad but impressive statistic of the number of young people, particularly men, suffering from the problem of street crime. I welcome the debate, and shall look carefully at my hon. Friend's contribution to see what more can be done to ensure that the problems in Reading, East and throughout the country are addressed more effectively.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Manufacturing Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Wilson.]
9.30 am
Paul Flynn: Three weeks ago, 235 people in my constituency were made redundant, although on 18 December last year they had been informed that the company's orders had increased and that it looked good for going into profit this year. The blow was savage and brutal, and people who worked on the night shift were told when they came off it that they would not be paid. One such worker expressed his views to me in a letter:
"The hammer blow was I would not be receiving the money owed to me by the company …That includes 3 months contractual notice, 3 months pay during the consultation period, salary for work done in January 2002, holiday pay, the return of money lost to 'short-time' working in 2001/02 (which was to be returned by the employee according to the agreements signed) and redundancy pay."
According to his calculations he was eligible for £12,000, which would have been a useful cushion against the loss of his job, but he will receive 10 per cent. of that. He is highly skilled and was devoted to a company at the pinnacle of high technology that ran one of the largest semi-conductor plants in Europe—a plant of the future. However, 235 jobs have gone this month, 179 went last year and the firm has gone into receivership.
On 4 December last year, Alcan announced the loss of 310 manufacturing jobs in its aluminium works, and by the end of the month a further 220 jobs had gone. We also debated the issues raised when 1,300 jobs went at Corus in February last year. That makes a total of 2,284 manufacturing job losses in one town. In the microcosm that is my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), there have been huge losses of manufacturing jobs, and that pattern has been repeated throughout the country.
Every statistic points to an accelerating slump in UK manufacturing. The job share of manufacturing has fallen from 18 per cent. in 1990 to 14 per cent. in 2001. Output has fallen from 23 per cent. to 19 per cent., and that has accelerated in the past year, which contained the worst year-on-year fall since the end of 1991. Job losses in manufacturing industry totalled 112,000 in 2001, and that process is occurring at the same time as another damaging trend.
In Scotland, Wales and the north of England we have relied on inward investment from other countries to replace those jobs. Many jobs in those areas consist of people working for firms that came into the country from elsewhere, but that flow has dried up. Those three areas are vulnerable to the downturn because
182WH
they have all devoted a great deal of effort to luring firms that are involved in information technology and communications, which are now in recession across the world.
Why is that recession happening? It is complex and I would not suggest that there is a simple solution. One matter that comes up again and again, and which has great force, is our position outside the eurozone. We know that opinion in Denmark and Sweden has changed, and that they are likely to join. We see a future in which we could have the great dollarzone on one side, the eurozone on the other and the United Kingdom, with its small currency, isolated in the middle. Noticeably these days, very few Conservative MPs wear their £ badges. There is a good market for them—10 £ badges for a euro. That is a sign of the loss of conviction by those who oppose the eurozone.
Corus in Newport, and Alcan, have stressed time and again that, above all others, the problem that caused jobs to be lost in the UK was our position outside the eurozone and the lack of hope of entering it in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman sees going into the euro as the solution for Corus, Alcan and other hard-pressed manufacturing industries, can he tell the Chamber at what rate it would benefit those industries for Britain to lock into the euro?
Paul Flynn: I will come to that, but a further point must be made about the rate and another solution.
The problem for Llanwern was that the strength of the pound and the weakness of the euro meant a £15 premium on every tonne of steel. That was enough to ensure that jobs were lost in Newport, not Holland, which had a far poorer productivity record. There is the danger of seeing again what happened to the party represented by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) when, in an unfortunate period in the 1980s, a huge chunk of our industry was lost because of a persistently overvalued exchange rate. We are now in a position in which that is continuously happening. We must find some way, even if it is not through the euro, to get an exchange rate that is acceptable and realistic. There may be different ways in which we can adjust our exchange rate accordingly, but it essential to move forward.
Jobs are being affected here. When companies have a choice and decisions are made internationally, they may find it irresistible, as we have seen in many cases, to lose jobs in Britain. We must consider measures to engineer a revaluation before more of our manufacturers migrate to eastern Europe, Ireland, Spain or Asia.
It came up last week, and last year, that it is easier to sack people here than in euroland. The information consultation on economic matters in the United Kingdom and Ireland is voluntary, whereas detailed requirements exist in almost all other European countries. The deal done between Alchemy and BMW last year would have been impossible elsewhere. Compared with our continental counterparts, employers in Britain are relatively free to decide and announce massive changes with no obligation to consult

183WH
their employees—the key stakeholders. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry looked at that and concluded that:
"the suggestion that it is easier and cheaper to dispose of employees in the UK than elsewhere seems to us to have been shown to be factually correct.
The national and local trade unions representatives we met felt that the decision to close Dagenham, rather than Cologne, owed more to the absence of constraints on shedding labour than to nice calculations of returns on capital or the inherent characteristics of the two sites."
We know that BMW would not have been able to dispose of a German subsidiary in the way in which it did Rover. That is a key objection that causes great anger and a sense of injustice among the work force. I look forward to the Minister's response to that.
The picture is bleak and sad. I have read the splendidly upbeat and positive speech by the Secretary of State in which she rightly praised all the aspects of British manufacturing industry that are attractive and forward looking, but while it is right to accentuate those positive aspects, it is extremely dangerous to ignore the negative. The Secretary of State pointed out that many other countries have suffered losses in manufacturing industry, especially since 11 September. That is true, but if we look at the picture in similar European countries during the past 10 years, our situation is worse than it is in theirs. The United States Bureau of Labour Statistics carried out an examination and published a comparison of European manufacturing companies' output. With the possible exception of Germany, all the other countries examined had a lower loss of manufacturing jobs and capacity than we did. They included Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
There is the good news that the Secretary of State emphasised, and there is encouraging news even in the picture that I painted of Newport in that many of the people made redundant have found other jobs. However, I believe that the bad news of the slump in manufacturing industry is being masked by growth in other parts of the economy. It is a great credit to the Government that we have a strong economy, but the problem is that many jobs replacing those in manufacturing are in the candy floss economy—in call centres and dot.com companies that are here today, but gone tomorrow. We have seen them disappear rapidly. They are not as secure and permanent as manufacturing jobs.
A dangerous loss of critical mass is also taking place. Four years ago, Britain made more television sets than any other European country. Today, production of all small and medium-sized models has switched to lower-cost factories in eastern Europe. We still have a small, low-volume market of high-value televisions, but it is questionable whether that can continue. Electrical goods suffered the worst decline in output of all manufacturing sectors between 2000 and 2001. There is a danger that the telecommunications sector will shrink beyond the point of no return. We are all familiar with that phenomenon. Without the critical mass of suppliers and people contracting in, suddenly the service will implode and not have the necessary strength to continue.
184WH
The general manager of Sony UK has said:
"What keeps us here is the quality of staff and research and development. These depend on the strength of the wider UK industry."
There will be trouble there if the wider UK industry is in trouble. Sir Ian Gibson, chair of the Department of Trade and Industry's automotive innovation and growth team, commented that, because of the loss of critical mass, the car industry may have gone beyond the point of no return already. He said:
"It's like a man walking by the edge of a cliff in a fog. We don't know how close we are."
Why is manufacturing important? Why should we worry about it at all? Is concern about its replacement by other industries a sentimental attachment to the past? Manufacturing has special value because of its permanent nature. It is a matter of sorrow to see a blast furnace lying on its back. It cannot rapidly be re-erected without massive new investment. It has gone and the jobs have gone, not for the present generation but for the children and grandchildren of those who work there. If a high-tech factory is closed down, within six months or so the equipment is obsolete. If an aluminium factory is closed down and carted off to somewhere else in Europe, it cannot be replaced. Such jobs have a permanence that others lack, and their loss is often carried out in a way that shows indifference to the damage that is caused.
Manufacturing workers have a special pride that comes from creating something tangible instead of moving papers around or talking to people on the telephone all day. That is good for their psyche and morale. There is an especially fulfilling reward to be gained by those who can create an object of value, usefulness or beauty. We lose that at our peril.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent plea in support of our heavy manufacturing industries, especially those in his constituency. What has been the impact of the climate change levy, which was introduced last year at a critical time for those industries?
Paul Flynn: For the steel industry, the original plan was that the industry would pay £120 million. That was negotiated down to £8 million— a huge reduction—on the evidence that Corus gave to the Trade and Industry Committee. The climate change levy is unfair in that it hits the manufacturing sector in Britain, but the retail sector in other parts of the continent. It does act as a burden on the industry, but Conservative Members tend to forget that there was a quid pro quo in that £1 billion was taken from the national insurance scheme as compensation—although that is unfair to the extent that it goes mostly to labour-intensive industries such as call centres and Marks and Spencer. It is not an enormous factor, but it rankles with manufacturing industry. However, we are all environmentalists now, and there is not much point in putting a burden on call centres and Marks and Spencer given that some of the most prodigious users of electricity are large manufacturing industries.
This country has marvellous examples of success in high-tech industries. It is good to know that the Government are to invest more in nanotechnology, the

185WH
technology of the future that will amaze our children and grandchildren. It is an area in which we, along with two other countries, have enjoyed a world lead, and in which the Government have accelerated investment.
Over the years, our extraordinary record in science has been reflected in Nobel prizes, of which we have won 70 in chemistry, physics and other technologically significant fields. Japan has won seven; many far eastern countries have won none. However, as was mentioned by the Secretary of State last week, the innovative genius of the British people has never been translated into large-scale manufacturing jobs and prosperity.
I shall conclude, because many hon. Members want to speak. Manufacturing is undergoing an almost invisible slump that does not sufficiently engage the attention of the nation or the press. Some suggest optimistically that it may be a U-turn and that we will bump along the bottom and come out of it. Others say that it is a V-turn, and that we will come out of it more suddenly. I fear that it is an L-turn and that, having reached the bottom, we will continue until we fall off the end. That will be the consequence of accelerating decline and lack of critical mass. We could well be at the edge of the abyss, and the fog is gathering daily.
9.49 am
Adam Price: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate at such a critical time for manufacturing industry. This is the second Westminster Hall debate on manufacturing in which I have participated, which reflects a wide concern with the continuing problems of industry.
Unfortunately, in recent months and years a host of manufacturing companies have gone to the wall in Wales, including Corus, Panasonic, Sony and Valeo. I have a list that goes half way down a page, but time does not allow me to name them all. The Welsh economy has suffered such ill luck recently that it reads almost like a roll call of first world war battles. Incredible damage has been inflicted, especially in manufacturing. In a sense, the problems in Wales go much deeper and much further back than the recent manufacturing recession. As an economist, I find nothing surprising about the asymmetric shock that the Welsh economy has suffered over the past eight years. Over the past five years the decline has quickened as part of the wider recession.
It is welcome that there is at last some resonance from the Government in terms of their recognition that manufacturing has problems. I read the Secretary of State's speech at Merrill Lynch. It was a good speech, in which she railed against the myths about manufacturing. That begs the question of who is propagating those myths. Commentators such as Will Hutton have been called paranoid for talking about the vested institutional interests of the City of London and the Treasury view, which has been the spectre haunting British economic policy for more than 100 years.
The manufacturing summit gave a higher profile to the problems of manufacturing, but the Government need to go much further. We have a Minister for Industry and Energy and a Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, and it is high time that we had a designated Minister for manufacturing to get to grips with the long-term decline of manufacturing industry.
186WH
The hon. Member for Newport, West mentioned the problems in the early 1990s; there was also a massive haemorrhaging of jobs in the early 1980s. There is a 10-year cycle of huge, concentrated decline in manufacturing jobs. Like the manufacturing recession of 1979 to 1982, it was particularly severe in Wales and the regions of northern England, Scotland and Northern Ireland that are disproportionately dependent on manufacturing jobs.
The problems of manufacturing industry have a regional and spatial dimension. The Government need to grasp the tools of regional policy that are available. The main tool, regional selective assistance, goes back to the 1970s and an earlier age of regional policy. It is only discretionary assistance, which distinguishes it from the tools that were available throughout large periods of the 1960s and 1970s, especially the regional development grant, which was an automatic capital grant available to all firms in the designated regions. The regional employment premium invented by Nicky Kaldor was possibly one of the most successful examples of intervention in economic policy in the post-war period.
The Government are committed to the concept of evidence-based policy making—what works is what counts. I advise the Minister to look again at the evidence for the success of the more directive regional policy tools that were available in the 1960s and 1970s. Some of the firms that have not closed and remain in business were diverted to Wales in the 1960s, and some even go back to the 1940s. Those old-style regional policies were fairly successful. The emphasis in the Labour party's new regional policy is on bottom-up assistance and helping regions to help themselves. There is something to be said for that. We need a more judicious balance between bottom-up and top-down policies, especially with regard to the problems in the manufacturing industry.
We spend less on direct regional aid to firms in the United Kingdom than does almost any other European Union country. Spain is the only major exception, although many Spanish industrial regions spend more than we do. We spend less than one third of the EU average per capita on direct aid to firms. In the 1970s, we spent £2 billion a year at current prices on such aid. That figure is down to £400 million a year, which is a significant decline in regional aid. To be fair to the Government, most of that decline occurred under the previous Administration. The Government have kept the spending pretty much at the level that they inherited.
Now is the time to grasp the potential of reinvigorated regional selective assistance. We need to give the aid to more firms and to get nearer to the ceiling imposed by the EU. We should also make it more automatic, as there is a problem of uncertainty. Many consultants make a lot of money from helping firms with their RSA applications. The system should not work like that. There should be automatic trigger mechanisms. The Government should reconsider the issue of enterprise zones, especially in disadvantaged regions such as the heads of the valleys in Wales. They have taken a zonal approach in many of their policies, and should reconsider wide-ranging packages of tax incentives for local areas.
On the macro-economic aspect of the problems in manufacturing, the inept policies of the previous Administration in the early 1980s and 1990s led to the

187WH
major recessions that caused massive damage to manufacturing in Wales and many other parts of the UK. The Government are concerned not to make those mistakes again. I understand their emphasis on low inflation and low interest rates, but I do not understand the lack of concern for a lower and more competitive exchange rate. Several economists, such as Peter Spencer of the Item Club and William Keegan in The Observer, made yet another plea for action on the exchange rate. Labour Governments came unstuck on that issue in 1945, 1964 and other years. Action on the exchange rate is critical for the manufacturing industry.
The exchange rate has boosted imports and held down exports, especially in many sectors that are important for the economy of south-east Wales where there has been a large concentration of job losses, and in sectors such as steel, cars and textiles in other parts of the UK. It has hurt other sectors such as farming, coal mining and other primary producers that had to match the low prices of imports, and has increased joblessness in areas with an employment rate that was already below the average. There has been a convergence in unemployment rates, but a divergence in employment rates. The employment rate among people of working age in Berkshire is about 85 per cent. In large parts of south Wales the rate is below 60 per cent. The Government's unwillingness actively to intervene to make the exchange rate more competitive is a major part of the problem.
Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman specify what action he would like the Government to take with regard to the exchange rate?
Adam Price: The technical jargon is "sterilised intervention". It is a widely used tool in which pounds are sold and euros are bought through Government bonds, and is a neutral way of intervening in revenue, as distinguished economists such as Charles Goodhart, who invented Goodhart's law, have said. The head of the UK's leading investment fund, Gerry Holtham, who was formerly director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, has also widely made the same plea. It is a respected position among economists. We need a Government response on the issue.
The Government have been lucky on the macroeconomic front, because of the state of the world economy. The international economic outlook has changed. The Government's mantra is that the best thing that they can do for manufacturing is to ensure macro-economic stability. However, if that stability disintegrates—there are many signs that that is happening—supply-side policies, which have been at the core of the Government's approach, will seem, however well intentioned, pretty irrelevant. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said, the problem with the damage to manufacturing capacity is that it is likely to persist. It is difficult to rebuild the capacity and the competence that have, in many cases, been built up over generations. Once they are lost, they are gone for ever. No Treasury Minister is present, but I stress to the Government that
188WH
we need action on the exchange rate. It is the single most important thing that the Government can do to help ailing manufacturing regions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. If all the hon. Members who wish to speak are to do so, I must ask for brevity.
10.1 am
Alan Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on obtaining the debate and on speaking with characteristic deep feeling and knowledge about manufacturing, in particular the problems faced by manufacturing industry in Newport. We are proud in Newport of our manufacturing tradition but, as my hon. Friend described, it has suffered a series of recent blows. The question is how we can rebuild our manufacturing capacity in Newport, as elsewhere, in modern form.
Steel, which dominates the economy of my constituency and of the south-east Wales economic region, is these days a high-tech business involving the highest level of industrial skills. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry interestingly noted the other day, 70 per cent. of the steels used in cars today did not exist 10 years ago. The industry is at the forefront of new technology.
The main problems facing British manufacturing are global recession and, in many sectors, including steel, global overcapacity. That is why manufacturing output in Britain fell by 5.5 per cent. last year; it also fell by large amounts in many competitor industrial countries.
What should the Government do? What is their role in addressing the problem? I read with interest and admiration the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 January. I believe that her analysis is correct.
The Secretary of State stressed that the Government's primary role is to ensure financial stability—a stable economic context within which manufacturers can take necessary decisions. The Government have done that admirably, against a background of increasingly difficult world economic conditions. We have the lowest long-term interest rates since the 1960s, an achievement based on sound management of the economy. Low inflation has meant that the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England has been able to cut interest rates aggressively over the past year to mitigate the effects of impending recession. We have also enjoyed the benefits of the counter-cyclical expenditure increases that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have planned and announced and which not only give the promise of greatly improved public services but help us to weather the economic storm by enabling us to maintain levels of demand that would otherwise be lacking. It is crucial that we as a country do not throw away those two advantages—the freedom to operate both our interest rate policy and our fiscal policy on the basis of our judgment of economic conditions and what is best for Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West mentioned the enthusiasm of manufacturers Corus and Alcan—important to his constituency—for Britain

189WH
entering the euro. Global capitalism always wants to be footloose and to ensure that no inconvenient barriers to manufacturing operate anywhere—but we should consider what is best for the UK. Knowingly to embark on devaluation, for which my hon. Friend called and which the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) also found seductive, is a perilous course. The Secretary of State was right to say that one cannot devalue one's way to manufacturing success. It would be delicate, if not impossible, for the Treasury and the Bank to engage in "sterilised intervention" on any considerable scale. It might be possible to anticipate and go with the flow of major market movements, but it is impossible for us to turn the market around—and we could waste vast resources trying to achieve it, as discouraging precedents for that sort of effort suggest.
Mr. David Drew: The EU has one sector of massive intervention—agriculture. If we are looking for an example of getting things wrong, that is surely it.
Alan Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend.
My right hon. and hon. Friends should be aware that devaluation has often ended in tears electorally. General elections following devaluations in 1951, 1970 and 1997 were lost by the Government of the day. I certainly hope that my right hon. Friends will reflect on that.
Paul Flynn: Has my hon. Friend forgotten that defending the pound was not an electoral success a short while ago?
Alan Howarth: I would love to debate history with my hon. Friend, but let me develop my theme first.
Devaluation is one matter, but entering a fixed exchange rate such as the economic and monetary union of the European Union is quite another. Let us recollect that sterling's membership of fixed exchange rate systems has not been a happy experience historically, whether under the gold standard, the Bretton Woods system—under which we did quite well for a period, but it ended in tears—or indeed the exchange rate mechanism catastrophe of more recent memory.
Adam Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Alan Howarth: If I may be allowed to continue, because I am mindful of Mr. O'Brien's admonitions.
Joining the euro will certainly not be a panacea. A "one size fits all" interest rate is difficult enough within the UK. The Monetary Policy Committee conducts its affairs admirably, but cannot establish a single interest rate that is appropriate for manufacturing in south-east Wales while at the same time restraining the excesses of the property boom and consumer spending in south-east England. We see the effects of that policy in the generation of inflationary conditions in Ireland and recessionary conditions in Germany. If we were to devalue in order to enter the euro, we would risk increasing inflation at the same time as we abandon our capacity—through a unilateral interest rate policy—to remedy it.
Under the Maastricht treaty, a limit of 3 per cent. of gross domestic product is set on public borrowing. That is dangerously compounded by the grotesque growth
190WH
and stability pact, which fines countries that engage in counter-cyclical fiscal policy. Only last week, for the second year running, the Commission warned the British Government that, were we within the euro system, we would be obliged under the terms of the treaty and the pact to cut our public spending. The powers that be within the European Union fail to make the distinction between capital spending and current spending, which our Chancellor wisely and appropriately does make.
There will be enormous pressure to increase tax revenues going to the structural funds, which will be distributed extensively across an enlarged European Union in a fairly short time. It is clear that they will not be distributed to Newport. Under the present arrangements, Newport is not an objective 1 area. In my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West's constituency and mine there are wards with great poverty and deprivation, but under the present dispensation we do not receive assistance to help attack those problems, and that will be far less likely within an enlarged Community.
The United Kingdom, while outside the single currency system, was last year the number one destination for inward investment in Europe. My advice to hon. Members is that we should retain these advantages, at least for the foreseeable future. We stand a better chance of sustaining financial stability outside the system.
The Government have an obligation to ensure a first-rate infrastructure in the United Kingdom so that our industrialists have the best opportunities in a competitive world. In Wales, that means we urgently need a positive decision on building the M4 relief road. That will be good for not only my part of Wales, south-east Wales, but for south Wales and south-west Wales.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for taking advantage of what is permitted under the protocol between the Government and the Assembly in relation to issues of national strategic importance. I know that she has drawn this factor to the attention of Sue Essex, the Minister responsible in the Assembly. It matters a great deal that we have first-class infrastructure in Wales. Wales is poor in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. Its infrastructure is in many ways inferior. There is a vicious circle; unless we get the investment we need we stand less chance of catching up with the performance of the rest of the United Kingdom, which otherwise we should be well placed to do.
I was disappointed that the Strategic Rail Authority produced no plans to do other than patch and mend the mainline railway system into Wales. We are talking of a system designed by I. K. Brunel, the great engineer. The Government have put the Great Western railway on the tentative list for future world heritage sites. That is fine, but it is not an industrial policy. We need not just patching and mending, but serious modernisation. Corus draws attention to problems of track access charges, which perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to look at. It mentions that port and shipping costs are high and discusses a curiosity relating to infrastructure: that the costs of maintaining it fall upon industry rather than on general taxation. It has to contribute £4 million out of the total £30 million cost of maintaining the lighthouse service. I thought that that was odd: perhaps the Minister will look at it.

191WH
In broadband I am pleased to say that Newport is rather ahead of the game. I am glad that the Assembly recognises the importance of that factor.
The Government need to make sure that in a global knowledge economy our institutions of education, training and research are the best they can possibly be. I am pleased that there is a new emphasis on technical education in schools. That is yet another attempt to remedy the failure following the Butler Education Act 1944, which was intended to set up a tripartite system of grammar schools, secondary moderns and technical schools. The technical schools were never established. More than 50 years on, we need that strong technical stream of educational opportunity.
As a former Minister with responsibility for science, I can only congratulate the Government and say how pleased I am that they have enjoyed greater success than I did in securing greater investment in science and a greater emphasis on technology transfer. However, unless the Government attend to the need to improve PhD stipends and lecturers' salaries, we will be at risk of not having a first-rate academic system.
I am conscious of the time, so I shall be brief on the framework for competition that the Government should maintain. If President Bush decides, perhaps in March, to invoke section 201 to impose steel quotas, I hope that our Government will take extremely tough action. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us that vigorous diplomacy is already taking place. If, unhappily, the US Administration impose quotas on steel imports, and steel is consequently dumped in Europe, I hope that the Government will act vigorously through the World Trade Organisation and will also seek to reform the glacial procedures in the European Union for taking anti-dumping measures.
It is for the Government to ensure that we have the right structures of governance and administration to give effective, practical support to manufacturing and other economic sectors. I am talking about structures in which decisions can be taken rapidly, based on effective consultation and expert advice, and executed to a brisk timetable that matches the needs of the economy and communities. We do not have that, as I shall illustrate with the experience of Newport in the year since the Corus redundancies were announced. Of course, the prospect of redundancies loomed for many months previously.
Since the announcement a year ago, Newport has lost another 1,400 jobs, and I believe that we have yet to see the worst effects on the supply chain of the ending of steel making in Llanwern. Admirable support has been given to the workers who lost their jobs there, but trying to develop a regional or sub-regional economic strategy and a regeneration strategy has been like wading through treacle. We have had endless debate, and a plethora of agencies, boards and taskforces have been set up, all of which do useful and dedicated work. There have been endless meetings, academic studies, consultancy reports and announcements, including a number that have promised money to be spent. However, there has been little so far that is precise and actionable.
192WH
I am grateful for the First Minister's announcement that Newport is to have an urban regeneration company, with £10 million from the Assembly and another £10 million over three years from the Welsh Development Agency, particularly because elements in the WDA fought a bitter rearguard action against that policy. The simple decision has been announced, but we know nothing of the detail, and it is expected that another consultancy will advise on the structure and scope of the URC.
What do we need? We need a board, which I should like to see chaired by the leader of the local authority, because civic leaders should lead the process whereby their communities develop their own regeneration policies. The major players should be represented on that board: the council, the WDA, Education and Learning Wales, the academic and business sectors, environmental and voluntary organisations, and creative outsiders. They would all contribute to a strategy for Newport and contribute funding to what we might genuinely term a single regeneration budget.
I am told that to hope for such an outcome is pie in the sky, but I do not see why. The Government say that they want joined-up government and to restore powers to local government. We must be confident and decisive in putting that in place. My request may be too Utopian, but at least in the context of devolution and regional government, with all the multiple layers of government and the cat's cradle of accountabilities, let us design arrangements to ensure that decisions needed by businesses and communities are taken and can be carried through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Order. I appealed for brevity. Three hon. Members have still to speak, and I want the winding-up speeches to start at 10.30 am. Therefore some Members who applied to speak may not be able to do so, which is sad.
10.19 am
Mr. James Gray: I shall speak briefly, to raise a matter of great concern that was brought to my notice this morning. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) for not being in the Chamber for the start of his remarks, but I was listening to a press conference about the matter that I want to raise.
In my maiden speech in 1997, I praised Dyson, the vacuum cleaner manufacturers in my constituency, as one of the fastest growing and best manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom, for which it won a variety of awards. James Dyson typifies the best in British enterprise; he invented and designed his high-technology vacuum cleaner and was a leader in his field. His factory employed about 2,000 people at its peak. Just before Christmas, James Dyson announced that he would lay off 180 people, and at the press conference this morning he said that he would not continue manufacturing in the United Kingdom, and will move his entire vacuum cleaner manufacturing process to Malaysia, where the job costs are lower and there is greater proximity to the suppliers he needs to manufacture his vacuum cleaners. He will lay off 1,000 people in my constituency this year.

193WH
His announcement came hard on the heels of a similar announcement by Lucent Technologies, based in the town of Malmesbury in my constituency, which has a population of 4,000. The very successful, high-tech, American company announced just before Christmas that it is to close its manufacturing operation in the town, at a cost of 2,000 jobs. There is no manufacturing in Malmesbury now—a significant loss of jobs in a small Cotswold town.
The end of Lucent and Dyson is a severe crisis in my constituency. Dyson, especially, has been a beacon of excellence in UK manufacturing and the fact that even James Dyson is wrapping up his manufacturing operation in the United Kingdom shows precisely what is wrong with the nation's manufacturing sector. My constituents and those in Newport and elsewhere want the Government to do something that they have not done: focus on the manufacturing sector as opposed to the service sector. A country that cannot make things better and more cheaply than others and sell them overseas cannot prosper. This country is going in that direction and I call on the Government to focus on manufacturing industry.
10.22 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his brief speech. I want to pick up one of his themes. It is a tragedy for his constituents, and for the country, when a company such as Dyson disappears. I was interested in the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave for Dyson leaving. Obviously, labour costs are significant, but Britain can never compete globally with the low labour costs of countries in the far east. Equally, we cannot compete on the same basis with countries that are close to the supply chain. However, none of those issues is fundamental. In the past five years, manufacturing in the United Kingdom has grown by about 5 per cent. At first, that appears to be a healthy figure, but it is less healthy when compared with the United States, where manufacturing grew by 33 per cent., or with Germany, where it grew by about 20 per cent.
There are issues concerning the pound. I disagree profoundly with the analysis of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who should consider the history of devaluation, especially the period when the pound was floating. The movement of the pound relative to other competitive currencies was extraordinary; it was valued upwards and downwards on an irregular basis, but the economic record of the time shows that the process of devaluation was good for manufacturing. What is less good is a sharp and precipitous devaluation. I join the calls to consider the competitive value of the pound, particularly in my constituency, where some two thirds of manufacturing companies are operating well below capacity. A significant issue that they raise is the value of the pound.
A rather different issue that should worry the hon. Member for North Wiltshire concerns the Dysons of this world. While Mr. Dyson has enjoyed enormous entrepreneurial success, he is not a good employer if he
194WH
simply wipes out the livelihoods of thousands of his employees. I hope that hon. Members deplore the cavalier actions of that company.
Mr. Gray: I apologise to the House if I did not make it plain that James Dyson has made it clear that the matter is under consultation at this stage. There are 900 jobs under threat and he will go through the proper procedures, consulting the work force and seeking ways of fulfilling the conditions that the hon. Gentleman described. For the sake of brevity, I did not go into that, but I am confident that James Dyson and his managing director, Sir Richard Needham, will do all that they can to ensure that this is let down as gently as possible.
Mr. Lloyd: I hope that that is right, but there is a huge difference between being let down gently and not being let down at all.
One of the things that concerns people in the employment sector of manufacturing is that it is far easier to sack employees in this country and to waste their skills and talents than it is elsewhere. I received a letter about that recently from a trade union in the north-west. It wrote:
"Rolls-Royce, for example, has had a lot of government money in the form of launch aid and it would seem it is repaying that investment by looking elsewhere abroad to manufacture its products, which to our point of view, is not why the money was lent in the first place."
That union was right. We need to look at the ability of firms to disinvest in the United Kingdom. We lag behind other European countries in the aid that we give to the manufacturing sector. While I congratulate the Department of Trade and Industry for its new attention to manufacturing, it is vital that we invest in research and development. We should rectify the imbalance and push Britain to the top of the research and development league.
10.27 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I thank the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) for their brevity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate. Clearly manufacturing industry is extremely important to us. I want to focus on a narrow point that relates to a company in my constituency called Richards plc. Aberdeen, as the Minister knows, is the energy capital of Europe. We are perceived to have a fairly rich economy. The manufacturing industry that we tend to talk about is the oil and gas industry.
Richards has existed in my constituency for over 300 years. It is a textile company operating in a difficult market. It suffers from all the problems that hon. Members have described this morning. It is an exporting company and it has problems with the rate of the pound. Over the past few years it has faced serious difficulties. There were management problems and the management has been replaced. There is the problem of competition and the problem that the whole UK textile industry faces. Its main competitors are based in Belgium and it is concerned that the Belgians can invest more and pay higher wages but can still undercut British companies in the price of their carpets. The company has sought to address that problem through Europe and has lobbied the Government persistently.

195WH
For some years the company has been attempting to refocus. It owns plants in Aberdeen, Cumnock in Ayrshire—close to the Minister's constituency—and Wetherby in Yorkshire. It has worked closely with the Bank of Scotland, which has been totally supportive. The bank's attitude changed slightly after the events of 11 September because of their effect on the export markets and, as one of Richards' largest customers is the Hilton hotel chain in the United States, there were problems for the company's exports.
In all respects, the company seemed to be moving forward. However, it recently went to the bank to ask for a restructuring of its finances and found that the bank's attitude had changed significantly. It decided that it wanted to have another look at the company and instructed the accountants KPMG to produce a report. The company was consulted in that process, but the directors were extremely disappointed by the narrowness of the report. It focused just on protecting the assets of the bank, not on the company's wider strategy, a strategy with which I was familiar because I had been closely involved in some of its aspects during the past three or four years. When the bank received the KPMG report, it decided that it could not support the company any longer. A pistol was effectively put to the head of Richards' directors, and it went into receivership just last Monday.
A decision was then made to appoint KPMG as the receivers. I find that difficult to understand. As a lawyer, I am conscious of the rules on conflict of interest and have brushed against them myself in the past. That is the clearest example of it. It is one that faces many small manufacturing companies that go through difficult times, have a close relationship with their bank and are constantly on the edge. I am concerned about not only whether the individual case of Richards will resolve itself, but what the case shows, particularly as another bank has taken a different approach.
The Bank of Scotland shares its attitude with almost all other British banks, but there is an example that I urge the Government to examine. Four or five years ago the Royal Bank of Scotland decided to change its policy on such incidents and chose not to allow firms that were sent out as consultants to be appointed as receivers. Consultants were clearly told that receivership work was not on offer to them. Such a move puts accountancy firms in a difficult position. In the Richards case, the estimate of receivership fees was in excess of £1 million, which is quite a carrot for a company. I am not suggesting that anything illegal or dishonest has happened—I have no evidence to do so—but the perception is important.
The Royal Bank of Scotland found that its customers were reluctant to comply or co-operate with consultants in such situations. That led to delays in final decisions being taken and uncertainty being created in the work force, so it changed its practice. There have been positive benefits. Figures given by the Royal Bank of Scotland show that, despite having 35 per cent. of business customers in Scotland, it was responsible last year for only 18 per cent. of receiverships. That is a positive benefit, which the bank believes has enabled it to have a different relationship with its customers. There is no
196WH
fear, no gun is put to the head of companies, and a more constructive and managed approach to businesses is achieved.
It is a small point compared with the other points made by hon. Members this morning, but it is no less important to the thousands of small businesses up and down the country, particularly in manufacturing, that are facing difficulties in the present economic climate. I urge the Government to examine that practice, which will be on their mind after Enron's collapse and details of its relationship with its accountants have emerged. There is ongoing discussion about whether auditors should be allowed to do consultancy work, and that falls into the same territory. There are clear conflicts of interest that are not good for the accountancy profession or, in particular, for manufacturing in this country.
10.34 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on introducing the debate. I have attended three of these debates over the past 18 months and have noticed a vivid contrast between the low-key way in which we debate the crisis in manufacturing and the reaction in Parliament and among the public to problems in agriculture. Clearly, that sector has problems that should be exposed but, lest we forget, it employs less than a 10th the number that manufacturing employs and contributes about a 10th of what manufacturing contributes to the national economy.
To put the matter in context, it was right for previous speakers to emphasise the problems of Wales, which are acute, particularly in the south. Manufacturing employment in Wales is slightly above the national average. However, we have not heard about the real manufacturing heartlands—the west midlands, followed by the east midlands, the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire. The biggest contraction in manufacturing employment is taking place in those areas. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a valuable speech about his region.
In many ways, this is a long-term problem. Manufacturing has lost 2.5 million workers since 1979. There has been a staggering decline in manufacturing employment, from 30 per cent. of total employment in 1979 to about 15 per cent. now. Even within the western world, such decline is almost unprecedented. Some people glibly say that it does not matter much because the decline in employment is the result of higher productivity, and manufacturing still contributes to wealth creation, even if jobs are lost. Certainly, within the past couple of years, there have been striking increases in productivity of, I believe, 6 per cent. in 1999 and 4 per cent. in 2000.
However, we must not be complacent. Such an approach assumes that the workers affected find something more productive to do. I do not know whether the Department of Trade and Industry still does tracking studies, as it did in the 1970s, but I suspect that most of the people who have been displaced from manufacturing industries disappear from the labour force. Many are men in their 50s who do not register as unemployed but simply drop out of the labour statistics. Thus, in a meaningful sense, national productivity is not increasing.

197WH
In addition to the long-term problem, there is a short-term crisis. This is where the Government's responsibilities kick in. Despite the fact that productivity has been growing, manufacturing output has grown by only about 1 per cent. a year since 1977. Growth is virtually stagnant, and all the signs are that the situation is becoming worse rather than better. Two key studies have been done during the past few months. One is the Confederation of British Industry study of industrial trends, and the other is by the Engineering Employers Federation. Both produced extremely negative and worrying predictions about what is likely to happen in manufacturing in the next year or so.
That leads us to consideration of policy and the Government's responsibilities. There are three fundamental causes of the current crisis in manufacturing. One of them is international and is, largely, beyond our control. There are worrying signs that the temporary recession in the United States, which has a serious problem of debt overhang, may become more permanent. The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) made a helpful intervention about trade. There is a real danger that, if the international recession drags on, countries such as the United States may deal with it through beggar-my-neighbour policies. Other countries would retaliate, and industries such as steel would be dragged into a trade war. The Government have a responsibility in Europe to make clear our commitment to an open trading system and our willingness to fight for it.
The second cause is home-grown policy. The Government have pursued policies that have been helpful to industry; for example, interest rate stability and low inflation. However, in some ways, they have made the problem worse. The climate change levy has been mentioned. The Government should not be allowed to get away with the idea that it is part of the price that industry must pay for an environmentally friendly future. The point has been made many times that, if the Government really wish to deal with carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, there are methods of taxation that can be applied upstream, such as the carbon tax, which would avoid problems for manufacturing industries. Instead, they chose a cumbersome route that is particularly onerous for industry.
The third cause, which the hon. Members for Newport, West and for Newport, East touched on at length, is the role of the exchange rate, on which I am closer to Newport, West than Newport, East. Two distinct aspects of that issue have been blurred. First, the exchange rate has nothing to do with the pros and cons of entering the eurozone, but if we are to enter the euro, it must be at the right rate.
Last week, the Chancellor took a key step by commissioning Professor Wren-Lewis of Exeter university to determine the right exchange rate for our entry into the euro. The exchange rate has appreciated by 30 per cent. in real terms since 1995 in relation not only to the euro but to currencies such as that of Korea—a country against which we compete in manufacturing. More than any other single factor, that has created the current crisis. Companies had their margins squeezed; because their margins were squeezed they stopped investing; they are now laying off large numbers of workers. The exchange rate is critical to the current debate about manufacturing.
198WH
Secondly, and this is a separate issue, exchange rate stability takes us to the heart of whether it is a good thing to enter the euro. In manufacturing one needs a stable environment. A variation in the exchange rate of 10 or 20 per cent. in a short period wipes out improvements that one may obtain by improving performance. The Government have a role in ensuring greater stability through the exchange rate. That is why a commitment to a zone of exchange rate stability should be a key part of their long-term strategy, which would mean entry into the eurozone.
10.41 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has been assiduous in trying to get debates on the Floor of the House on job losses in manufacturing industry. That is the subject of today's debate, and I shall try to focus on it.
The facts speak for themselves: between 1998 and the end of 2001 nearly 500,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. Manufacturing jobs as a percentage of the total work force have decreased from 15.8 to 13.8 per cent., in sharp contrast with previous years during which the percentage of manufacturing jobs was stable and the number of such jobs rose slightly.
The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) mentioned that manufacturing output fell by 5.5 per cent. during the past year. Turnover in the engineering industries was down by more than 7 per cent. in the last three months of 2001 compared with the previous three months. More worryingly, order books in the engineering industries were 12 per cent. lower in the last quarter of last year than in the last quarter of the preceding year. We are therefore running record trade deficits.
Manufacturing output and employment have been hit before, but we are seeing the sharpest fall in output for a decade, and it differs from previous recessions in that the manufacturing sector is being disproportionately hit while other sectors of the economy continue to do relatively well. Hon. Members have sought to put their fingers on the causes of the problem, and of course currency exchange rates and our ability to operate in the international arena have something to do with it.
I do not intend to debate exchange rates, because we have already been round that course, but it is apparent to Opposition Members and other observers that the Government have their own agenda in relation to the euro and currency exchange rates. That agenda does not include what matters to manufacturing industry; it concerns the politics of the decision on the euro, and the Government's particular problems over that decision. That is deeply unhelpful to industry.
Currency factors are only part of the package, because industry examines its total costs and burdens. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned productivity, and despite the Chancellor's exhortations the gap in productivity between the United Kingdom and the United States has stubbornly failed to close—indeed, it is widening. Labour productivity in manufacturing is driven by several complex issues, but with profits squeezed and investment in new machinery and training down, productivity improvements are unlikely to be strengthened.

199WH
In the short term, the Government could help to offset the foreign exchange effects from which industry is suffering by fiscal policies, easing the burden of regulation and encouraging flexibility in labour markets. Unfortunately, in every case the Government have done precisely the opposite of what industry needs, despite their rhetoric. They have piled an extra £5 billion a year on business in taxes, many of which—the climate change levy in particular—are targeted at manufacturing. A report out yesterday suggests that there is worse to come if Britain is to meet its Kyoto targets.
The Government have piled on bureaucracy and red tape, transferring to businesses a large part of the burden of running our social welfare system. Last year alone, there were 4,642 new regulations, a 50 per cent. increase from 1997. The British Chambers of Commerce—not usually quoted as a friend of the Opposition—said recently that
"government has dramatically increased the regulatory burdens"
on business it added.
"Excessive red tape is stifling the very enterprise the Government is seeking to promote".
The list already in place includes the working time directive, stakeholder pensions, the data protection directive and IR35. In the pipeline are the waste and electrical appliances directive, the vibrating agents directive and the vehicle end of life directive. Together, they place a burden of at least £15 billion on industry, falling disproportionately on manufacturing businesses.
Just as our competitors are beginning to deregulate and recognise the need for greater flexibility in labour markets, Britain under a Labour Government is going in the opposite direction, reducing flexibility and making Britain's competitive position even worse. Government policy exacerbates rather than ameliorates the impact of the exchange rate on our manufacturing businesses. The response that we get from the Government is largely lip service. We have had manufacturing summits, the announcement of a new tsar for manufacturing and, perhaps most bizarrely of all, the announcement in the House of Commons in December 2000 of the ministerial group on manufacturing job losses. The Leader of the House told us that that would consider a range of manufacturing issues. Answers to written questions have established that the group, announced with such a fanfare, has never actually managed to meet, despite the shake-up of nearly half a million jobs in our manufacturing industries.
What manufacturing now needs is action: action on tax, on regulation and on skills and competitiveness. We need an immediate moratorium on the introduction of the new and costly environmental and employment regulations in the pipeline. We need a breathing space for manufacturing industry to regroup and recover so that profits, and therefore investment in plants and training, can resume in order to underpin the long-term health of our manufacturing economy.
200WH
This Government were elected promising to halt and reverse the decline in Britain's manufacturing base. We have a Chancellor who said in the Labour manifesto in 1997:
"We will not impose burdensome regulations on business".
He has spent the last five years doing precisely that. We have a Prime Minister who said last November,
"Of course … manufacturing industry is going through difficult times … The issue is not about tax or regulation."
If he talks to some business men, he will find that the issue is about tax and regulation. This Government stand charged with breathtaking complacency and gross hypocrisy as they now act out in office the caricature that they painted of the previous Government's attitude to manufacturing industry.
Manufacturing industry is failing.
"This is not the failure of some other Government, some other Cabinet, or some other Prime Minister—today's failures are the failures of this Government, this Cabinet, and this Prime Minister." — [Official Report, 16 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 340.]
Those are the words of the now Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1991. I have the honesty to acknowledge that what he said then was true. I will be interested to see whether the Minister will have the decency to acknowledge that that is true today of this Government and this Prime Minister.
In 1993—at the bottom of the cycle of manufacturing job losses, just before the situation stabilised and jobs in manufacturing started to increase, as they did during the following four years—the Minister said of the Conservative Government:
"They have had 14 years of power, but still lack the guts to accept any of the responsibility for what has resulted".— [Official Report, 12 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 851.]
I acknowledge that mistakes in monetary policy were made in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With the support of the then Labour Opposition, a wrong policy was chosen. The question is whether he, as a member of a Government apparently committed to pursuing the same mistaken route, has the guts to accept responsibility for the disaster that is decimating British manufacturing industry and struck the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) only this morning.
In 1989, the Chancellor wrote that:
"it is through manufacturing that we will succeed or fail".
On that test, the Government have failed.
10.50 am
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing this debate. The Government believe that manufacturing matters and must play a central role in our future as a leading knowledge-driven economy. I shall be happy to discuss where responsibility lies and other issues to which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred.
We accept that we have an immediate priority to meet, which is in gross contrast to our predecessors. Where difficulties arise, we get in alongside industry, the community and trade unions to work for the best possible outcome. We want to try to prevent the loss of jobs and, if they are lost, to find new ones. That could

201WH
not be in starker contrast to the hands-off approach of our predecessors. Each case that has been spoken of today has shown an approach that we have taken when job losses have occurred, or one that we will take if there is a prospect of maintaining jobs.
Mr. Gray: If the Minister is determined to do things, what does he intend to do about the loss of Dyson jobs in Malmesbury?
Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has delayed me, even with his short intervention, by coming to Dyson. I will deal with that in the course of my remarks; unlike past Tory Ministers, we do not necessarily stick to the script in front of us and can improvise in response to issues that arise during debate.
Manufacturing accounts for more than one fifth of our national income, and almost £150 billion of output each year. The sector employs about 4 million people directly, and millions more depend on manufacturing for their livelihood, including 2.5 million in the service sector. It is led by some of our most innovative businesses investing heavily in research and development. Manufacturing drives innovation in the rest of the economy, creates jobs and prosperity, and is responsible for productivity improvements across the whole economy through advances in technology, new goods and processes.
As hon. Members have said, it is tough for manufacturing and its workers right now. Output in manufacturing has gone down by 5.5 per cent. in the past 12 months, and 153,000 jobs have gone from the sector in that period. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) said, the problems that manufacturing industry is experiencing are far from unique to Britain: last year, manufacturing output fell by 5 per cent. in Germany, 6 per cent. in the United States, and 14 per cent. in Japan. The simple message of those statistics is that no country can isolate itself from the downturn in the world economy. For instance, there has never been a recession in the United States that has not caused a contraction in Britain.
It is worth noting that in the past 20 years the proportion of people employed in manufacturing as a share of the total employed fell from 23 per cent. to 13 per cent. At the same time, in real terms value, the goods that they produced rose by a huge 36 per cent. A big element is that fewer are working in manufacturing to produce more goods of higher value. That is why we must keep producing new products and companies, and try to create a self-renewing process. Only in that way will we prosper in competition with low-cost producers. Our aim is to have many highly skilled, highly paid people working in manufacturing.
I want to deal briefly with specific issues that have been raised, and will be pleased to pursue further discussions on each and every point. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the disappointing announcement by Dyson today. I want to make it clear that, according to the information that I have received in the few minutes since he spoke, the Department of Trade and Industry has had no contact with Dyson about that. No notice has been given of the announcement.
202WH
Through the medium of this debate, I say to Mr. Dyson, and to Sir Richard Needham, a former Tory Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, that it would have been useful if the Government had had an opportunity to work with the company in advance of the announcement to see what could be done. I would welcome such contact now that the announcement has been made. In his press release, Mr. Dyson states:
"If it goes ahead this will be a blow to all those who have put in so much effort."
I take comfort from the statement's conditional tense: there must be room for discussion, and I hope that there is more to Dyson's calculations than the obvious statement that labour is cheaper in Malaysia than in Malmesbury. There are other factors, such as loyalty, to be taken into account.
I hope that we can have meaningful discussions with Sir Richard Needham, with Mr. Dyson and with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. We did not know of the announcement about this symbol of British industry and excellence until this morning; we should be able to discuss the matter to see what can be done to soften, or remove, the blow to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I cannot do anything unilaterally: I can help only if the company says that it is interested in discussions and has not already decided to go to Malaysia.
I recently visited a plant in Indonesia that makes Royal Doulton pottery and pays its labour force $30 a month. I do not think that hon. Members, even on the right wing of the Tory party, would want their constituents to work for such a wage. If it is just a matter of wage rates, we lose, but there are many other factors in the Dyson case, and I hope that we can discuss them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) raised several matters. I want the Bank of Scotland to tell me why it is appropriate for KPMG to occupy both roles in relation to Richards plc, but it is a matter—certainly in this instance—on which we cannot legislate. However, I note what my hon. Friend said and ask for a response from the Bank of Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East raised the matter of steel and the WTO. We are represented in these matters through the European Union, and if the United States acts in the way suggested, the EU will seek action through the WTO in response to such a threat. It is for individual member states and the EU to consider any compromise solution that the US may propose. Much thought has been exercised on the matter in the trade policy division of the Department of Trade and Industry.
I have dealt with individual cases, so I shall not say much more in general about manufacturing, except to state that the Government, particularly since the wave of manufacturing job losses, are not merely reacting to events. Our approach is to be proactive: we are working alongside companies, trying to improve our support and the flow of information available to pre-empt such developments.
There are many successes in manufacturing industries, and the worst thing would be to talk them down or to ignore them and thus to suggest that the entire British manufacturing sector is blighted. Most importantly of all for the future of modern manufacturing, we must continue to strengthen our

203WH
science base and raise our game in turning new science and technology into businesses, products and jobs. The question whether there is more or less support for workers who face redundancy is tied into that, because when job losses are inevitable, we must help workers come to terms with them and move on to new employment with new skills and training. That reflects the dynamism that we need in our economy if we want a future for manufacturing. Where we recognise the inevitability of job losses and closures, we must always work with a view to placing something new and forward-looking in their place. That will continue to be our approach.

Tax System
11 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: I am delighted to be able to raise an issue that causes many people a great deal of concern. By way of introduction, I should admit that I am a chartered accountant. Many people may think that, as a result, the tax system is an open book to me, but it is not and therein lies the nub of the problem. The tax system has become sufficiently complicated that even people who are informed in financial matters find it difficult to understand.
There are several problems with a complex tax system. It allows the advisers—lawyers and accountants—the opportunity to examine the system of tax reliefs, breaks and allowances to minimise the tax bill for their clients, while those who cannot afford advisers feel a growing sense of suspicion and dissatisfaction as they cannot understand the linkage between the taxes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget and their tax bill. Another aspect of the raft of breaks, exemptions, credits and tapers, is that one man's tax break is another man's tax increase. Someone must pay for the tax breaks and the basic rate must increase to take that into account.
A complex tax system is inherently unstable for businesses, and I will give some examples later. The rate of change and the complexity of the tax system mean that it is hard for businesses to plan ahead and set up transactions in the knowledge that their tax treatment will remain unchanged for several years. The complexity of the tax system is also inherently unstable for the Treasury, because the linkages between taxes and the tax take become more complicated and it becomes harder to understand the effect of a downturn on tax revenues. A complex tax system is against the interests of both the taxpayers and the tax collectors, which is why I have raised this subject this morning and why I support simplification.
There are many examples of the complexity of the tax system. Capital gains tax was simplified in April 1998, but many issues arose from that alleged simplification. One example that has been put to me concerns the purchase of two parcels of shares, one before 5 April 1998 and one after. The treatment of the second parcel is relatively simple, especially when compared with that of the shares purchased before April 1998. If I wanted to sell the first parcel, I would have to work out the indexation of the base cost from the date of purchase to 5 April 1998 and I would be taxed on that. I would then have to assess the gain between 5 April 1998 and the date of sale and apply taper relief to that.
Unfortunately, the definition of some assets that are subject to capital gains tax has been changed in recent years. Some shares have been treated as non-business assets and then as business assets, and one must apportion the gain during that time. Those straightforward examples demonstrate why the capital gains tax calculations on relatively simple transactions, such as the sale of small packets of shares, are now beyond the ability of most taxpayers.
Complex taxes so have an impact on behaviour. In the Chancellor's first Budget in 1997, he moved away from a stamp duty regime of 1 per cent. on all transactions to a graduated tax: 1 per cent. up to

205WH
£250,000, 1.5 per cent. between £250,000 and £500,000, and 2 per cent. thereafter. In the 2000 Budget, the rate remained unchanged at 1 per cent. on transactions between £60,000 and £250,000, but increased to 3 per cent. on transactions between £250,000 and £500,000 and 4 per cent. on those of more than £500,000.
In the 2001 Budget, the Chancellor recognised the impact on property transactions in deprived areas by waiving the stamp duty on them. That fell foul of European Commission regulations, so he had to reduce the limit to £150,000. There are now four different rates of tax on transactions in deprived areas: 0 per cent., 1 per cent., 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. We are starting to see price points arising at those thresholds in the property market. The cost of moving between one band and another is significant. If one buys a property at £249,999, one pays stamp duty of only £2,500. If the price increases to just over £250,000, one pays £7,500. It is therefore not surprising that when one talks to estate agents about buying a property, there is much nudging and winking about how much the owners are prepared to sell the curtains for to ensure that the transaction falls below £250,000 and that stamp duty of only 1 per cent. is paid. Although we are considering stamp duty on residential property, we should not forget that that duty is applicable to commercial transactions, whether on the purchase of property or of goodwill. Such high stamp duties impose an additional transaction cost on businesses, but cash costs are not relieved in tax calculations until the asset is sold.
Another interesting aspect of stamp duty is how it has increased the Government's exposure to significant downturns in the value of houses or the volume of transactions in the property market. In 1997, the Government raised £900 million from stamp duty on property sales. In the most recent year for which figures are available, that figure was £3.4 billion. Under their revenue-raising powers, the Government have introduced more instability into their calculation of predicted tax revenues.
We could go on for hours and I have received suggestions of many examples of complex taxes. The Financial Secretary said yesterday that between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2002 the Inland Revenue employed more than 2,000 additional full-time-equivalent staff. Under this Government, the number of basic rates of tax has increased from 15 to 38. The number of pages in "Tolley's "—the bible for tax practitioners—has increased by 30 per cent. from 2,559 in 1997 to a whopping 3,414 last year, even after the size of the typeface was reduced to accommodate all the legislation. In its response to the Finance Bill in 2000, the Institute of Chartered Accountants said:
"The volume of tax law has doubled since the 1980's. I do not know how ordinary people have a hope of understanding their tax affairs. Even accountants are struggling."
John Whiting-vice—president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation—said in response to the 600 pages of that Finance Bill:
"The whole area of personal tax is ripe for simplification".
A book by Peter Warburton and the noble Lord Saatchi, entitled "Poor People! Stop Paying Tax!" demonstrated another example of the complexity of the tax system. They proposed that the Government in effect collected 53 per cent. of tax revenues but then gave
206WH
back 14 per cent. of gross domestic product by way of the more than 250 complex allowances, reliefs, credits and tapers that form part of the tax system in this country. The volume of regulation affects not only tax advisers but also businesses. In July 2001, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants carried out a survey of its members. Ninety-six per cent. of respondents thought that they spent more time on pay-as-you-earn and tax compliance than in April 1997. Ninety-eight per cent. of respondents cited PAYE as a reason, 92 per cent. quoted IR 35, 78 per cent. cited the working families tax credit and 61 per cent. referred to the burden of collecting student loans, which has been passed on from the Student Loans Company.
The cost of payroll compliance falls disproportionately on small businesses. A business with between one and five employees faces payroll costs of £288 per employee, whereas the cost is only £5 per head for a large business employing, say, more than 5,000 employees. If one looks at the impact of stamp duty on business and at the payroll burdens, it seems the complexity and cost are discouraging job creation—the reverse of the Chancellor's intention. The Government are guilty of increasing the complexity of the tax system to unparalleled heights. Simple transactions are impossible. It is impossible for taxpayers to calculate the tax effects without consulting a tax adviser.
The complexity of the tax system is being exploited by advisers. For example, with inheritance tax, at the moment someone who gives their house to their child has to vacate it if they are not to pay tax on that transaction. However, if they have good tax advisers, they can construct a scheme whereby they give the property to their children but occupy it on licence, thus circumventing the constraints of the inheritance tax regime. That benefit is available only to those who can afford to pay expensive tax advisers.
The Government are committed to introducing a community investment tax credit, which would bring a credit of 25 per cent. of the value of the investment against income tax. I can imagine advisers up and down the country looking at ways to exploit that new relief. To try to ensure that advisers cannot take advantage of the tax credit, the Inland Revenue will draft complicated schemes to prohibit abuse. As a side effect, the scheme will be difficult to administer for those setting up the community finance development institutions, and it will be difficult to ensure that the schemes in which they invest comply with the rules.
The battle between tax advisers and the Inland Revenue is like a long rally in a tennis match, where both players bounce the ball backwards and forwards—the ball being tax policy—and the confused spectators, the taxpayers, try to understand what is happening and when the rally will conclude. The erosion of the tax base is also a consequence of that raft of breaks and regulations forcing up the basic rate. A simpler tax system will provide less incentive to advisers to find ways round the legislation, because there will be less incentive for them to save tax as the basic rate will be that much lower, reducing compliance costs both for taxpayers and for those in the Revenue who try to chase down these complex schemes.
In a debate on the Budget resolution on 7 March 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) set out the impact of

207WH
introducing a flat rate of 10 p for all incomes and abolishing personal allowances. He found that that would increase the revenue from income tax by £9.6 billion a year. We can therefore have a basic rate that is much lower if we lose the allowances and it will act as a disincentive to tax advisers to find ways around the legislation. In an answer to me yesterday, the Paymaster General demonstrated that if the taper relief on capital gains tax were abolished, the 10 per cent. rate would come down to 7.4 per cent., the 20 per cent. rate to 14.8 per cent. and the 40 per cent. rate to 29.6 per cent. There are opportunities to reduce the rate of tax by looking at some of the reliefs and allowances in the system.
Tax rates distort people's behaviour. I referred earlier to the community finance tax credit. An investor faced with two schemes with a similar pre-tax rate of return will obviously be swayed by the tax incentives put in front of him by the Chancellor when considering the post-tax return. Where one tries to direct behaviour, taxpayers may take sub-optimal investment decisions, which would not always be in the interests of the economy as a whole. One hears many more examples these days of tradesmen who wish their customers to buy materials themselves. That is done for the convenience of not the customer but the tradesman, who, by not having to invoice the customer for the materials and having a low turnover, can escape registration for value added tax. The complexity of the tax system and some of the incentives that are introduced into it distort behaviour.
The fourth consequence of a complex tax system is that the Chancellor can use it as a shield when raising taxes. The headline rates of income tax have not increased, yet the Chancellor has in successive Budgets abolished the married person's allowance and mortgage tax relief. The rates of national insurance for employees have not increased, but for three years from 1999 the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions for employees increased by more than the rate of inflation.
The biggest example of a stealth tax and the disconnect between the tax and its impact on individuals was the abolition of tax credits on dividends paid to pension funds—a cost to pension funds of £5 billion per annum. Most lay people did not understand that that was a stealth tax increase. They are starting to pay the consequences of that change in tax treatment, as the cost of contributing to their pension funds increases or their benefits on retirement diminish. I wonder whether the decline in defined benefit schemes, which used to be a mainstay of pension provision in this country, resulted from the change in the tax treatment of dividends going into pension funds.
The complex tax system brings inherent instability for businesses. The frequent changes in the capital gains tax regime since its simplification in 1998 have caused a great deal of uncertainty among business men. They wonder whether to undertake transactions when their tax treatment is so uncertain and unclear. When the Chancellor proposed the reform of double tax relief, only the outcry from FTSE 100 companies forced him to change those policies. Sadly, where there has been no consultation with business or the tax profession, the
208WH
constant series of fine-tuning exercises has led to an unstable regime for businesses. The final consequence is that we may lose the direct understanding of the impact on the economy of a downturn and the consequent impact on tax revenues. I spoke earlier about the gearing up of the tax take on property transactions; that is a clear example of a change in the property market leading to a significant change in the Government's tax revenues.
What are the remedies to the problem? In a debate in another place on a similar issue a couple of weeks ago, much emphasis was placed on the tax law rewrite project presided over by Lord Howe; the fruit of its labours can be seen in the Capital Allowances Act 2001. It takes existing legislation and codifies it so that tax practitioners can understand it. However, simply rewriting and revising tax legislation to make it more comprehensible is not enough to simplify the tax system. We need to ensure that the Government take policy decisions that will lead to a much simpler system.
My first proposal is for more widespread consultation on tax matters. All Chancellors like to pull rabbits out of hats on Budget day—that has been a tradition of Budgets since time immemorial. However, that desire may stand in the way of producing a stable and comprehensible tax system. Springing significant changes on business without consultation denies businesses the opportunity to influence legislation, with the resulting constant fine-tuning that we have seen on such matters as CGT. I suspect and hope that the tax system that emerges from the consultation on research and development that the Chancellor has announced will be much better and more stable than the regime for CGT. Consultation will promote far greater stability in the tax system.
My second proposal is to move to simpler Budgets. This Chancellor, perhaps more than any other, is a great believer in announcing a little on the day, which means that everyone comes away feeling that they have got something. However, when one looks at such initiatives more closely, they are of little real consequence to anyone. The example that sticks in my mind—it is so dreadful that the Minister might say that it is apocryphal—is the six free breakfasts a year for employees who cycle into work. Indeed, employers can claim tax relief for those breakfasts. That sounds so far-fetched that it is hardly credible, but it is one of the small initiatives announced by the Chancellor. We have said how much the volume of tax legislation has increased in recent years. Legislation for each of the small initiatives adds to that burden and prohibits proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Finance Bill. Better scrutiny will lead to reduced compliance costs and increased simplicity in the tax system; that simplicity will restore the clarity of the link between the state of the economy and the level of taxation.
My third proposed remedy is greater transparency in the tax system. I have already cited the benefits of sweeping away some of the 250 allowances, reliefs and tapers, which would bring about a much simpler and more transparent tax system that laymen could understand. It would help people link Budget announcements to their tax liability, which would be good for the integrity of the tax system and for taxpayers. However, it will put pressure on the Chancellor because a more transparent system will

209WH
make it far harder for him to raise taxes by stealth. If people understand clearly the levers that make the tax system work, it is much harder to effect changes that are obvious only to tax advisers and specialists and hidden from laymen.
In conclusion, the tax system is complex and the Chancellor has contributed hugely to its complexity. A simpler system would reduce the dead weight of compliance costs on taxpayers and collectors and would have a much more neutral effect on people's behaviour. Above all, a simpler system would enable taxpayers to hold the Government to account on their tax decisions in the Budget.
11.24 am
Lynne Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on raising this important issue and I agree with his conclusion. A simplified system would also remove much of the fraud in the tax and benefits system at a stroke.
When I heard about the debate, I searched through my files to locate a copy of the Saatchi and Warburton document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I did not anticipate having the opportunity to speak. Indeed, I dashed to Westminster Hall this morning because I thought that there would be far more interest in the debate among other hon. Members than there is. The level of interest is surprising. I thought that, as hon. Members had to complete their tax returns only recently, the issue would have been weighing on their minds more, but apparently not.
We owe thanks to Saatchi and Warburton for pointing out the complexity of the tax and benefits system. As I recall, it has provoked me to table at least one parliamentary question, a copy of which I also managed to find. The answer to that question was that, in the year 2000–01, 69 per cent. of employees earning less than a third of male median earnings paid tax. Sadly, that percentage had increased from 56 per cent. in 1997–98. It is ridiculous that people on such low earnings pay tax and are probably at the same time forced to claim means-tested benefits.
The document entitled "Poor People! Stop Paying Tax!" points out that the tax system collects a staggering 63 per cent. of GDP, and the citizen must then claim back 14 per cent. of GDP by navigating more than 250 allowances, reliefs, exemptions, credits, tapers, indexations, disregards and so on. In the process, we employ 80,000 civil servants to collect the taxes and 60,000 to pay the benefits, at huge administrative cost.
I agree with many of the proposals suggested by people who might be considered my political opponents, which is important, because some consensus on the tax and benefits system is desperately needed. In opposition, parties are fond of highlighting the existence and availability of stealth taxes, but in government, they enthusiastically use them. Perhaps instead those in opposition and those in government should think ahead to how we might behave when our roles are reversed and try to achieve a consensus.
Yesterday, we had a debate about pensions. Bills on tax credits and pensions credits are currently passing through Parliament. Both types of credit increase the complexity of the tax and benefits system, which is deeply worrying, because the extension of means-testing
210WH
and complexity creates disincentives to work and save and incentives to commit fraud. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man for us to agree on at least some broad principles.
I am glad that Lord Howe is involved in the tax rewrite project, but I agree with the hon. Member for Fareham that that is not sufficient. The system needs a radical overhaul, and I endorse the proposals made in the "Poor People! Stop Paying Tax!" document. A very large hike in the personal allowance is desperately needed, so that people can earn far more before they start paying tax. A £10,000 tax threshold is being advocated, which would be a radical change.
I have not done the sums, but the general principle of a large rise in the threshold, coupled with a simplification of the different income tax rates, is sound and reform is long overdue. Unfortunately, the Government have introduced greater complexity into tax bands. The 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. tax rates were merely a gimmick; it would have been better to put those resources into raising thresholds. We need to consolidate the various tax rates. We should have one basic rate, perhaps around 20 or 25 per cent., an upper rate that is higher than the present 40 per cent., and something in the middle, which would claw back the benefits from middle income earners—the bonanza that they would otherwise receive from large increases in personal allowances.
The interplay of national insurance contributions is also relevant. The Chartered Institute of Taxation and other organisations believe that the kink in the system— whereby between £29,900 and £34,000 the marginal tax rate for each extra pound drops from 32 per cent. to 22 per cent. —could be reconciled by raising the upper earnings limit for national insurance in line with the threshold for the higher tax rate. From my political perspective, that would also mean an increase in the tax take from higher earnings. That is unlikely to achieve political consensus, but agreement across the political spectrum could be achieved on the general principles if only the Government were willing to sacrifice some of their sacred cows.
To achieve a more simplified system, we need to restore universal benefits and reduce means-testing. I commend the Chancellor for increasing child benefit, but wish that he had not introduced the additional complexity of the children's tax credit, which effectively takes us back to the position when child benefit was introduced. At that time, family allowances and personal tax allowances meant that higher taxpayers gained more than others for bringing up their children. I acknowledge that the new children's tax credit system is more redistributive, but it is complex. A simpler system might continue with universal child benefit and ensure that it adequately reflected the additional cost of bringing up children. The better-off, including MPs like myself who receive child benefit, would have the additional income recouped through a progressive tax system.
I make no apology for wholeheartedly supporting progressive taxation and for being against increasing taxes for poor people, who should be less reliant on means-tested benefits. Such benefits will always be with us, but should be for the exceptional cases rather than for average groups of people.

211WH
When child benefit was first introduced, it effectively rolled up a tax allowance into a universal benefit—a process for which there is more scope in future for other tax allowances. If a large increase in the personal allowance is the first step, the next step is a flat-rate benefit, otherwise known as a citizen's income. Again, the idea initially came from the right. It may have been proposed earlier, but to my knowledge the first suggestion was from Christopher Monckton, a researcher in Downing street in the late 1980s or early 1990s, when the Tories were in control. The idea may have a longer history than that.
Such a policy would draw people from both ends of the spectrum. It would maximise personal freedom and incentives to save. Every time that it is raised, people say that its time has not yet come. I disagree; in Ireland, for example, there are interesting debates on the subject. However, it may be a second step. As a first step, I plead with the Government to consider the direction that they have chosen and the complexity and amount of means-testing. In the future, 65 per cent. of pensioners will be subject to some kind of means-testing, and I doubt that that will be conducive to the Government's aim of increasing private savings. Surely, we can broadly unite around such principles. If there were the will, such changes could be introduced.
11.36 am
Mr. Michael Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate and on beginning what should be a much more widespread discussion. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) said, it is restricted to a few aficionados at present.
As a former Treasury Minister, I share something in common with the Paymaster General. We have had to deal with the real complexities of the tax system in the form of the Finance Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham thinks that everything that every Minister wants emerges in the Finance Bill, I can tell him that an enormous discard process restrains the well-meaning officials from the Inland Revenue who beaver away with a sometimes zealot-like commitment to ensure that money is raised in accordance with what they believe are the wishes of the Government of the day. Ministers must occasionally restrain their enthusiasm, however, and many non-starters in the budget process end up in the wastepaper bin.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak gave several cameo observations to illustrate where complexity abounds in the present tax system. If we are to discuss simplification, we must first define what we mean by a simplified tax system. The world is a complex place. If the Government of the day are to secure revenue through the major areas of tax—personal, business and international taxation—to pay the national bills, complex systems will be involved.
We must determine whether we wish to start removing bits of the tax architecture. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham referred to problems with capital gains tax, for example. I agree with his comments about the Chancellor's fiddly approach to tax.
212WH
However, we must consider the justification for and implications of removing parts of the tax structure. For example, the Conservative Government removed the tax provision on performance-related pay because we felt that it had had its day, it was being abused and, if the truth be told, such a change was a good way of raising revenue. There were good reasons for doing it, and the tax system was simplified by the removal of that legislation.
If we are to have an honest debate, we must start by asking what should stay and what should go, if that is our definition of a simplified tax system. If we do that, we must have a wider debate, which we have not had in this country. We have not discussed tax, as we are all frightened of it. The political parties shy away from discussing it. The Government try to shield themselves from the debate by saying that they will not raise the basic and higher rates of tax. A great shield is held up against anyone who says that Labour is a tax-raising party. The Government, like every other Government, have been forced into raising revenue, however, and many things go on behind the scenes that we define as stealth taxes.
At the end of the day, we are avoiding the debate about what it is legitimate to tax. Our tax system has grown out of building on history; it is not an accident of history. Before the present range of income taxes, many capital taxes were invented: stamp duty, inheritance tax and so on. The world has moved on, but we have not discussed whether it is sensible to tax people's inheritance or to use stamp duty. The current Chancellor has found that stamp duty is a nice littler earner and the dog that does not bite. By putting in a little complexity here and a tweak there, we get a few more billions out of the tax system. Politically, I see the attractiveness of that.
A second way to simplify the tax system is to be honest enough in the 21st century to stop and ask what we are taxing. Are these the right ways for the Government to derive their revenue? We should go back one stage further and debate how much tax it is sensible for a modern economy to contribute as a percentage of gross domestic product. We seldom start the debate about tax from the size of the cake and then ask how we raise it. Instead, Governments have built on the substructure of the tax system that they have inherited from the previous Government. Usually, we add to it, but occasionally we take pieces away. If we are going to talk about simplification, we need to have a fundamental discussion about the purpose and architecture of the tax system. Otherwise, we will end up fiddling.
The Finance Bill is a fiddler's charter. Along the conveyor belt of Budget starters come individual measures, which are perfectly justified and formed in their own way, to tell the Minister of the day what needs to be done. The Paymaster General will have experienced that in her early days, as I did. The Minister, however, never saw the big picture—what he or she was bolting in or taking out of the tax system—or the added complexity until the tax law rewrite exercise brought forth its first product, the Capital Allowances Act 2001. We suddenly had the book on capital allowances, which was remarkably clear, and we could read it for the first time from beginning to end. The story unfolded. The previous system grew like Topsy. No one could

213WH
understand it, or see where a review of schedule A might be sensible to take into account modern property transactions. Now, we can.
The rewrite exercise opened an important window on the operation of the tax system. I am glad that the process was begun when I was Financial Secretary and I pay tribute to the present Paymaster General for taking on the exercise. I just wish that she would increase the resources that are available to it, especially with regard to the drafting of the parliamentary counsel, so that the process can be speeded up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham pointed out, the exercise is starting to tease out where improvements could be made. Excellent officials in the Inland Revenue have identified some of them.
The exercise could be a way of refining current law, rather than changing it, especially with regard to schedule E and earned income, but it needs to go further. The Government should not be frightened of having the debate to which I referred.
My hon. Friend pointed out the need for greater consultation—an ocean of consultation takes place on the mechanics of the tax system. All sorts of representative bodies spend half their lives whizzing in and out of Somerset house talking to Revenue officials. The problem is that we have not had that discussion about the tax system. If the Paymaster General was feeling brave, why did she not set up a group of interested parties to examine simplification? I would have volunteered my services to help in that task, for what they are worth.
I have met with many representative bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I have told them all that if they want to talk about simplified tax, they should produce some. So far, they have not produced one piece. They have returned to the need for better written tax law—tax law that is more easily understandable and has fewer bells, knobs and whistles on it. If a cleaning up of the tax system is what we mean, that is fine and we should agree with that as a definition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham mentioned one or two examples where the Chancellor has indulged in additional complexity. My position on tapers in the capital gains tax regime is well known. I thought that the taper system was wrong because it made an artificial distinction between long and short-term capital movements. We lack any form of economic appraisal to determine who is right about that. Will the new proposals do what the Chancellor of the day says that they will do?
When Ministers receive tax proposals, they get a generalised statement of their likely impact, but we do not. One classic example, which I raised during the Finance Bill proceedings last year, concerns the reduction in VAT on children's car seats. The Red Book included a series of vaguely connected sentences in justification of the tax. It gave the impression that reducing the VAT on car seats would cut the numbers of children who are tragically killed on our roads by inducing people to buy better seats that provide better protection for children. However, a helpful official at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the
214WH
Regions told me that 50 per cent. of children killed on the roads are pedestrians. Would it have been better to deploy the £5 million that the measure cost on improved publicity and raising safety awareness for children on the footpaths of our nation? Have we had any justification for the measure? Has it worked and has the change been passed on in lower prices?
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The right hon. Gentleman knows about that matter as it was dealt with in the Standing Committee. The Government simultaneously increased the grant funding to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to deal with pedestrian accidents. He can check the record, but I am sure that he will remember that the figures were given to him at the time.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady shows sensitivity about the matter in rising to intervene. I will not rerun those debates, but the question was a good way of illustrating that we do not know whether adding yet another element to the tax system was effective. It is the same with capital gains tax. We have no economic analysis to tell us in capital terms whether tapered tax has had a better impact on industry than the previous system of CGT or having no taper at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham mentioned stamp duty and we do not know its impact on property transactions. We do not know whether a cliff edge or a tapered version of stamp duty is the way forward. There are an awful lot of don't knows.
The complexity of our tax system is partly due to avoidance. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak touched on that and painted a picture of a pure world in which people would read the words of tax legislation and follow them exactly. I am sure that the Paymaster General will know of many examples of when clever people have read the words. I remember some gentlemen from Close Brothers getting terribly upset when I told them that they could not have a £55,000 personal equity plan. They had read the PEP legislation, thought "What a whizzo idea", bought £6,000 worth of PEPs, parachuted into them the income from £49,000 of an interest-earning asset and set the return so that no capital gains could be levied. It was a wonderful return and a fantastic way of investing, but it blew a hole a mile wide in what the PEP legislation was all about and had to be stopped.
The banks and insurance companies then came up with a whizzo wheeze on life assurance policies, which put at risk £750 million of tax revenue. The famous Glaxo case on transfer pricing—a dimension of international taxation—put at risk a further £600 million of tax revenue. So, any decent Financial Secretary or Paymaster General who is seeking to safeguard the public purse will always have to block up such holes in the tax system.
During the lifetime of the present Government, the need for general avoidance legislation—an all-encompassing super sentence that would stop it all—has been debated but they have rightly drawn back from that. Avoidance is an intellectual battle between clever people who examine tax law and try to interpret it in certain ways. That is the problem. Tax is not scientific; it is a best endeavour to raise money. The ways in which people get round tax legislation illustrate why tax law is

215WH
so complicated. If a truce could be declared on avoidance, a vast array of tax laws could be scrapped. That would help enormously, but is unlikely to happen.
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about why he is against general anti-avoidance provisions? The Ramsey test case helped considerably, but subsequent cases blew it apart and we ended up in the position that the right hon. Gentleman described. Could not the Government by statute return us at least to a Ramsey-type position and perhaps even better?
Mr. Jack: I said that tax is a set of words open to interpretation and the same would apply to general anti-avoidance provisions. Perhaps someone could provide a set of words to do the job effectively, but I have yet to see it and I remain to be convinced. I was illustrating how a vast amount of tax complexity is due to plugging avoidance holes.
The Chancellor has a tendency to fiddle with many little micro-measures. Research and development tax credits are a classic example. We have no idea what the effect will be. Until we can achieve some economic appraisal of these measures, the tax system will be an open door to fiddling, adding on small measures and providing a sense of well-being to whatever group has achieved something from the Budget. Greater complexity arises for questionable effects.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak referred to playing tunes with the tax system. When I was in the Treasury, I recall one of its officials saying, "Ministers, you can achieve the Conservative promise of a basic tax rate of 20 per cent." —no 10 per cent. from us, I hasten to add—"even though we are short of revenue". I thought that it was fantastic and wondered where they kept the Harry Potter magic wand. It meant moving allowances, changing national insurance measures, reforming rates here and there. I realised that it was possible to have umpteen variations on the theme and that the machine would continue to turn out money. What was the objective? That was the key point.
The hon. Lady also mentioned flat tax and advocated simple tax systems, with simple rates and allowances— great! Starting with a clean sheet, such a system might develop. I refer hon. Members back about seven years to parliamentary questions put by the then Member for Carshalton and Wallington, Nigel Forman, who wrote a good pamphlet on this subject. The answers showed the winners and losers under the arrangements that were current then.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak obviously has a keen knowledge of social security, but making changes means dealing with the winners and losers, which is difficult unless starting out with a brand new system. The Chancellor has gone too far. The hon. Lady was right that the 10p rate was unnecessary window dressing.
On the other hand, the PAYE autopilot, which works extraordinarily well, shields two thirds of taxpayers from much of the system's complexity. Those who have to fill in the self-assessment tax form wander into such
216WH
complexity and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said, greater transparency should be considered.
Lynne Jones: I accept the problem of winners and losers, but that should not stop us from moving towards the system that I advocate. I agree that it will be a slow process, but we could have a consensus that that is what we should aim for and work towards it.
Mr. Jack: I draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that I agree with the hon. Lady. However, tax is one of the great politically sensitive matters. It is almost like death—no one wants to talk about it. The Government of the day want to be able to say that they are not raising too much tax or that they are doing wonderful things with the bits of their handiwork that they admire, but they will not talk about the legitimacy of what they should tax and how they should do it.
If there were a public debate on the matter, we might find new ways to raise revenue that the public would think legitimate. If that could be done, some of the superstructure could be dismantled. For example, in France there is VAT on food and people return from visits there saying how cheap the cigarettes and the booze are. The French have a nice little source of revenue and food seems to be cheap too. We cannot talk about that, however, because both our major parties say, "We will not put VAT on fresh food, children's clothes, books and periodicals." That may be right, but we have not discussed it because it is a no-go area.
To deal with simplification, we must first define "simplify", consider the history of the tax system and its legitimacy and have a proper, public debate about the matter. If we were not frightened to talk about tax we might find a way to simplify a complex system in a complex world.
11.56 am
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on their excellent contributions to it.
I recommend to hon. Members the report of the debate sponsored by the noble Lord Howe in the other place on 23 January. I welcome the fact that both Houses are debating what the right hon. Member for Fylde was right to call a key issue. Liberal Democrats believe that a simpler tax system would be of huge micro-economic significance to the personal and corporate sectors. I shall deal later with the costs of complexity, which have been discussed and which are much larger than has been acknowledged.
I declare an interest of sorts. The tax law review committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, of which I am a member, established a working party chaired by Sir Alan Budd on the institutional need for tax simplification. The committee will publish a report in due course. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will respond positively to the ideas advanced by the group, which includes members of all parties and many external experts.

217WH
The right hon. Member for Fylde talked about starting with a definition of a simpler tax system, which he seemed to define only in terms of the language. I want a wider definition. To build a simpler tax system, we must consider long-term tax policies, the reform of existing taxes, which have been discussed today, and the process of implementing those policies. We must bear in mind that some of the complexity arises from the way in which taxes are administered, not from the taxes themselves. We need to look at the bureaucracies and how they organise themselves. Often, their organisation leads to unnecessary complexity, such as the separation of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue, about which the Minister has trenchant views.
Political parties need to assess their tax measures in the light of simplification. We need to widen the long-term debate and to deal with some of the sacred cows that have wandered into the polity of Britain. It is a shame that in the beginning of the 21st century we cannot discuss measures that we debated vigorously in the 1970s and 1980s. It is a retrograde step. It is a symptom of spin politics that we should de-spin for the sake of the taxpayer.
I want to talk more about the processes. In his Hardman memorial lecture Lord Howe emphasised simplicity and stability. He talked about the need to reduce the volume and pace of change, which is important. We should look at ourselves in the House as we are responsible for that in many ways. An examination of the processes involves both looking at ways to stop the situation getting any worse and reviewing what has already happened.
Lord Howe and others have suggested that we should get rid of the annual Finance Bill. I agree. The right hon. Member for Fylde talked about the need to protect the revenue yield to the Treasury. That is right. Nevertheless, we have an annual Finance Bill only because income tax and corporation tax are not permanent taxes on the statute book. If we reformed the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 and made income tax permanent, we could think about tax policy in a longer term way. We could have a comprehensive tax review to go alongside the comprehensive spending review. We could look at tax policy over a period of three or four years rather than have this annual change, which is a dynamic in itself for more legislation and increased instability in the system.
Let us consider changing the Finance Bill regime. I am attracted by the idea of separating the Finance Bill into two parts—whatever remains of it after the reform of the 1968 Act. A change in excise duties requires a Budget resolution and a quick Finance Bill to put it in place. Perhaps every year, or preferably every two or three years, we could have a technical taxes Act to deal with some of the detailed changes in a more protracted way with greater consultation. Let us reform the Finance Bill system so that we do not make it any worse, and let us also look at the past and at some of the ideas floating around the various institutes and professions.
Let us look at building on the wonderful tax law rewrite project. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Fareham and to the Paymaster General for their work and support for that project. It produces a whole set of reform proposals, which it cannot deal with because its remit is tightly drawn only to rewrite the existing law. What will happen to all those ideas? Although Lord
218WH
Howe and many other people could probably claim paternity for the idea, I suggest that we need a tax commission similar to the Law Commission or, preferably, a Select Committee in the House of Lords, charged with looking at the existing tax system and proposing sensible reforms to the Government. It would be up to the Government of the day to decide whether to adopt them. It would be a body with the political clout and expertise to ensure that the legacy of complication was reduced.
On the costs of complexities, some people question whether that is a problem, although business men or tax consultants readily admit that it is. What is the real cost? The figures are not readily accessible. We have had various estimates over the years, primarily from Professor Sandford and his team at Bath university. I saw a figure suggesting that compliance costs—I believe that his definition of compliance costs in this case is both private and public sector costs—equated to 1.5 per cent. of GDP, so we are talking about £15 billion to comply with and administer the tax system.
Professor Sandford's latest work is entitled "Why Tax Systems Differ" and was published by Fiscal Publications in 2000. It has a chapter on administration and compliance costs, which goes into some academic detail about how one goes about working out those costs. The major conclusions are that we are only beginning to develop the methodology of working them out; that it is difficult to make international comparisons, for a number of reasons; that high public sector administration costs might not be a bad thing if they reduce private sector compliance costs; and, that compliance costs are higher than previously thought and we must start to take them seriously, which is the key point. Professor Sandford talks about much greater interest in the issue and many more studies being commissioned, and I give the Government credit for commissioning some of them.
I hope that the Paymaster General will elaborate more today than she and her officials have done in recent months in answers to my parliamentary questions. For example, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had received a final copy of the study by Professor Anne Hansford into the compliance costs to business of the UK tax system and when he would publish the study. The Paymaster General replied:
"Studies into compliance costs for Corporation Tax and VAT were commissioned as the first stage of a four year research programme into the compliance costs to businesses of the UK tax system." — [Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 870W.]
In other words, we did not receive a clear answer, which is not unusual.
The Government have commissioned a four-year research programme, but I hope that they will not wait until the end of that period before sharing some of the lessons with us. We want to help, which is an important reason for them to do so. The Paymaster General is looking at me over her glasses because she cannot believe that Opposition Members want to help the Government, but this is a shared project. It is not a project of the Government of the day; it is a project through which we as parliamentarians can improve the system.

219WH
I urge the hon. Lady to say more about the studies that have been commissioned, to share her thoughts on how the Government are looking into the issue and the research that they are doing and, as the right hon. Member for Fylde said, to involve us, because that is terribly important. To tempt her into doing so, I shall end by praising the Government on one or two matters. There is no doubt that consultation on tax measures has improved under this Government. The pre-Budget report is a big step forward and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they have been supporting the tax law rewrite project.
In answer to another debate in which the right hon. Gentleman and I talked about tax simplification, the Paymaster General said:
"I am sympathetic to their point." —[Official Report, 19 December 2000; Vol. 360, c. 323.]
Clearly, she is minded to support us and I hope that she will move from sympathy to activism by setting up the institutions, processes and policy review that will enable us, over five or 10 years, to tackle this major problem.
12.8 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate, in which extremely valuable contributions have been made. I hope that this debate and the recent debate in the House of Lords will be the start of a much more open and focused public debate.
I should perhaps declare an interest, having established a Centre for Policy Studies committee under the chairmanship of Lord Young to consider the areas in which there may be scope for simplication and to make proposals. It is interesting that competing bodies are doing the same.
Unfortunately, the Government have made the tax system more complicated than it needs to be, particularly in proliferating personal tax rates, as is evidenced by the speedy increase in the length of "Tolley's" tax guide. I shall not name names, but I spoke to a Treasury Minister just this week who commented that they regretted having to employ an accountant to do their tax return because they did not have time to deal with the complicated forms. As more people are dragged into complexity, the risk of lack of compliance will increase, as will extreme annoyance.
I pay tribute to the Revenue staff. They do an amazing job in dealing with our tax system. For eight years in the 1980s I sat on a Treasury tax consultative committee. In those days, representatives of different parts of the country's economic life were sounded out in confidence about potential tax changes and their impact. It is a pity that the committee was eventually wound down in, I believe, the early 1990s.
It is important that Paymasters General remain in post for a reasonable period of time to gain intellectual mastery of the brief. I congratulate the Paymaster General on that, because I have observed in the past—not in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) —that if Tax Ministers move too frequently, the situation tends to worsen.
220WH
Let me discuss some principles. My right hon. Friend raised the big question of legitimacy, but other obvious principles should be considered. One is as old as tax itself: the cost-efficiency of taxation. We should consider not just the costs to the Revenue of collecting taxes but the costs to businesses and people of paying taxes. Some areas of tax are extremely efficient and, manifestly, some are less efficient. That is one criteria.
I believe passionately in the principle of not distorting economic activity. There is a growing tendency for taxation to do that. It is crucial not to damage the gross national product and not to drive economic business activity abroad or allow it to go elsewhere when it might come to the UK. I remember fighting the cause of the investment management industry when I sat as its representative on the Treasury consultative committee. I pointed out that Dublin and Luxembourg were getting huge amounts of fund management business that London should have, that the business would be more honestly and better carried out in London, and that the central issue was whether tax should be stopped on interest paid by money and bond funds. For whatever reasons, the Revenue did not agree, and we lost huge amounts of income and employment because about £500 billion of business was done elsewhere.
I am cautious about using the tax system to encourage certain types of behaviour rather than simply to raise revenue efficiently. The most fashionable aspect of that at present is environmental taxation. One can see the logic, but I suspect that the results are often contrary to the intentions. It may drive some businesses to areas where there are less stringent environmental checks, and it can lead to nonsensical outcomes. For example, it is not surprising that many people ended up with wrong codes under the new car taxation arrangements. The requirement for employers who provide cars to report the carbon dioxide engine emission details to the Inland Revenue is strange. No doubt manufacturers of cars will eventually provide it, but it is not information that someone responsible for PAYE can easily find.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Inland Revenue should instigate a completely new coding exercise or—as seems to be the intention—require individual taxpayers or advisers to contact the Inland Revenue?
Mr. Flight: In practice, it seems that a coding exercise may be necessary. As things are developing at present, there is the danger of a considerable shambles.
We all say that it is wonderful to take measures that are good for the environment, but I believe that they can lead to taxation that is economically damaging or misconceived. We should be wary of using the tax system for objectives other than solely raising tax. The taxation of cigarettes is complete madness— [Laughter.] Yes, I declare an interest. The revenues are far lower than they should be and it encourages smuggling on a wide scale. At least theoretically, the taxation of tobacco and alcohol should be on the supply and demand curve for maximising tax revenues. It is misconceived to think that people's behaviour can be changed purely by imposing taxation that is designed entirely for other areas.
I echo the points that were made about not changing the system of taxation more often than is necessary. The Government constantly revisit and tinker with elements

221WH
that are of interest to them and leave unchanged areas that are not of interest, but where there may be scope for change.
It is crucial to keep the tax system for individuals sufficiently simple for them to understand. In a recent debate in the Committee that considered the Tax Credits Bill, I was shocked to hear the Financial Secretary say that we could have a system like a television set that was so complicated that no one would understand it, but that all people had to do was turn the switches on. Whether people are paying tax or receiving negative income tax, if they do not broadly understand the rules we invite chaos, if not semi-fraud. Clearly, complexity does create fraud.
There is a relationship between the number of Inland Revenue or tax officer staff and the amounts of tax paid and of taxpayers. Although the United States has a reasonably complicated tax system, the ratio of people working in the Internal Revenue Service to tax paid and taxpayers is much lower than it is here. The Paymaster General seems to be shaking her head. Perhaps we will have a chance to return to that.
Layer on layer of taxation is a problem that is most evident in relation to pensions taxation and company taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, the solution may be to take bits of the architecture out.
Anti-avoidance measures are unavoidable. The principle of having only general anti-avoidance provisions was tested in Canada, where it created the problem that commercial transactions had to be pre-cleared, which occupied large numbers of inland revenue staff and considerably delayed the process of commerce. The clear distinction between evasion and avoidance is essential to the honesty of our society. It is understandable that people will want to pay as little tax within the law as they can, but they must know whether or not they are crossing the boundaries of the law. A degree of rough justice between fairness and efficiency is required. In recent years we have bent over backwards to honour fairness where it is both tax-inefficient and not necessarily appreciated by citizens at large. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham described what was wrong with tax complexity and the problems that it could cause to government and business.
The Saatchi and Warburton proposals appeal to me greatly in principle, for the same reasons that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) outlined. One of tasks of the committee in which I am involved is to consider the viability of those proposals. The overlap between the number of people who pay tax and the number who receive benefits is about 40 per cent. It is not as easy as simply raising the tax threshold and doing away with many benefits because one is dealing with overlapping but not concentric groups of people.
Lynne Jones: The proposed citizen's income would deal with that because people who receive income support would be paid.
Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Lady and look forward to co-opting her on to the committee.
222WH
The corporate area is not of great interest to citizens at large, but there is still scope for masses of simplification, and I commend the Institute of Directors' 11 quick wins, with which I shall not deal at length.
Dawn Primarolo: There are only 10 minutes of the Adjournment debate left. I know that the hon. Gentleman has many interesting things to say, but if I am to answer hon. Members' points, I implore him to be brief.
Mr. Flight: The last thing that I want to do is to deny the Paymaster General sufficient time to respond.
There is scope to deal with corporate taxation. On personal taxation, the major principle is that although it is okay to introduce complexity for those at the top end of the scale, if that creeps down to the majority, and especially to those at the bottom end of the scale, it becomes unworkable. That is where we are going, and it is largely unnecessary.
12.21 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on securing the debate. The convention is for short replies from Ministers in Westminster Hall debates and I hope that all hon. Members who took part will excuse the fact that I shall be unable to answer every question.
I shall assist the hon. Gentleman with some information that he quoted from parliamentary answers. If he returns to the question that he asked about capital gains, he will notice that the paragraph that gave him the answers of 7.4 per cent., 14.8 per cent. and 29.6 per cent. is preceded by a statement that those figures were calculated by "ignoring behavioural changes". The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who experienced the tax law rewrite and is a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, touched on that matter when he referred to simplification.
The hon. Member for Fareham quoted figures on the increase in Inland Revenue staff. Unfortunately, he did not mention that 8,400 staff were transferred directly from social security work in the Contributions Agency and that 3,700 were transferred in with tax credits. The increase in the number of staff in the Inland Revenue was around 245 in the period he discussed, which, given the vast increase in taxpayers due to the Government's economic reforms and success in getting people back to work, is not a large increase when compared with the increase in workload.
Mr. Hoban: I was careful in picking my numbers from the parliamentary answers because the disconnect clearly took place during the first part of the Administration as new functions were brought into the Inland Revenue. I was well aware of that issue, but time prevented me from pursuing the matter further with the Minister's colleagues.
Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets that information on the record in a parliamentary answer if he would like it.

223WH
The point of the debate has been to suggest that the United Kingdom is suffering, but I remind hon. Members that the UK has more direct foreign investment than a large number of other countries and that we are now fourth in the worldwide league table. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund have pointed out that the United Kingdom is one of the most conducive environments in which to do business and continues to attract half of all new headquarters of multinationals. The UK and its economy are in a very buoyant position.
Simplification involves a number of propositions. We would all agree that simplification is correct and that we should try to achieve it, but it must be balanced with certainty, fairness and what we intend the tax system to do. As the right hon. Member for Fylde pointed out, to start from the proposition that whatever we do in the tax system no one will try to circumvent it and do something else, is simply to fail to face up to what is really happening. There must be intervention on the basis of fairness. I intend the tax system to be used as it is supposed to be and for relief to be given as it is meant to be. I will come back to anti-avoidance.
Another question involved in simplification is whether Members of Parliament believe that there is any role for the tax system to intervene on market failure. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) says not, but that is not business's view, nor the view of many of his Front-Bench colleagues. It seems to me that people want complexity when they believe that it suits them. The capital allowances legislation is an example of that. People do not want complexity if it means that their taxes are higher.
What the Government must do, and have been doing, is to examine how to balance simplicity, fairness and equity and look at what it is acceptable for the tax system to do and not do. The Government have clearly laid out our objectives for the tax system. They are to
224WH
ensure economic stability, raise productivity, increase employment opportunities and tackle child poverty in a fair tax system. Within our complex world and our complex economy, we try to take those principles forward.
Of course, fairness to one person can be uncertainty to another. The hon. Member for Fareham mentioned tax planners. I find it breathtaking if he is seriously suggesting that there will be a truce and that tax planners will say that they will never try to put bits of legislation together that were never intended to go together to minimise relief. Of course that is not the case. There is always that intellectual challenge, as the right hon. Member for Fylde pointed out.
The next question is how to defend ourselves against that possibility. How do we have simply written and easily understandable legislation? I wholeheartedly support the tax law rewrite project, and the capital allowances legislation, in particular, is fantastic. We have tried to get to such a truce and asked if we could have general anti-avoidance legislation, but business said, "No, that is no good". Can we have smaller, or mini, general anti-avoidance legislation? The problem with the anti-abuse legislation is that it is so large. Again, business says, "No." The hon. Member for Fareham says that we should consult more. We consult, and business says, "No."
I do not mind having the debate that right hon. and hon. Members have suggested this morning. It is important, however, not to enter that debate with rose-tinted glasses, believing that the tax system is neutral and that people do not try to manipulate it. The purpose of the tax system is to raise money fairly to invest in public services. I am happy to have had this short debate and I do not mind having it again and again because the more people who understand what goes on in the tax system—how people try to manipulate it and where the winners and losers are—the more they will understand that the process of simplification, fairness and certainty in investment is a difficult balance, which the Government are striking.

Health Inequalities (Huddersfield)
12.29 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a great pleasure to introduce a debate on a topic close to my heart, and to have it presided over by you, Mr. Illsley, a fellow Yorkshire Member of Parliament. I want to make general points before coming to the specifics of Huddersfield. Huddersfield is a typical place when considering health inequalities because it is close to the national average—so, when we talk of the place, we talk about the United Kingdom.
When we celebrated the 50th birthday of the national health service, not long ago, it was a time for reflection. An interesting part of that reflection was that when the NHS was founded, there was a tremendous confidence in the fact that health inequalities would be tackled. Some who were euphoric believed and wrote that by and large the NHS would eventually disappear, as all ill health would be cleared up, problems of health inequalities would be solved and there would no longer be a need for a health system. We have learned a few lessons since then.
I want to point out the important fact that after some initial success in delivering health care to a broader audience, and in involving more people in high-quality health care, something significant happened. When we became the Government in 1997 and looked back over the previous 20 years, we found that, astonishingly, health inequalities had widened. For two generations, the gap had widened between the two extremes of those who had good health and were enjoying longer, healthier lives in social class 1, and those in social class 5. That is worrying for someone who represents an average constituency such as Huddersfield. So, why did it occur?
First, I will give some chilling figures. In the early 70s, the mortality rate among men of working age was almost twice as high for those in social class 5 as it was for those in social class 1. By the early 90s, it was almost three times as high. Those are unacceptable figures. Between 1970 and 1972, the mortality rate per 100,000 men aged between 20 and 64 was 500 in social class 1 and 897 in social class 5. By 1991–93, the number had fallen to 280 in social class 1, but was 806 in social class 5. That is not to suggest that there had not been a general improvement across the piece, but the gap was widening substantially.
Interestingly, Professor Richard Peters, who was responsible for a clinical trials study in Oxford, believes that smoking was a relevant explanation for up to 30 per cent. of that disparity—another chilling figure. We know that such disparity in Huddersfield and the average constituency such as yours, Mr. Illsley, or the Minister's, is centred around income. To paraphrase President Clinton, "It's income, stupid"—how much disposable income is necessary to promote a healthy life.
Income is not the only important issue because factors such as family, smoking, alcohol, drugs, poor diet and a lack of good exercise are also relevant. Those on lower incomes with lower education are prone to a range of diseases. I have spent my lifetime in Parliament campaigning for public health measures such as seatbelts, and I was interested to learn that social classes 4 and 5 are most likely to die in accidents.
226WH
The answers lie in education, and poverty alleviation through the income tax system and other benefit systems to address poor incomes. Employment is important because there is a clear relationship between having a job, feeling good about oneself and having good health. One great thing that the Government have achieved during the past five years is a record level of employment. The disparity between social classes I and 5 becomes more worrying when one realises that the statistics leave out unemployed and disabled people. That is the nature of the statistics, but many that look pretty darn awful are in fact even worse because they only take into account people in work.
Given your constituency, Mr. Illsley, you know about accidents, the mining industry and the health of miners, and you know what that environment did to the health of both your constituents and mine. The chemical industry had a heavy presence in both the Minister's constituency of Pontefract and Castleford and mine, and it caused diseases, especially in the dyestuff industry in Huddersfield, which are a serious indictment of former industrial practices.
Wearing another hat, I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills. On becoming Chairman, one of the first inquiries that we conducted concerned school meals, which are important for children from deprived backgrounds. For many years, especially under the previous Administration, there was a move away from a balanced and healthy school meal regime. The Committee visited schools where there was a broad choice from salads to what I call "proper food", but sadly many children were eating burgers, chips and other unhealthy stuff. Worryingly, a recent survey asked school children to identify a range of fruits and vegetables, but they did not know what they were. There are worrying trends in our diets.
In Huddersfield, we have just reached the stage at which we no longer see old men with bandy legs who had worked in textile mills and whose children must have suffered from rickets, because that generation has died out. There is, however, a new generation with symptoms of obesity, who we can predict will die early of coronary heart disease or other diseases because of their diet and lifestyle. Couch-potato syndrome is a problem because people are not getting enough exercise. There is too much watching sport on television and not enough participation in it.
What can we do about these matters in Huddersfield, and what can we do about them nationally? I have been involved with the launch of the new health forum and the new parliamentary group on health. Until now, we have been unable to identify the statistics on health that influence our constituencies because most data have been collected on a regional and sub-regional level, which is too broad and unfocused. The Dr. Foster organisation enables us to identify, in some focus and detail, health statistics in our own constituencies. The service is accessed by using a private pin number. You could use it, Mr. Illsley, to access the health statistics in your Barnsley constituency. It could be of great benefit to Members of Parliament, and I hope that they will use it. The House of Commons Library can provide marvellous statistics on employment—unemployment rates, length of employment, male, female and youth unemployment, the shift between manufacturing and service jobs, and so on—but health statistics remain vague.

227WH
Many of our parliamentary colleagues are remiss in their approach to local health problems. In Huddersfield and elsewhere, the regime should be much more focused on making MPs pro-active leaders—knowing about community health issues and assuming a leadership role. To do that, they need the relevant statistics. Now that they are available, I hope that Members will use them.
For too many MPs, their only contact with the health sector comes from sitting in their advice surgeries hearing complaints about the health service. One always hears a lot about the people who complain—"You never did anything for me, Mr. Sheerman"—but not much about the contented people whom one has helped. Sometimes thex write a letter, but more often one meets them in the street and they say, "All those years ago, you helped me." Many people are happy with the good service that they receive from the NHS, but those cases do not come to prominence and the Leader of the Opposition does not drag them into Question Time.
MPs should be more pro-active. I do not want their relationship with the health service to be limited to involvement only when a ward or a cottage hospital is closing down and they rush in like the fire brigade attending a fire. MPs are always invited to and are good at attending ceremonies at which a Minister unveils a plaque for a new hospital extension, but the prescription for changing health understanding in this place is to make Members commit themselves to spending seven days—a whole week—in a hospital talking to patients, doctors, nurses and ancillary and care staff to find out what is really going on. Too many of us talk about health without any real focus.
In Huddersfield, the town centre has more deprived wards than less deprived wards. In other words, more people from the lower socioeconomic classes live in the centre. We are surrounded by higher-income and more affluent areas, especially in our valleys. Data from the Library shows a clear difference between the centre and the wealthier periphery. I am sure that the same applies in your constituency, Mr. Illsley.
I applaud the Government for taking two brilliant steps. First, they have introduced a 10-year national strategy for the health service. Secondly, they have set targets for tackling health inequalities over that period of time. Even better, statistics are emerging that show that since 1997 the gap between social class 1 and social class 5 has started to close, not to widen further. As with education, the resources that the Government are putting into health care seem to be paying off, although it is early days.
Primary care trusts are part of the answer. The Government's ambition for the not-too-distant future is for 75 per cent. of health spend to be in the hands of the primary care trusts. There has recently been consultation on whether there should be one or two primary care trusts in the Huddersfield area. Until now, one trust, Huddersfield Central, has covered most of the deprived wards in my Huddersfield constituency and the neighbouring one, Colne Valley, and another trust, South Huddersfield, has covered more affluent areas.
During the public consultation—surprise, surprise—there was an enormous furore of activity in the more affluent area, led by GPs, who lent on their patients,
228WH
disgracefully in my view, to write to the Minister and sign letters and petitions. In more middle-class, professional residential areas, it is so easy to organise such things, but we saw less of that activity in the Huddersfield Central area.
After a long deliberation, Huddersfield health authority came down firmly in favour of one primary care trust for the area. Huddersfield is one community. It does not contain a more deprived community and a more affluent one, it is one community. I would have thought that, to tackle health care inequalities, one primary care trust would have been the answer.
The Minister might be going to tell me that there is a reason why the Government overturned the health authority's recommendation, ignored it and said that we will have two trusts—one for the affluent and one for the less affluent area. Those trusts go across constituency boundaries. Will she tell me the rationale for that decision? I think that people in this House know that I am a reasonable Member of Parliament and that I can accept a reasoned argument, but I have not heard the rationale and logic for that move. Pontefract or Barnsley, for example, do not have one primary care trust for the more deprived part and another for the more affluent, but the Government have decided that my town and my community should. If the Minister can give me a rationale, and assure me that the reason for the decision is that money will be poured into Huddersfield Central, and that it will be given an enormous amount of resources per head compared with South Huddersfield, which is more affluent and does not need so many resources, I shall be content and we can resume our normal good relations.
I hope that the debate has put in context why I, as a Member of Parliament, feel strongly about health inequalities. The Government have done some good things and are on the road to tackling inequalities, but I am part of the coalition that wants faster change. I want to know why, in the Huddersfield area, it is deemed right to have two primary care trusts, one for the more affluent area and one for the less affluent area.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on securing the debate and on raising the important issue of health inequalities in his constituency. He made some general points and some specific ones about his area, particularly about the primary care trusts. I shall attempt to address those in turn.
I concur with my hon. Friend's points about the scars that health inequalities leave right across the country. It is fundamentally unfair that people on higher incomes on average live longer than those on lower incomes, and that people in some parts of the country live significantly longer than those in other areas purely on the basis of region and background. That is unfair, and we must address such inequalities in our broad programmes to tackle the causes of ill health and in more local structures and health service programmes.
The scale of health inequalities is stark. For example, a baby boy born in Calderdale and Kirklees health authority can expect to live three years less than a baby boy born in Barnet—at the end of the 20th century.

229WH
The teenage pregnancy rate for girls under 18 in Calderdale and Kirklees is 60 per cent. higher than in Barnet, resulting in health and social inequalities being passed from one generation to the next. The infant mortality rate in the most deprived areas is 70 per cent. higher than in the most affluent areas and babies born to low-income families are more likely to have low birth weight, which is linked to health and education problems for many years. I share my hon. Friend's anxieties about those health inequalities and his welcome for the fact that the latest figures show that the life expectancy gap for men in the most affluent and most deprived social groups has, at last, begun to narrow. The latest figures are extremely welcome, but, as he said, we have a long way to go.
The provisional findings of the Centre for Health Economics in York suggest that the majority of people are shocked when they become aware of such health inequalities and believe that action should be taken to narrow the gap. The Government are right not just in investing to improve and reform our health service, but in investing to improve and narrow health inequalities.
Much of the work in this area stems from that of Sir Donald Acheson and his team who were commissioned soon after the 1997 election to carry out an independent inquiry into inequalities in health and the causes of those inequalities. It was the first time since the Black report some 20 years before that a major report was produced on health inequalities in this country. It examined the root causes of ill health, ranging from child poverty, unemployment and poor housing, and more immediate factors such as smoking and poor diet. As my hon. Friend said, smoking is indeed one of the greatest causes of health inequalities because the highest rates of smoking are among those on lowest incomes.
Since the 1997 general election, we have taken action to try to narrow those health inequalities. For example, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit have lifted 1 million children out of poverty. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that measure alone will probably have more impact on his constituents in Huddersfield and mine in Pontefract and Castleford than almost any other measure to narrow health inequalities. Widening educational opportunities for children, initiatives such as the new deal programmes and many of the measures that he, as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, has examined will also have an impact on health.
The sure start programme is one of the most important in helping to narrow health inequalities early in life by providing help and support for the under-fours and their families. Two fifth-wave sure start programmes have been approved for Huddersfield, both of which will have an impact on the population in Huddersfield Central primary care trust area. One programme is based in Deighton ward, which was identified in the neighbourhood renewal programme as among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in England. It is being led by local trusts, with responsibility passing to Huddersfield Central primary care trust from April 2002. It is developing in parallel with other local programmes, including the Deighton Brackenhall initiative and the second sure start programme, which covers parts of the Crosland Moor and Paddock wards and is led by Kirklees social services.
230WH
We are also targeting specific help at key risk factors—for example, nicotine-replacement therapy on prescription to help people to stop smoking, and the national school fruit scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that the diet and nutrition of school children is particularly important, and I am a strong supporter of the national school fruit scheme, which will ensure that all infant school children are entitled to a free piece of fruit each day. That is probably the biggest programme to support children's nutrition since the introduction of free school milk after the war. The teenage pregnancy strategy is clearly also having an impact.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about PCTs and their configuration in Huddersfield. He also raised the issue with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), who took his views seriously and who has spent some considerable time weighing the arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield is right that the role of the PCTs is critical in tackling health inequalities, as they have so much money—they will have 75 per cent. of the budgets—and as they commission work that can have a huge impact on health inequalities. They also provide services that can help reduce those inequalities, such as smoking cessation, statins for heart disease and managing hypertension.
PCTs can have an impact on all those things, as well as in the untapped source of working more closely in partnerships. They work more closely in some areas, but not as far as they could in others. More partnership work is needed on sure start and teenage pregnancies, and more local partnership work is needed on housing. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that PCTs are established most effectively to address health inequalities. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Department of Health considered those issues when they made their decision.
PCTs need to be rooted in their local communities and be endorsed by them to have the greatest effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield will be aware that the public responses to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of two PCTs for the area. I recognise his concerns, but we have made it clear that the PCTs and the health economy in Huddersfield need to work closely together across the patch. If the community is not ready to embrace a single PCT with enthusiasm, it is right to establish two PCTs, but with the clear direction that they work closely together and look forward to the future. That means joint appointments, such as the director of public health and the director of finance. The director of public health is the most important appointment, as issues of health inequality need close joint working. We expect the director of public health to lead that work in a PCT.
We also expect strategic health authorities to explore greater joint working throughout the health and social care sectors. I assure my hon. Friend that we have considered those issues and that the decision was not easy to take. Nevertheless, on balance, it was the right one to take at this stage. The two PCTs can make considerable progress in narrowing health inequalities by working together and in partnership with the local community, local authorities, voluntary organisations and community groups.

231WH
As my hon. Friend made clear, we have set two national health inequalities targets and recently ran a major consultation throughout the country on how to meet those targets on life expectancy and infant mortality. A group of organisations in the Calderdale and Kirklees area responded jointly to that consultation. The group included the Calderdale primary care group, the North Kirklees PCG, the Central Huddersfield PCG, the South Huddersfield PCG, the Calderdale and Kirklees health authority and a range of community groups. Although they supported the consultation document and much of the work that is being done, they urged us to do more work to ensure that mainstream resources are devoted to action on inequality. I agree. They also said that two groups had been prioritised locally because of the changing demographics of older people and black and minority ethnic communities, to which they urged us to pay more attention. We will certainly take their remarks seriously.
I welcome the fact that such bodies worked together on the consultation on narrowing health inequalities. I urge them to continue to do so. We will consider their comments seriously and are working as part of a cross-cutting review involving all Departments on how best to address the narrowing of health inequalities. We have made considerable progress, but must recognise that fundamental injustices still scar our nation and that there is much more to do.

Role of Lord Birt
12.59 pm
Norman Baker: I am delighted to have secured this debate today; it is, in many ways, a journey into the unknown. I hope that by the end of it we will all know more about what Lord Birt does. The Minister has a blank canvas on which to paint, for we know precious little so far. I draw the Minister's attention to the title of the debate. I have deliberately chosen a narrow topic, so I hope that when he replies he will address himself to it. If he is tempted to range far and wide without actually hitting the target, I will look to you, Mr Illsley, for assistance and protection.
What do we know about Lord Birt's latest appointment? I can list that very quickly. According to the Prime Minister's answer to one of my questions, we know that he has been appointed to the forward strategy unit in No. 10 and that he works with the unit on "a range of projects", that he is unpaid but can claim expenses, and that he last travelled by train on 28 November. We also know that he is engaged in blue-skies thinking, whatever that is. Someone suggested that it may be gazing out of the window of the Cabinet Office. In any case, when one adds up that information, it is not very revealing.
What we know about Lord Birt himself, as opposed to his new role, hardly fills us with confidence that he is an appropriate person to occupy a key Government position. Let us take his time as Director General of the BBC. It was hardly a success. He took a unified organisation and split it into atomised pieces, each fighting the other. Morale plummeted while management costs soared. Broadcasting house became virtually empty of broadcasters; they were all shipped at vast expense to White City to make more room for the managers and accountants and the army of consultants that Lord Birt employed. Fortunately for the BBC, Greg Dyke has reversed much of the damage.
The profile of John Birt in The Observer in 1996 put it thus:
"Here is a man who has embarked on the total reconstruction, many would say destruction, of Britain's most visible and successful cultural institution. For years the BBC has been churning with turmoil, its staff confused, alienated and depressed by the authoritarian rule of a Director-General despised by most of them. At the same time the governors of the BBC, nominally Birt's superiors, have consistently been patronised, manipulated and sidelined by him."
The man who was chairman when Birt was Director General, Marmaduke Hussey, told The Guardian last August that if he had been given a new term as chairman, he would have sacked Birt. He said:
"I wouldn't have reappointed him if I'd had the chance, I would have got rid of him. He was dogmatic and difficult and slow to take decisions. He did have some fine qualities, but admitting that others on occasion might be right was not one of them."
Is that the sort of man we want creating transport policy?
We also know that Lord Birt was installed as Director General at the BBC without a formal interview or application process. Lord Birt appears rather good at securing jobs for which he is ill-equipped without having to bother applying for them. He joined the BBC as Director General in November 1992 and it was not until

233WH
March that it transpired that he was not on the staff but was employed through an organisation called John Birt Productions Ltd. He then asked people to believe that he had been too busy to join the staff. Naturally, his little wheeze was financially very rewarding in tax terms—although it meant less money for the Exchequer, as tax avoidance always does. None of that stopped him from retiring from the BBC with a golden handshake reputed to total £784,000. Is that the sort of man we want creating transport policy?
Of course we need not look back to the BBC to examine John Birt's record. Prior to being given his transport blue-skies role, he was the Prime Minister's crime tsar. His brief, according to a parliamentary answer to me, was
"to take a long-term, strategic look at criminality and long-run social trends."
And if that was not clear, the Prime Minister helpfully added:
"Lord Birt brings a strategic outlook and an understanding of social trends".—[Official Report, 24 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 443W.]
It was interesting to know what the Prime Minister thought he brought to the job, for it certainly was not a knowledge of crime.
What did Lord Birt manage to contribute? We do not know officially, of course. That, like everything else to do with Lord Birt, is kept from MPs and the public. However The Guardian managed to piece things together a little. An article entitled "Crime tsar Birt leaves to the sound of mockery" stated:
"Lord Birt…has been quietly pensioned off amid mounting criticism that he failed to deliver…'It's just been a deathly silence since he was appointed—he's made no impact at all,' said one Whitehall source… insiders say he was in effect limited to poring over the Offenders' Index—records of crime statistics for the past 50 years—in an attempt to discern trends."
The article went on to say that John Birt had not met the Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders or, it appears, any organisation with a knowledge of crime. One would have thought that he might have started on that tack if he had wanted to carry out some useful work in that role.
We are told that his work was "considered alongside" contributions from Departments for the report "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", although the Prime Minister has refused my request and those of others to place a copy of John Birt's work in the Library. Why is it not in the Library? Is he worried that it might look a little threadbare or amateurish? In any case, the consensus is that his work was distinctly underwhelming.
Is this the sort of man we want creating transport policy? Why has he been asked to look at transport? Well, it gives him something to do, as the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions neatly put it when giving evidence to the Transport Select Committee. He implied that Lord Birt was a harmless diversion, but I wonder whether he knew about Lord Birt's financial connections with Virgin, which has railways and air services as part of its empire. He should know that Lord Birt became chairman of Lynx New Media in 2000, as he disclosed in the Lords' register of interests. However, Lord Birt did not disclose
234WH
that Lynx is in effect managed by Virgin Media Group. Was the Prime Minister informed of that connection when he asked Lord Birt to undertake transport policy?
Perhaps that explains why Lord Birt has an office with Lynx New Media on the fourth floor at 45, Old Bond street. That is where Downing street will refer callers on ringing up to find out how to contact him. It might also explain why a life-size cardboard cut-out of Richard Branson adorns the office. Of course, 45, Old Bond street is very exclusive. I have a photograph that the Minister might like to see if he has not seen it before. It shows John Birt's office, two doors from the Gucci shop, with a Rolls Royce parked opposite. I am reliably told that rents there average £80 per sq ft. Is the taxpayer paying for office space for Lord Birt there?
Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister's personal transport adviser to have a £100 million financial relationship with a leading supplier of transport in the UK? Is that the sort of man we want creating transport policy? I believe that the link with Virgin represents a clear conflict of interest for a person charged with developing transport policy. Unless the Prime Minister and Lord Birt himself can show categorically that no conflict exists—bearing in mind that no information whatever has been provided so far—Lord Birt should resign forthwith.
However, neither Lord Birt nor the Prime Minister seems to want to show anything. For a start, the Prime Minister refuses to give out anything but the barest information about Lord Birt and his role, little more than the fact that he has been appointed. I refer to some of the questions that I have asked so far but the Prime Minister has refused to answer. The Prime Minister will not tell us for how long Lord Birt has been appointed to the forward strategy unit. He will not tell us how many times he has met Lord Birt this year. He will not tell us whether Lord Birt has access to Cabinet papers. He will not tell us how many hours a week Lord Birt works. He will not tell us how much he has claimed in expenses. He will not tell us to which Ministers Lord Birt reports. He will not tell us which transport organisations, if any, Lord Birt has met since his appointment. He will not tell us what secretarial support is available to Lord Birt, although a helpful inside source tells me that between eight and 10 civil servants are working for him. Is that correct? He will not tell us what office space has been made available to Lord Birt. He will not tell us which projects Lord Birt has worked on or will be working on.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will not tell us—no doubt under orders from No. 10—whether he was consulted prior to Lord Birt's appointment or what access Lord Birt has to civil servants in his Department. Was the Secretary of State consulted by the Prime Minister prior to Lord Birt's appointment?
I wonder whether the Prime Minister recalls the magic words he issued as Leader of the Opposition:
"Labour would change the whole style of government. Our bill of rights and freedom of information act would get rid of the culture of secrecy".
Those are hollow words when it comes to finding out about Lord Birt or much else in the internal mechanism of No. 10.

235WH
This farrago of non-answers, which the Minister appears to think is consistent with democracy—he is laughing about it—treats Parliament with contempt. I have requested basic information that would in no way compromise the principle that advice available to Ministers is confidential. Some of the questions that were refused an answer had previously been answered by this Prime Minister and the previous Prime Minister, who in many ways was more open. I refer the Minister, and the Prime Minister, to the Speaker's statement of 28 November—
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that "Erskine May" details particular conventions on comments about Members of Parliament. Lord Birt is technically a Member of the upper House, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to follow those conventions and ensure that his language is temperate.
Norman Baker: I shall try to do that, Mr. Illsley. I thought that my language was temperate, but I have listened to you carefully.
I refer to the Speaker's statement of 28 November, in which he said that
"when Ministers refuse to answer questions, they are expected to indicate in their reply why they have refused by reference to the Government's code."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 971.]
In none of the cases that I mentioned was that done, and the reason is obvious. Nothing in the code could possibly justify the contemptuous non-answers that the Prime Minister has given to me and other Members. If there is, the Minister should tell us about it in his reply. I give the Minister notice that if he fails to provide answers to those outstanding queries today, I will lodge a formal complaint with the Public Administration Committee to take the matter further. I will also pursue the whole issue by other means.
This matter does not only concern questions. We now learn that Lord Birt has decided—or the Prime Minister has decided for him—that he is not prepared to give evidence to the Transport Committee, despite the formidable and vocal objections of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I hope that the Prime Minister has also noted the points of order raised last Thursday in the Chamber by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
What on earth has possessed the Prime Minister to appoint someone whose record is patchy to say the least, who is ill suited to the task in hand and, according to the press, widely derided by civil servants and the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? Given his involvement with Richard Branson and Virgin, he also has a clear conflict of interests. If Lord Birt is the answer, the question must be a strange one.
What on earth has possessed the Prime Minister to deal with the matter in such a secretive and contemptuous way? Why will he not answer basic questions? Why should Lord Birt not be answerable to the Transport Committee? The immediate answer that I
236WH
fear is that it is because he is a friend—or should I say a crony. Lord Birt was ennobled by the Prime Minister, he attended Cherie Blair's 40th birthday party, and at his 50th birthday celebration, the Prime Minister took part in a pantomime skit based on his life. The wider answer, I regret to say, is that the Prime Minister appears to believe that he can simply bypass normal rules and conventions if his friends are involved and he feels like it. It seems that the rules and conventions that work to hold the Government to account are optional if he so decides.
The Prime Minister came to power in 1997 with a Labour Government who had a huge majority on the back of public revulsion at the sleaze that had dominated the latter Tory years. He arrived committed to a new way of doing things—a new Bill of Rights and a Freedom of Information Act, ending the secrecy in government and the corruption, patronage and sleaze. Fundamentally, the Prime Minister is a decent man, but he is slipping into the seductive ways that make life easier today but store up trouble for tomorrow. His decision to withhold from Parliament almost all information about Lord Birt is a symptom of a wider malaise. He must remember, as should his Ministers, that freedom of information is ultimately a friend of good government and the governing party. Subterfuge, secrecy, contempt of Parliament, withholding information unnecessarily and thwarting Select Committees are dangerous roads to go down for both democracy and the Government.
Lord Birt is the wrong man for the job, and he should be relieved of his post forthwith. However, if the Prime Minister wants to keep him, he should provide answers to justify the employment. He must recognise that Members of this House have a right to ask questions and a justifiable expectation that they will be answered, whether they are inconvenient or not. That is how this place works. Members are entitled to ask questions and expect answers, not to be fobbed off. Let us have Lord Birt before the Transport Committee to answer basic points about his role—not about the advice that he has given, but about his terms and conditions of work. If Lord Birt is to win any respect in his present post, that is the only way forward. Without basic accountability, he will be able to limp on in his closed world, sheltered from the biting wind by the warm, enveloping cloak of the Prime Minister and all at No. 10, but the price that he will have to pay is derision.
The price that the Prime Minister will have to pay is greater. It will be to water the bitter seeds already planted—the seeds of distaste at the naked patronage of cronies, the seeds of anger that the Government's fine promises of openness and accountability have been betrayed, and most of all the seeds of disappointment that the new start in which so many people believed back in 1997 has finally spluttered to a halt and that the Prime Minister, in the public's eyes, is just like any other politician.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Convention dictates that I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing the debate, but so far it has not been characterised by his more usual generous and magnanimous approach. I was starting to feel worried:

237WH
he is desperately trying to maintain his reputation by portraying himself as a man with the bit between his teeth. I felt that he was grasping at straws today and the level of intemperance said a great deal about his mindset and focus in the debate. I am truly disappointed and sorry about that.
I should like to deal with Lord Birt's role and directly answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. Lord Birt is appointed by the Prime Minister as an unpaid strategic adviser and has an overarching role on several projects supported by the forward strategy unit at No. 10. His role is to provide analysis and advice on a range of strategic issues, including long-term options for transport over future generations. Lord Birt's position is simply another in a long line of external unpaid appointments that have been made by Governments of all parties when they want the benefit of wider advice. His role is in parallel with the work and objectives of the forward strategy unit, and he provides private policy advice to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
It is important to set out what Lord Birt is not doing: he does not have an executive role; he does not execute or make policy decisions; he does not receive a salary from the taxpayer; he does not change the nature of decision making because Ministers and the Prime Minister are ultimately accountable. Ministers are in the hot seat, taking decisions and accepting full responsibility. Ministers are properly held to account and have to answer for the consequences of their decisions. Ministers have always sought private advice from a range of sources. They have always had private discussions about long-term trends and developments in policy across departmental barriers. The unpaid advisers in the forward strategy unit provide useful analysis in order to inform those discussions.
Advice comes to Government from several quarters—even, I suppose, from the Liberal Democrats. Policy is not made in a vacuum. Suggestions, recommendations, guidance and opinions are all taken to Ministers, who weigh up options and arguments, and take decisions themselves after careful consideration.
Their choices are defended when Ministers are held to account in Parliament. Ministers go before Select Committees, make statements and answer at Question Time in the Chamber—and, indeed, in Westminster Hall Adjournment debates. As the ministerial code of conduct makes plain:
"The Minister in charge of a Department is alone answerable to Parliament for the exercise of the powers on which the administration of that Department depends."
Nothing Lord Birt or the forward strategy unit does changes that.
It might help the hon. Gentleman if I explained the context and practice of appointing unpaid advisers. The ministerial code of conduct clearly sets out the provisions and parameters in the appointment of unpaid advisers. Such advisers are personal appointments by Ministers; there is no contractual relationship between adviser and Department; all normal codes of government apply; the Official Secrets Act and the business appointment rules—introduced, incidentally, by this Administration—cover unpaid advisers and special advisers. Those arrangements have worked well in the past, and we believe that they will continue to do so.
238WH
There are virtues to having two unpaid advisers in government. Advisers volunteer their time and expertise because they want to contribute to improving public services and the country at large. They offer the benefits of their experience and knowledge to help Ministers to make better policy. No financial rewards are involved. Advisers simply wish to contribute to the common objective of delivering improvements to the work of the Government. They are public-spirited individuals, with no vested interests or axes to grind, or profit to gain. I wish that I could say the same about axes to grind in respect of the hon. Gentleman. We would all be much worse off if we resisted taking fresh perspectives and challenging concepts to the heart of government.
Ministers receive advice all the time from a huge range of sources, some of which is requested and some unprompted. There are many professionals and experts with ideas that may be worth listening to. It would be idiotic to have a closed mind and a blinkered approach when alternative strategies and options may provide the right solutions. It is right to be able to tap into advice from outside on an unpaid basis. That must be a feature of a mature democracy.
I want briefly to set in context the work of the forward strategy and the performance and innovation units. There is a long-standing tradition of strategic units at the centre of government. They hardly represent a radical new departure in No. 10 or a major constitutional change. In the Heath Administration in the 1970s—I cannot recall it precisely—the central policy review staff were known as the Think Tank, which was intended to look at issues in a detached, strategic manner, while Departments focused on delivering day-to-day policies. The Think Tank was headed by an outsider, Victor Rothschild. It lasted throughout the second Wilson Government, the Callaghan Government, and the Thatcher Administration, and then merged into the No. 10 policy unit.
Governments of all parties have from time to time felt the need for outside advice and a fresh perspective from new angles. In 1997, when the Labour Government took office, the policy unit was not sufficient to give proper capacity for strategic thinking. Therefore, we set up a performance and innovation unit to look afresh at different issues across normal departmental boundaries. The PIU undertakes its work in several ways, using outside advisers to bring in new skills and expertise. It conducts structured, intensive and focused projects and has a commitment to the use of hard evidence to ensure that policy decisions are built on firm foundations. Let us consider two examples of the PIU's work and outcomes. Its report on the recovery of the proceeds of crime led to the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Prime Minister's review of adoption led to the Adoption and Children Bill.
The PIU has been increasingly recognised as a successful model, so the establishment of a forward strategy unit inside No. 10 gives a stronger strategic function capable of giving the Prime Minister and the Cabinet long-term, private and strategic advice. The forward strategy unit is a panel of senior individuals with a wide breadth of expertise working in small teams drawn from the civil service and outside.

239WH
The hon. Gentleman mentioned appearances before a Select Committee. Ministers are accountable to Parliament, not officials, except for accounting officers. Ministers make and execute policy. It is the Executive who are held accountable. Ministers give evidence and submit written material to Select Committees all the time, and it is proper for them to express a preference on who should explain their policies. As an unpaid strategy adviser, Lord Birt has no executive role. The invitation to Lord Birt from the Transport Committee was to give evidence on the 10-year plan, which is the responsibility of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Ministers therefore decided that Mr. Willy Rickett, a senior official from the DTLR who is working with the forward strategy unit on transport issues, would be better placed to give evidence, and he did so last week.
There are ample opportunities for Select Committees to make inquiries and cross-examine people. The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has appeared twice, and the Minister for Transport and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department have also appeared before the Committee. There is no deficit in accountability, because the buck stops with Ministers.
The Government are strongly committed to a healthy system of scrutiny through the Select Committee process, and the Leader of House will soon bring forward proposals to further it—for example, making nominations more independent of Government, providing more resources to conduct investigations and broadening the scope and jurisdiction of Select Committees.
It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to refer to some grand, dark conspiracy theory at the heart of government. In many ways, I worry for the workings of his mind. There is bound to be lots of media excitement, especially in the BBC, about the issue. The desire to concoct such theories is a bit excessive.
Norman Baker: The Minister should not worry about my mind. It is perfectly all right, and I shall look after and treasure it in the years ahead.
Before he sits down, will he address the long list of questions that have not been answered by the Prime Minister and the others that I inserted later, including
240WH
those on the relationship with Virgin and the costly offices at 45, Old Bond street? Does he agree that answering those questions would not in any way interfere with the advice given to Ministers but would be proper accountability in Parliament?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my comments, he would have heard me mention that the business appointment rules apply to unpaid advisers. He suggests that there is a conflict of interest, but that would not be allowed under the ministerial code or the business appointment rules.
As for the theory that there is a cost to the taxpayer for offices in Old Bond street, there is no cost to the public purse at all. As I said, whenever new units are created or appointments are made, there is bound to be some interest, but the role of Lord Birt and the forward strategy unit are hardly radical constitutional innovations. If the hon. Gentleman reviews previous discussions, he will discover that.
Ministers can accept or reject advice as they wish. The simple aim is to broaden the thinking in the Government and widen horizons in policy development. Surely there is nothing wrong with that. The Government are making genuine efforts to manage and improve public services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see all these matters in that light.
Running Government and public services—schools, hospitals, the police service and transport—is an immensely complicated and important task. The Government are trying as hard as they can to advance the quality and efficient management of those vital services. To do that, it is necessary to tap into the expertise of people who have a track record of running large and complex organisations and institutions. In the process of reforming and modernising our public services, getting the right solutions is, surely, vital. Thus, the ability for Ministers to listen to advice volunteered by those with useful experiences—for example, in managing major projects—should be welcomed, not discouraged. Reasonable Governments do not just dwell on the problems facing a nation; they face the challenge of devising practical solutions as well.
Mr. Eric Illsley (in the Chair): We come to the next debate, which is about the outcome of Government initiatives to combat the social exclusion of young people through work.

Social Exclusion
1.28 pm
Mrs. Helen Clark: Back in May 1997, the new Government pledged to get 250,000 young, unemployed people off benefit and into work. The target had been more than reached by September 2000, when more than 254,000 young people had been brought into work through the new deal programme. Young people, employers, private and public sector providers, environmental and voluntary organisations and the Government's Employment Service worked in partnership to achieve the objective—vital for a fair, inclusive society and economic growth—of cutting youth unemployment.
The achievements of the new deal were celebrated in November 2000 at a conference in London that was attended by Ministers and an invited audience of new deal participants, personal advisers—they are central to the delivery of the programme—employers, taskforce members and delivery organisations. Included in that invited audience as a representative of the new deal in Peterborough was Ken Shackleton of Shackleton Associates, who has long been involved in employment and training provision.
The day after the event, I was delighted to attend a ceremony in Peterborough where I presented personal advisers with awards for NVQs in guidance which they had successfully completed to develop their professional competence. Anyone who has met young people on the new deal scheme knows what a difference one-to-one skilled advice can make. "He was the father I never had", one young man said. Even those with helpful parents may find them unable to give adequate help and guidance in today's fast-changing employment market. The most recent edition of the newsletter for new deal partners, Partnership Practice, points out that new deal programmes have been helped by the economic recovery and that the new deal is not a "job's worth", job-creation programme. It is designed to help unemployed people compete more effectively for available jobs.
Peterborough used to have an unemployment rate higher than the national average, but in July 1997 it fell below that average for the first time in a decade. Much of the growth over the past five years—comprising approximately 6,600 jobs—has been in five sectors: distribution and catering, financial and business services, public services, construction, and transport and communications. According to a report by Peterborough city council, there is a projected increase of nearly 8,000 jobs by 2006.
We are fortunate that large Government and quasi-Government agencies provide employment in Peterborough. Appropriately in one of the four environment cities in the UK, some of them are working together to promote a cluster of environmental businesses, which are due to be launched officially next month by Department of Trade and Industry Minister, Lord Sainsbury. I believe that the city will rightly be regarded as a centre of excellence, bringing new opportunities to its residents and those who travel into it from the surrounding region to work.
However, against that rosy picture must be set the less well known fact: three wards in my constituency—Central, Dogsthorpe and Ravensthorpe—are among
242WH
the 10 per cent. most deprived in England. That is according to the Government's overall index of multiple deprivation, which combines indices of income, employment, health deprivation and disability, educational skills and training, and geographical access to services. Indeed, Central ward is the most deprived ward in the eastern region.
I recently asked Ken Shackleton for an update on the programme. I am glad to say that it is mostly positive. All the targets for the most recent six-month period have been met, sometimes by an extensive margin, despite the fact that most of the new deal 18 to 25-year-old trainees face a range of barriers that make it hard for them to get a job. Those barriers can include basic literacy and numeracy needs, lack of job skills, poor personal skills, debt problems, drug problems and, increasingly in the Peterborough area, lack of English, to which I shall return.
Most trainees have experienced only casual or part-time work, usually unskilled, and come from homes with little history of work and where the benefit culture is deeply embedded. Training and support must therefore tackle lack of personal skills and poor literacy and numeracy before it can tackle job-related skills. The programme needs to re-motivate people, giving them the belief that there is another way than benefit, in which they can begin to take responsibility for their own future.
The initial gateway stage of new deal, where advisers build a relationship with individuals to help them develop an action plan suitable for them, is therefore vital. That stage, as the Minister knows, can include literacy and numeracy training, training needs analysis, job-search, debt, drug or substance counselling and a gateway-to-work course. As part of the gateway programme, the course lasts for two weeks, usually occurring between weeks four to seven. It uses new situations and experiences, often based on outdoor activities. It involves employers at all stages and includes a two-day work placement. Individuals then have a choice of route, with placements in the environmental taskforce, the voluntary sector, full-time education and training. Trainees who find the transition to work particularly hard are matched with a mentor, whom they meet weekly. There have been teething problems, but a major redesign is due in April, which should address all the shortcomings.
The environmental taskforce has already been redesigned to be more individually based, with individual placements. The voluntary sector option, which is a placement and training in the voluntary sector for up to 26 weeks, has always proved successful and popular. I regret that the full-time education and training option, for up to 52 weeks, is not as fancied, perhaps because the £15.38 supplement does not apply. I understand that the Government are addressing the issue through the Learning and Skills Development Agency, fostering better links between colleges and new deal providers.
However, the most significant change reported by providers in Peterborough is a significant increase in the need for basic skills, and English for speakers of other languages—ESOL. In the providers' opinion, that means that many trainees may need longer than the 26-week gateway period. Although providers have

243WH
increased staffing to cope with that need, there is no extra funding for ESOL. Those questions need to be addressed.
Shackletons emphasises that the success of the new deal to date has depended on partnership working, and the working relationship between it and the Employment Service has become very effective. They work together at all levels and operationally have a joint development plan for the delivery of programmes. There are joint training sessions, workshops and regular operational meetings. Shackletons believes that all the right building blocks and funding are in place, and that the action being taken now is the best ever in its professional experience of more than 25 years.
Success demands that all the relevant partners continue to work together to keep abreast of the always-changing employment market, whether in terms of the type of jobs or skills available. Almost by definition, those first into employment will be the easiest to place, and as new employment sectors develop, so new skills and training will be necessary.
Two weeks ago, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were key speakers at a conference in London entitled "Building Partnerships for Social Inclusion: Next Steps for the National Anti-Poverty Strategy". The Deputy Prime Minister began by recalling the appalling rates of social exclusion that faced the Labour Government in 1997. There was mass unemployment, with one in five children living in a family in which no one worked. There was more adult illiteracy than anywhere else in Europe. Yes, there were higher incomes, but there was also a larger gap between rich and poor. We had the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe and almost 2,000 rough sleepers every night.
As the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, those factors too often operate together and feed a cycle of deprivation: the poorest communities have the highest unemployment, the least access to public transport, fewer GPs per head of population and the lowest achieving schools. As he said, that situation was a direct result of the wrong economic and social policies. Previous Tory Governments did not address or take responsibility for the causes and consequences of poverty; the trickle down from economic growth was supposed to be the answer. According to that theory, people who do not succeed have only themselves to blame. That is an eccentric and increasingly minority view.
For the Labour Government, combating poverty and social exclusion has been a priority from the start. A range of initiatives besides the new deal is designed to do so in a variety of ways. The new Connexions service provides a personal adviser for every young person—the focus of this debate. That means a single point of access to advice on careers, health, education, benefits and so on. Other programmes focus on younger age groups to give them a head start in life. That ambitious long-term strategy involves much creative thinking and cross-boundary working by people in government and out of government.
I should like to call attention to the contribution that voluntary sector organisations can make in targeting the groups most in need of help and in fine tuning
244WH
Government programmes to have maximum impact in particular and individual circumstances. I shall focus in particular on the varied and extensive work of the Prince's Trust, which enables 14 to 30-year-olds to develop skills that help them to move forward with their lives. It offers a range of opportunities including training, personal development, business start-up support, mentoring and advice. It focuses on unemployed and under-skilled young people who are in or leaving the criminal justice system or care, who are disabled, parenting alone or facing discrimination. It operates in every constituency in the United Kingdom and has three country offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, nine regional English offices and numerous local offices.
Since the trust was founded by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales 25 years ago, it has provided funding and support to more than 400,000 young people, including more than 47,000 who have been helped to set up in business. More than 10,000 volunteers and 700 staff, including secondees, work to deliver programmes across the United Kingdom.
I am particularly impressed by the work of the trust with minority groups. As we know, belonging to certain minority groups can lead to higher levels of disadvantage. I am glad that Government financial support for the Prince's Trust is considerable. The Department for Work and Pensions provides substantial financial support for the business programme. However, the trust is keen to work with Government to develop and pilot new services for disadvantaged young people. The Government could make better use of the trust as a source of expertise and, where appropriate, for piloting new initiatives.
The Prince's Trust can do things that the Government cannot easily do. It is well placed to reach out to the most excluded who are often alienated by the so-called official channels. The trust is able to engage with people because it is not seen as part of the Government machine, and has a network of staff and outreach workers who remain close to the ground and to those young people who are hardest to reach. The trust targets specific groups that are more likely to be at risk of exclusion.
The trust also has the freedom to try out new, innovative ideas. It is an informal, enterprising organisation that conducts regular research with young people to initiate new ideas and programmes. That means that it can sometimes be quicker off the mark than Government, and offer speedy solutions to emerging issues or problems. If piloting programmes are successful, they can be taken up by Government. The core work of the Prince's Trust to start business and support personal development has been acknowledged as the inspiration for parts of our new deal, as well as for other things.
The trust pioneered study support centres that became part of Government policy. The new opportunities fund now has a target of 8,000 such centres across the country. More recently, the Excel network of clubs and schools reaches out to year 10 and year 11 pupils at risk of exclusion and aims to reintegrate them into the learning process by offering them an alternative way to learn. Excel is a good

245WH
example of a way in which the Government could partner the trust in delivering supplementary education services.
I welcome and applaud the achievements to date of national and local government and their partners in the business and voluntary sectors in combating the causes and effects of social exclusion, and particularly in tackling the barriers to employment for our disadvantaged young people. I reinforce the message from both sides that future progress depends not only on our thriving economy, or on well designed programmes and funding for them, but on a readiness to recognise one another's strengths and contributions. As in so much innovative policy implementation and development, partnerships are key. Through effective working partnerships between all experts in the area, any initiative can be swiftly modified and adapted to suit local and changing conditions.
We have been good at partnership working in Peterborough; it is part of a proud tradition. I am sure that it will continue in the development of important programmes to assist young disadvantaged people who are such an important plank of economic and social policy. The benefits of our predicted economic growth will then be shared by them, and that includes the residents of Central, Ravensthorpe and Dogsthorpe wards in my constituency.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on securing a debate on an important subject. Although, as she said, unemployment in her constituency is below the national average, she is right to have sought this debate and to have highlighted issues relating to a particular group of disadvantaged people in her constituency. Her remarks of course resonate far wider than Peterborough, but I understand her natural inclination to comment on the city and in particular the three wards to which she referred.
My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when she said, towards the end of her remarks, that partnership is the key. We agree it is the key to further progress. Let me make it clear that this Government believe in promoting equality and giving everyone the opportunity to reach their full potential. That includes the people in Central ward and the other two wards to which she referred who are still disadvantaged and cannot play their full part in society by obtaining the jobs and opportunities that they want.
We believe in ensuring that people in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Not having a job is one of the main reasons for low income among people of working age. That has to be tackled. Paid work is the best form of welfare for individuals and families and the most secure means of lifting people out of poverty and dependence. We are determined to continue to bear down on the causes of unemployment and inequality in this, our second term in government.
We have also set out a clear strategy to provide work for those who can work and security for those who cannot. Our goal is clear: to create and sustain employment opportunities for all during the next decade
246WH
in every part of the country. Of course, that includes Peterborough. Our strategy is based around three main priorities. The first is building a welfare state that is active, making work possible and making work pay, rather than just being a passive doler out of benefits. The second is to encourage lifelong learning to ensure that people have the skills and education that they need to play an active role in a modern labour market. It is no longer enough to be able to get one job, because people no longer remain in one job for most of their working lives. They have to be flexible and able to move around. Lifelong learning ensures that they can do that.
Our third priority is to support those most at risk from discrimination and disadvantage by promoting equality and diversity in our work force. Rather than just passively paying out benefits, our task is to deliver a system that works in partnership with individuals, employers and local voluntary organisations, to get people back into the labour market and able to compete for jobs.
Sustaining a strong economy underpins everything that we do, and my hon. Friend referred to that. There are problems and uncertainties in the world economy, but the UK is coping well, not least because we have given huge priority to sustaining a strong economy. The economy is growing, and although the labour market has weakened a little since last summer, activity continues at a high level. Employment is at a record level, with 28.2 million people in work—an increase of 1.3 million during the past four years. Unemployment is at its lowest level for 30 years. That is a real success story, and it has not just happened. This Government have made it happen.
With the support of the new deal, more than 600,000 people nationally have been helped into work. We must remember that the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats opposed the new deal. We should not let them forget that. We now have the right policies in place to deal with change so that those who lose their jobs can return to work quickly, and those who have been out of work for some time or who are disadvantaged can have the chance to reconnect with the world of work.
The measures that we are taking not only help break down the barriers to work but ensure that, when people take up work, work pays. The working families tax credit is part of our first stage of the modernisation of the tax and benefits system to ensure that work pays and that we tackle child poverty. By August last year, the working families tax credit was helping nearly 1.3 million families. The national minimum wage has benefited around 1.3 million workers, of whom 70 per cent. are women. The combination of the national minimum wage and the working families tax credit guarantees that a family with one person in full-time work has a minimum income of £225 per week, or almost £12,000 a year. That is what we are doing to make work pay.
We recognise that more needs to be done, and we have made clear our commitment to increasing and improving the support available to families to make work pay and to tackle poverty further. The working families tax credit is a decisive step towards those goals. The introduction of new tax credits in 2003 is the next stage of reform because it will allow the Government to make further progress in delivering our objectives. The new credits will integrate child support into one

247WH
payment, delivering a simpler, seamless system for all families, in and out of work, and it will extend the principle of in-work support to those without children.
My hon. Friend talked a lot about the new deal for young people, and it is something of which the Government are proud. In the 1980s and 1990s, generations of young people were abandoned to unemployment with little help; what a betrayal of our future that was. Since 1997, we have tackled the waste and damage that comes from youth unemployment. The new deal is giving young people the skills, confidence and motivation to help them find work and improve their prospects. It has already helped 345,000 young people into work nationally, including nearly 700 youngsters in Peterborough.
My hon. Friend made it clear that Peterborough has been doing well. Because we have built a strong economy and introduced measures such as the new deal, claimant unemployment in Peterborough currently stands at 2.2 per cent., which is 1 per cent. lower than the national average. The number of young people unemployed in that constituency has fallen by 35 per cent. to just 421. Of those, only 77 people have been unemployed for six months or more. We are doing well in Peterborough. Overall, unemployment has fallen by more than a third, and long-term youth unemployment has decreased by an average of nearly 60 per cent. The latest figures show that in Peterborough the numbers are becoming very small because there are only about 80 young people who have been unemployed for more than six months—although that is of course 80 too many. We are determined, even in areas like Peterborough that are doing well, to provide a personal service to all those who want to work, and we will join with partners to achieve that.
My hon. Friend referred to two voluntary organisations, Shackleton Associates and the Prince's Trust, that have experience of the local labour market and that are especially active in her constituency. We value partnerships between the Employment Service and such organisations because they can take innovative approaches and know what can be achieved locally. We want to work with them, and we do. For example, we have a valuable partnership with the Prince's Trust in delivering the new deal. It currently holds more than 200 contracts to provide for young people options either as lead contract holders or as sub-contractors. Lead contracts are in place in 136 of the 142 Employment Service new deal delivery units.
Under the new deal options, the Prince's Trust is, for example, involved in delivering a 12-week team challenge programme involving team-building activities, an outdoor residential week, work experience and team projects in the community, and a further 14-week individual challenge programme designed to provide opportunities for further skills development through work experience in voluntary or environmental work. My hon. Friend referred to people who are not job-ready, and that type of work builds confidence and self-esteem, which are essential prerequisites to success in the labour market. It can help people who are at a disadvantage and do not believe in themselves to realise that they have what it takes and should believe in themselves.
248WH
More widely, the Prince's Trust business division is helping young disadvantaged people to set up in business by providing business advice, grants, loans and on-going mentoring support. By giving grants and loans, it offers an invaluable source of start-up capital to young people who cannot find finance from other institutions. More than 47,000 young people have received finance, mentoring and support from the Prince's Trust since 1983, creating more than 41,300 new businesses, and around 60 per cent. of trust-supported businesses are still trading in their third year. That is a fine record and a tribute to the energy and skills of the young people involved and to the professionalism and hard work of the trust.
My Department is match funding the programme. We contributed £5.8 million last year and in the current year our commitment is even greater at £7 million. We are committed to assisting with what works and to making the partnerships work properly at local level. Our agreement with the trust aims to help up to 35,000 disadvantaged young people into self-employment over seven years. We are also working with the trust to promote its programme more intensively to lone parents and disabled people wishing to enter self-employment. We realise that for many of them self-employment is a viable and attractive option, if only they can obtain the start they need.
We are determined to take our strategy forward during our second term of Labour government. We shall not rest on our laurels because we are determined that everyone who can work should have the opportunity to do so, not just those receiving jobseeker's allowance. The majority of lone parents say that they would like to work, with the right support, and the Disability Rights Commission quoted the labour force survey, which shows that 1 million people with disabilities are not in work but would like to be. We want to ensure that those aspirations become reality, and we must build on the new deal to do so. We must provide a personal service to help young people and those at a particular disadvantage to overcome the problems that they face in their communities.
Our new jobcentre plus service, which is operating in 56 pathfinder offices, will give all benefit claimants the opportunity to find out about the help and support available to help them to move into work with work-focused interviews, intensive help from personal advisers and follow-up assistance once they are in work. We are building on the success of the new deal, providing more help for those who need it most and more individually tailored support, and engaging further with employers to ensure that their needs are met.
We also aim to provide more help for those who face the greatest barriers in the labour market. That includes the labour market in places such as Peterborough that are generally doing well. We must ensure that disadvantaged people who are still unemployed are not forgotten because they happen to live in an area that is doing well, and that they can access the help that they need and make a success of their lives by getting into work.
We are aiming to provide more individually tailored support for young people—for example, through more flexible use of the new deal options and more use of subsidised employment, which is the most successful

249WH
route back to work—and allowing them to enter the option on the day that they join the new deal instead of making them wait. We want to encourage even greater employer involvement in the programme, including the introduction of specific new deal provision for the information technology, retail, construction, security and hospitality sectors, and to test the provision of transitional jobs as a stepping stone for long-term unemployed people through the StepUP programme that we announced last November.
My hon. Friend referred to the Connexions service. We continue to roll out the service, which is of particular help to teenagers who are at risk of social exclusion or of being marginalised. It offers integrated advice, guidance and personal development opportunities to all 13 to 19-year-olds in the country and helps them to make a smooth transition to adult and working life. The service also helps young people to review their strengths and weaknesses, to boost their confidence, to recognise their potential and set their goals, and to receive advice on planning to achieve their educational and life goals. It also helps them to obtain impartial careers information and, when required, information and advice on health, lifestyle, housing, financial support and other personal issues, as well as information and access to personal development opportunities such as volunteering, community service activities, sports, arts
250WH
and recreational activities. Fifteen of the planned 47 Connexions partnerships are up and running and the whole of England will be covered by 2003 with Government investment of £420 million for that year. We expect a further 19 partnerships to begin operations in April, including one in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. It will be interesting to see how that proceeds in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Our objective is to ensure that everyone who can and wants to work has the opportunity to do so. Not enough was done in the past and too many people found themselves written off. We shall not put up with that in future. We are offering more support through jobcentre plus and the new deals, tax and benefit changes to make work pay, more help with work preparation and training. Our new approach, backed up by jobcentre plus, will provide a major contribution to tackling exclusion, combating poverty, and providing more opportunity and choice for all. That must be good for Peterborough and vital for the future of the country.
I hope that my hon. Friend will return in due course with an update on what happens in Peterborough, and will be able to say that no young people in her constituency are without jobs and hope.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the economic circumstances of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. [30495]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The on-going violence and Israel's response to the second intifada—above all its policy of closures—has caused an enormous drop in incomes and living standards and a sharp drop in economic activity in the occupied territories. Levels of poverty have increased considerably from 21 per cent. at the start of the intifada, to at least 35 per cent. This means that about 1 million people exist on less than $2 per day. Unemployment is very high. Many people are just getting by thanks to savings and humanitarian aid.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Archbishop of Canterbury about his meetings with other faith leaders and their implications for the middle east peace process. [30514]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We warmly welcome the inter-faith meetings convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth Palace and in Alexandria between 17 and 21 January. Dialogue and debate between the faiths is an essential part of mutual understanding. We particularly welcome the First Alexandria Declaration on the situation in the middle east, with its condemnation of the killing of innocents, and its call for a religiously sanctioned ceasefire and a return to negotiations.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the middle east. [30515]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) at column 718W.

  Serb Refugees
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to ensure the safe return of Serbs who were forced to flee(a) Krajina and (b) Kosovo. [30496]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Croatian Government have committed themselves to ensuring the safe return of Serbs to their former homes in Croatia by the end of 2002. We are continuing to remind the Government of the importance of honouring this commitment.
  796W
  We strongly support the right of Kosovo Serbs who fled their homes to return in safety. Belgrade and Pristina are now co-ordinating closely on this issue. Efforts are being spearheaded by the newly established UNMIK Office of Returns and Communities.

  Colombia
  Paul Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action he has taken to support the peace process in Colombia. [30497]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK strongly supports the Colombian peace process, as I made clear in a press release on 23 January. We are particularly active in the EU. We have invited the Colombian presidential candidates to the UK to exchange views on the situation in Colombia, including prospects for the peace process.

  Afghanistan
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic steps he is taking to secure the safe transportation of food and the essential supplies throughout Afghanistan. [30498]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The continuing provision of emergency humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people remains a key priority for the international community. To support this aim we continue to have an open dialogue with Afghanistan's neighbours, especially Pakistan, Iran and Uzbekistan, on keeping open the most important land corridors for the delivery of aid.

  We are also working with the Interim Administration, the UN and other members of the international community to ensure that the security situation in Afghanistan continues to improve so that supplies can be delivered to the most vulnerable people.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the capacity remaining for a base for international terrorism in Afghanistan. [30501]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Prior to 11 September, al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan trained an estimated 10,000 extremists a year, some of whom went on to carry out international terrorist attacks. As a part of the highly successful coalition military campaign in Afghanistan, all these camps have been closed. While pockets of resistance remain, these have little opportunity to train and develop networks of terrorists.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with Afghan women's organisations on women's rights. [30505]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During her visit to London on 31 January, Dr. Sima Sumar, the Vice Chair of the Afghan Interim Administration and Minister for Women, met my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Secretary of State for Defence and myself. We discussed her priorities for improving the lives of women in Afghanistan and emphasised the Government's support for her work.
  797W
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and a delegation of Afghan women from the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women on 24 January to discuss their priorities for reconstruction in Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government are taking to ensure the protection of women from violence in Afghanistan, with particular reference to sexual violence. [30421]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK Government condemn all violence against women. The restoration of security and stability in Afghanistan will be an essential step towards ensuring their protection. The UK-led International Security Assistance Force is working with Afghans to establish security in and around Kabul. The establishment of trained police services will also be key. We welcome the offer by the German Government to train police in Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government are taking to(a) recognise and (b) act on the demands of Afghan women addressed to the international community, as set out in the Brussels Proclamation of the Afghan Women's Summit in December of last year. [30422]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government believe that it is extremely important that the international community consults the women of Afghanistan themselves about their priorities. The UNIFEM Afghan Women's Summit, held in Brussels last December, marked a positive start.

  The summit was the largest global gathering of Afghan women leaders to focus on the role of women in the new post-Taliban Afghanistan. It addressed the crucial needs of all the people of Afghanistan, focusing on health care, education, refugees and human rights. We hope that the international community will support the aims of the summit declaration, calling for a greater role for women in the future decision-making process in Afghanistan.

  We welcome the pledge made by the Chair of the Afghan Interim Administration, Hamid Karzai, at the Tokyo Donors' Conference on 21 January to ensure that the needs of women are a priority in the reconstruction process. We welcome his commitment to ensure that girls get back to school.

  We also welcome the establishment of the Women's Ministry and fully support the work of Dr. Sima Samar, Vice Chair of the Interim Administration and Minister for Women. We have long said that, while the form of the Government and constitution is for the Afghan people to determine, the future Government must be broadly based and representative of all Afghans. We have encouraged the involvement of women in the Afghan Interim Administration and the Special Commission for the Convening of the Loya Jirga, established under the Bonn Agreement, and expect that women will be involved in any future Government of Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government and the international community are taking 798W
  to ensure that the interests and role of women are being acted on during the initial phase of peace-building in Afghanistan. [30424]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We welcome the pledge made by the Chair of the Interim Administration, Hamid Karzai, at the Tokyo Donors' Conference that the needs of women should be a high priority in the reconstruction process. The people of Afghanistan are beginning to see real improvements in their lives. Girls are returning to school and university. Access to television and to international media will allow women to be better informed about the situation both inside their country and the wider world. Better access to health care and to education will afford women an improved standard of living.

  As women return to work, their financial situation will improve. This is especially important for all the female heads of household who were destitute when deprived of their livelihoods by the Taliban restrictions on female working. Afghanistan has more than a million war widows. NGO and UN-run projects to get women back to work will have a huge impact on the lives of many Afghan women and children. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also agreed to fund a project by a local Afghan women's NGO to help establish a quilt weaving co-operative as a means to providing a trade and an income for destitute women.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training is funded by the UK Government for staff involved in projects working with women in Afghanistan. [30426]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We have given an allocation of $1 million to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) for a programme to support Afghan women's leadership through awareness raising, capacity building and gender mainstreaming as well as local level, quick impact recovery projects supporting women. We are also in discussion with the Ministry for Women on how we can provide other support activities.

  Our funding for UNIFEM will include support for gender mainstreaming within the reconstruction and peacebuilding strategies of the UN, inter-governmental bodies and regional organisations. This will involve awareness building and training initiatives.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government and the international community are taking to ensure that the monitoring of the reconstruction work within Afghanistan takes into account its impact on women. [30428]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We strongly support the common programming approach under the United Nations-led Strategic Framework for Afghanistan, which is intended to provide a principled, co-ordinated and coherent approach to programming. One of its key themes is the protection and advancement of human rights, with particular emphasis on gender issues.

  We recognise the need to build the capacity of Afghanistan's women to enable them to take full part in the reconstruction of their society, including the new Interim Administration, and to ensure that legal, constitutional and other provisions are not discriminatory against women. Our funding for support of Afghan

  799W
  women during the recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan is being channelled through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations, who will work closely with the Interim Administration and who have expressed a commitment to involving Afghan women in the design, implementation and monitoring of their strategies and programmes.

  To date this includes an allocation of $1 million to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) for a programme to support Afghan women's leadership through awareness raising, capacity building and gender mainstreaming as well as local level, quick impact recovery projects supporting women. We are also in discussion with the Ministry for Women on how we can provide other support to its activities.

  St. Helena
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the discovery of the island of St. Helena. [30499]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I know that there are a number of special events planned on St. Helena to commemorate this historic event and a successful year. We are in touch with the St. Helena Government representative in London over plans to mark the occasion in the United Kingdom.

  Iran
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the President of Iran on bilateral relations. [30500]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a meeting with President Khatami on 25 September, when he first visited Iran. They discussed the international fight against terrorism, the situation in the region and bilateral relations.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the Geneva conference on human rights in March. [30502]

  Mr. MacShane
  Promotion of human rights is at the heart of our foreign policy. Britain is an active and committed member of the Commission on Human Rights. We are making preparations within Whitehall, with EU partners and with NGOs. I will go to Geneva myself in March to deliver the UK speech.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to help ensure that elections in Zimbabwe will be fair. [30503]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 28 January the EU decided to impose targeted sanctions on senior members of the Government of Zimbabwe if the election is assessed as not being free and fair. On 30 January the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) called on the Government of Zimbabwe to ensure that all parties in the election be allowed to campaign freely. It called for 800W
  the immediate deployment of Commonwealth election observers and the Government's full co-operation in facilitating the operation of all international observers.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the role the United States will play in finding a political solution in Zimbabwe. [30504]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United States Government have expressed strong concern at the situation in Zimbabwe over a number of months. In addition, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act invites the US Administration to consult and co-ordinate with international partners on action against Zimbabwe. The US Administration are yet to impose sanctions but are urgently considering their next steps.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the EU concerning imposing smart sanctions upon Zimbabwe. [30508]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 28 January EU Ministers agreed to impose targeted sanctions on senior Members of the Government of Zimbabwe if:they prevent the deployment of an EU observation mission starting by 3 February 2002, or if they prevent the mission from operating effectively;
  they prevent the international media from having free access to cover the election;
  there is a serious deterioration on the ground, in terms of a worsening of the human right situation or attacks on the opposition;
  the election is assessed as not being free and fair.

  Central Africa
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Lusaka accord and moves to bring peace to the countries of central Africa. [30506]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the continued ceasefire, the withdrawal of some foreign troops from the DRC and the progress which has been made in the disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration process in the last six months. But further progress is necessary. During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to the Great Lakes with his French counterpart, Hubert Vedrine, he stressed the need for further progress and expressed our joint commitment to achieve this.

  His visit demonstrates clearly this Government's determination to help resolve conflict within central Africa and to bring peace and prosperity to the region. We are committed to this goal. We will continue to work closely with the EU and the UN in order to achieve it.

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration about the future of the ABM treaty. [30507]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) at column 715W.
  801W

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the Governments of Spain and Gibraltar. [30509]

  Peter Hain
  At the Brussels process meeting held in London yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Pique, reiterated their invitation for the Chief Minister of Gibraltar to attend talks under the Brussels process. Building on the climate of confidence established by the Brussels process we have encouraged the Governments of Spain and Gibraltar to talk and meet.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking within the UN to promote human rights in Sierra Leone. [30510]

  Mr. MacShane
  The formal ending of the conflict in Sierra Leone on 18 January 2002 marked the beginning of the restoration of human rights for the long-suffering Sierra Leonean people. An important element in this process is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights is leading the way. We have funded preparatory work for the UN, to facilitate the commission, and will continue to strongly support its establishment. We have also led in the UN Security Council to secure the special court for Sierra Leone, which will bring to justice those responsible for the worst of the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone during the last few years.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to establish a special court for human rights abuses in Sierra Leone. [30512]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has been at the forefront in supporting UN Security Council resolution 1315 (2000) for a special court for Sierra Leone. This institution will bring to justice those most responsible for gross human rights abuses committed during the conflict, and send a strong signal to others, wherever they are, that they will be brought to account for their actions. The agreement establishing the court was signed in Freetown on 16 January. We are contributing £6.6 million over three years towards the court's estimated budget of £40 million.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent peace agreement in the Sudan. [30511]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There has been no recent peace agreement in Sudan. However, we were delighted to hear last month that as a result of the efforts of the US special envoy, with whom we have been working closely, the parties agreed on 19 January to a limited ceasefire in the Nuba mountains. Under the terms of the agreement civilians will be allowed to move freely within the region currently held by the SPLA. There will be two demilitarised zones to allow the Nuba people to access fertile land, and humanitarian assistance will be allowed 802W
  to enter the region by air. An external military commission will supervise the ceasefire, which is one small but encouraging step towards peace.

  Georgia
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in the Republic of Georgia. [30513]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Georgia continues to need help to build capacity to tackle problems it faces. Both bilaterally and multilaterally we will continue to provide appropriate assistance. HMG continue strongly to support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. We encourage a constructive relationship between Georgia and Russia.

  British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the statement of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 623, what action he is taking to ensure that the suspected al-Qaeda prisoners being held by the United States are being treated humanely and in accordance with international law. [30516]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are in close contact with the US as the detaining power. During my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Washington on 31 January and 1 February, he again made it clear that detainees should be treated humanely and in accordance with international norms.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request that the report of the ICRC into conditions at Camp X-Ray be made available to the British Government. [33763]

  Mr. MacShane
  In order to preserve the impartiality and neutrality which enable it to pursue its humanitarian work, the ICRC never releases its reports to third parties. Its report on conditions at Camp X-Ray will accordingly be made confidentially to the United States as detaining power.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the International Committee of the Red Cross has had access to detainees held at centres other than Bagram and Kabul. [33606]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

  Kashmir
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Pakistani Government about terrorism in Kashmir. [30517]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Pakistan on 22–23 November when he had extensive discussions with President Musharraf and other interlocutors on a range of issues including terrorism. Since then, he has spoken to his Pakistani counterpart about terrorism and other issues.
  803W
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government about human rights in Kashmir. [30519]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently discussed the issue of human rights in Kashmir with Mr. Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, during his meeting on 29 January. We will continue to raise our concerns over human rights in Kashmir with the Government of India.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European Union Ministers on introducing a new constitutional settlement for the European Union. [30518]

  Peter Hain
  The Laeken European Council in December 2001, at which the Secretary of State was present, agreed to set up a Convention on the Future of Europe to prepare the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. The convention will hold its inaugural meeting on 28 February 2002 and will include in its membership the representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the member states. The Minister for Europe has been appointed to represent the Government. The convention will produce options to the Heads of Government or State.

  The convention will consider the issues laid out in the Laeken Declaration. One of the headings is: Towards a Constitution for European Citizens.

  Visas
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of refusals for overseas visitors visas have been overturned by appeal by post since October 2000. [30834]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not maintain information centrally on the number of family visit applications refused entry clearance, which are subsequently overturned on appeal.

  We do record the number of family visit appeals dispatched for those posts which complete a monthly statistical return. These posts generate 98 per cent. of total applications (110 posts in 2001).

  Between October 2000 and December 2001 4,564 family visit appeals were dispatched by entry clearance managers.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has provided the following details of appeals upheld in cases for which they hold data.

  From 1 October 2000 to 31 December 2001, the number of successful visit visa appeals decided on the papers alone was:

  904 appeals allowed by adjudicators, and

  86 appeals allowed by Tribunals.

  In the same period, the number of successful visit visa appeals decided at an oral hearing was:

  1,424 appeals upheld by adjudicators, and

  five appeals upheld by Tribunals.

  804W
  Based on these figures 53 per cent. of appeals were in favour of the applicant. But there is no automatic correlation between the number of appeals dispatched and the number of appeals upheld. The time difference between appeals being dispatched and hearings held makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Neither do we have information on appeals withdrawn after dispatch.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been received regarding applications for student visas by students from(a) China, (b) Russia,(c) Turkey, (d) Korea and (e) Latin American countries since 1997; how many applications from these countries have been turned down in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [31613]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I regret that the information requested by the hon. Member is not available; complaints are not recorded by subject matter.

  The statistics for the number of student applications refused are as follows:

  Number of applications

  Refusal rate (percentage)

  China

  1997

  1,380

  41

  1998

  1,782

  24

  1999

  2,561

  21

  2000

  4,484

  23

  20011

  1,063

  29

  Russia

  1997

  1,360

  15

  1998

  847

  8

  1999

  65

  2

  2000

  448

  9

  20011

  43

  9

  Turkey

  1997

  567

  4

  1998

  679

  5

  1999

  527

  6

  2000

  608

  9

  20011

  147

  16

  Korea

  1997

  5

  17

  1998

  6

  21

  1999

  2

  10

  2000

  6

  15

  20011

  0

  0

  Latin America

  1997

  49

  4

  1998

  113

  8

  1999

  383

  9

  2000

  1,490

  16

  20011

  224

  18

  1 The figures for 2001 are for January to March 2001. We collect these statistics only on an annual basis.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons from(a) the Czech Republic and (b) Turkey have been refused entry to the United Kingdom at ports of entry in each month since 1 January 2000. [31578]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.
  805W
  Statistics on nationals of the Czech Republic and Turkey refused entry to the United Kingdom and removed in each month during 2000 are given in the table. This is the latest available information. Data for 2001 are due to be published in the summer this year.

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed, by selected nationality, January to December 2000

  Czech Republic1

  Turkey

  January

  127

  29

  February

  147

  35

  March

  103

  27

  April

  206

  24

  May

  265

  11

  June

  267

  15

  July

  337

  37

  August

  349

  37

  September

  326

  19

  October

  170

  23

  November

  223

  20

  December

  263

  22

  Total

  2,783

  299

  1 Include Czechoslovak passport holders

  Southern Rhodesia Act
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what power HM Government retain to make orders under section 3(1)(b)(i) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. [27750]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The power to make orders still appears in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979. Other powers were later repealed but the section 3 powers were not. It would technically be possible to make an order, but it would have to relate to unconstitutional action that had taken place in Southern Rhodesia before independence.

  Angola
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the supplementary report of the monitoring mechanism on Sanctions against UNITA appointed, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1295 (2001), paragraph 3, in relation to the situation in Angola. [31193]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the supplementary report of the monitoring mechanism. We believe the report accurately highlights the continuing destabilising impact of UNITA in Angola. It describes the problem of the ongoing flow of arms to UNITA, albeit at a reduced level and contains detailed evidence of the role of sanctions buster, Victor Bout, in supplying arms to UNITA.

  We are working in the UN Angola Sanctions Committee to ensure that all breaches of sanctions detailed in the report are appropriately followed up. We believe the monitoring mechanism has an important role to play in ensuring the targeted sanctions against UNITA are fully implemented and enforced and fully support Security Council resolution 1374 (2001) of 19 October 2001, extending the mechanism's mandate for a further six months.
  806W

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 581W, which senior management structure positions are held by non-career civil servants; when the terms of their appointment end; and whether either has been promoted during their current employment in his Department. [31590]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Two senior management structure positions are held by non-career civil servants: The Chief Economist and High Commissioner Canberra.

  The Chief Economist contract runs from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2002. The appointment carries the possibility of extension or permanency. The High Commissioner Canberra contract runs from 1 October 1999 to 31 October 2001, with an option for extension by one year to 31 October 2002 and a further option after that for a final extension to 31 October 2003.

  Neither has been promoted during their time with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Business Ambassadors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new business ambassadors he has appointed since 7 June 2001; and if he will list them. [31591]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No appointments to the Ambassadors for British Business scheme have been made since that date.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Argentina. [31678]

  Mr. Straw
  Plans for a visit to Latin America are kept under review.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for further joint visits with EU foreign secretaries. [31683]

  Mr. Straw
  I visited the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda with Hubert Védrine on 21–23 January. There are no confirmed plans at present for further joint visits with any of my EU colleagues but I am happy to undertake such visits when opportunities arise, subject to other commitments.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit other countries when he attends the CHOGM Conference in Brisbane. [31681]

  Mr. Straw
  I am looking at a number of options. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Turkey
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the principal obstacles are to the opening of Turkey's accession negotiations to join the EU. [32983]
  807W
  Mr. Straw
  As with all candidates for EU membership, Turkey can only start accession negotiations once it has met the Copenhagen political criteria (relating to democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and minorities). Turkey has begun to make progress against the EU Accession Partnership which sets out priorities for reform. But it is important that Turkey picks up the pace of reform, notably with regard to human rights.

  British Foreign Policy
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aims and objectives of British foreign policy. [33041]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's current Departmental report (Cm 5110) and website (at www.fco.gov.uk) which details the aims and objectives of British foreign policy.

  British Overseas Territories [Lords] Bill
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to issue new passports once the British Overseas Territories[Lords] Bill is enacted. [30668]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 583W.

  Azerbaijan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with reference to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1272(2002) adopted on 24 January, what 808W
  recent representations the UK Government have made to the Government of Azerbaijan to secure the release or retrial of political prisoners. [33765]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our Ambassador in Baku called on the Chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Commission on 25 January to discuss the issue of political prisoners. Prior to the Council of Europe resolution, the Ambassador also discussed the issue with Ilham Aliev, Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe delegation.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations it has made to the Government of Azerbaijan concerning the conscription into the military of Fazil Gazanfaroglu, Deputy Chairman of the Popular Front in Azerbaijan. [33766]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  No representation has been made about Fazil's military service. Neither he nor his party has approached us about this or asked us to intervene. Fazil has said he is ready to serve his country.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Azerbaijan concerning allegations that local authority permission is needed before representatives of the Azerbaijani Institute of Peace and Democracy can meet local NGOs outwith Baku. [33770]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Our ambassador in Baku raised this issue on Monday 4 February at a meeting at the President's office. He was told that no such regulation preventing such meetings existed; that prior permission was not needed but that for security reasons local authorities should be informed; and that Lenkoran, the area involved, was a sensitive area due to previous separatist activity.
  809W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many over 75-year-old pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham have received free television licences. [32590]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 6,500 people aged 75 or over in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency.

  Organisations invited to nominate panel members

  Nominated members

  Changes to membership

  Reason given (if any)

  National Council for One Parent Families

  Natasha Benenson

  Comunn na Gaidhlig

  Allan Campbell

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Denise Evans

  Action with Communities in Rural England

  Les Roberts

  Replaced by Carole Garfield

  Left ACRE

  National Consumer Council

  Alison Hopkins

  Royal National Institute for the Deaf

  Stephen Iliffe

  Age Concern

  Gretel Jones

  National Council for Voluntary Youth Services

  Cara MacDowell

  Replaced by Rebecca Leete

  National Family and Parenting Institute

  Dean Mahoney

  Voice of the Listener and Viewer

  Vincent Porter

  Disability Rights Commission

  Alun Thomas

  National Pensioners' Convention

  Roger Turner

  Welsh Language Board

  John Walter Jones

  Consumers' Association

  Adam Scorer

  Replaced by Allan Williams

  VCC1 Wales

  Michael Clarke

  VCC Yorkshire

  Ruth Clarke

  VCC North East

  Anthony Gaw

  VCC West

  Karen Gough

  VCC East

  Denise Hitchcock

  VCC South West

  Tony Poole

  VCC Midlands

  Peter Quinn

  VCC South

  Janice Roberts

  VCC North West

  Keith Roberts

  VCC Northern Ireland

  Alison Scott

  VCC Scotland

  Carol Ann McDowell

  BBC Regional Broadcasting Council (RBC) Wales

  Sue Balsom

  RBC Scotland

  John Gerrie

  BBC Regional Advisory Council for South East

  Nancy Elliott

  Replaced by Richard Mais

  Died

  Low Pay Unit

  Bharti Patel

  Resigned

  Work commitments

  RBC Northern Ireland

  Brenda McLaughlin

  Resigned

  Work commitments

  VCC London

  Cynthia Yearwood

  Resigned

  Work commitments

  1 ITC Viewer Consultative Council

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 501W, what advice has the Government given to the BBC and ITC in their consideration of how to improve the coverage of DTT multiplexes across the United Kingdom. [33386]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have provided general guidance to the BBC and to the Independent Television Commission on priorities in planning the use of currently unused spectrum for transmitting terrestrial television
  810W

  Gambling Review Body
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) of 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 620W, when she expects to announce her conclusions to her consideration of the report of the Gambling Review Body. [32545]

  Mr. Caborn
  We hope to be able to announce our conclusions within the next few months.

  Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the members of the viewers panel established to advise the Government on the consumers' view on digital switchover who have ceased their membership of the panel, indicating the reasons for the cessation. [33328]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows:

  services. This guidance was last reviewed in 1997. We published on 11 December 2001 a consultation paper inviting views on the basis on which we should plan the use of the spectrum currently used for analogue television broadcasting once analogue transmissions cease. The closing date for responses is 12 March 2002.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, of 25 January 2002,Official Report, column 1113W, on analogue switchoff, if she will

  811W
  list (a) the names of the individuals and the Departments and organisations they represent who are conducting the comprehensive review of progress towards digital switchover, (b) the terms of reference of the review, (c) the dates on which meetings of the individuals conducting the review have been held and (d) the date on which the first review is expected to be sent to Ministers. [33414]

  Dr. Howells
  The review will be taken forward by officials from my Department and from the DTI who are working on the digital television action plan project, with input from the individual task groups established under the action plan. A first report from the action plan project is due by 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by her Department in each of the last 24 months; and if she will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33242]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has not purchased any television sets in the past 24 months. We do not have any specific guidance on the purchase of television sets, but any such purchase would be subject to normal Government procurement rules. These rules are produced and published by the Office of Government Commerce.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates the viewers panel established to advise the Government on the consumers' view on digital switchover has met; and how many panel members attended each meeting. [33327]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows:

  Date of meeting

  Number of members attending1

  27 November 2000

  20

  26 March 2001

  18

  22 June 2001

  19

  27 September 2001

  21

  1 This does not include DCMS officials who provided a chairperson and secretariat for the panel's meetings.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the television without frontiers directive. [33323]

  Dr. Howells
  Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by 97/36/EC "the television without frontiers directive" came fully into effect in the UK with regulations made under SI 2000 No. 54 on 19 January 2000. The Commission, as required under Articles 4(4) and 25a, are in the process of reviewing the implementation of Article 4; they are also further considering, as required by Article 26, any"further proposals to adapt the directive to developments in the field of television broadcasting, in particular in the light of recent technological developments".
  They expect to publish a consultative document in May this year.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many copies of the leaflet "Digital TV Information for Landlords" have(a) been printed and (b) been distributed, stating for each distribution whether it was (i) solicited and (ii) unsolicited. [33330]
  812W
  Dr. Howells
  A total of 8,340 leaflets have been printed. Copies have been distributed to the organisations who were consulted over its production in the quantities agreed with them, as follows:

  Organisation

  Number of leaflets distributed

  ASTRA Marketing Ltd.

  10

  BBC

  50

  BSkyB

  50

  Confederation of Aerial Industries Ltd.

  50

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  20

  Department of Trade and Industry

  50

  Digital Television Group

  6

  Housing Corporation

  4,175

  Independent Television Commission

  20

  ITV Digital

  30

  Local Government Association

  650

  National Assembly for Wales

  1400

  National Housing Federation

  200

  Scottish Assembly

  50

  Welsh Local Government Association

  22,400

  1 200 in Welsh

  2 1,200 in Welsh

  Note:

  Further distribution is a matter for these organisations.

  In addition:

  Number of leaflets distributed

  Unsolicited copies

  Libraries of both Houses

  6

  Lower Press Gallery

  15

  Clerk of the Select Committee

  1

  Solicited copies

  Public requests to Department for Culture, Media and sport

  Less than 10

  The leaflet is available on the website www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk.

  Lottery Grant (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many lottery grant applications were made by organisations in Gloucestershire, broken down by parliamentary constituencies(a) since its inception and (b) since January 2001; [33305]

  (2) how much lottery money has been applied for by organisations in Gloucestershire, broken down into parliamentary constituencies (a) since its inception and (b) since January 2001. [33306]

  Mr. Caborn
  Comprehensive information on applications for lottery grants is not centrally held at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Public Service Broadcasting
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what information she has(a) received

  813W
  and (b) is seeking about the definition of public service broadcasting in (i) other EU states and (ii) other countries. [33317]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials in my Department are in regular contact with their opposite numbers in those states which are party to the Council of Europe's European convention on transfrontier television, as well as the other member states of the European Union. They also, from time to time, meet representatives from other countries to discuss issues which include public service broadcasting.

  BBC
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she(a) has made and (b) will make of the numbers of licence fee payers who are able to access BBC online at their place of residence. [33315]

  Dr. Howells
  I have made no such assessment and have no plans to do so. However, we know that an estimated 97.5 per cent. of households have television and therefore have or should have a television licence. Oftel's latest estimate, which was published on 29 January, is that 45 per cent. of households in the UK are now connected to the internet. All such homes will therefore be able to access BBC online.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she(a) has made and (b) plans to make of the (i) benefits and (ii) disadvantages to licence fee payers of (A) BBC Choice, (B) BBC Knowledge, (C) BBC Parliament, and (D) BBC News 24; [33312]

  (2) what assessment she (a) has made and (b) will make of the (i) benefits and (ii) disadvantages to licence fee payers of BBC1 [33313]

  Dr. Howells
  Any proposed new BBC public service requires approval by the holder of my office, who assesses it against criteria designed to ensure that the service is compatible with the BBC's primary public service role. A programme of reviews of such services against the approvals given, starting with BBC News 24, was announced by my predecessor as part of the licence fee settlement in February 2000. The terms of reference

  £

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Project title

  Award date

  Award amount

  Community Fund

  Edinburgh Volunteer Tutors Organisation

  This three-year project will provide one to one support for children (5–14 years) who are on the margins of school and community life, and whose behaviour or development is giving serious cause for concern.

  9 February 2001

  97,139

  Scottish Arts Council

  Carnegie Youth Theatre

  This group provides a platform for young people to join and participate in youth theatre. The grant will be used to fund advertising, hire of theatre, scenery, costumes, sound system and orchestra.

  22 February 2001

  4,900

  Sport Scotland

  Craigmount Cougars

  This group provides young people with the opportunity to play American football both in friendly and competitive matches. The grant will be used to purchase helmets with face cages, shoulder pads, practice pants and lower pads.

  22 February 2001

  3,675

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  North West Heritage

  This group encourages awareness of local heritage to the local community by giving presentations, creating archives and researching local history. The grant will be used to purchase archive storage drawer, filing cabinets, tape recorders, transcriber and stationery.

  22 February 2001

  1,379

  814W
  for the first review will be announced shortly. BBC Knowledge will be replaced soon by the new BBC4 service which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approved in September 2001 and which will be reviewed in 2004. She is currently considering a further application for approval of a new BBC3 service which would replace BBC Choice.

  BBC1 covers the BBC's online, interactive and text services. A review of BBC online will be undertaken as part of the programme of reviews to which I have already referred.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will include methods other than the licence fee to fund the BBC as part of the process leading to a decision on the renewal of the BBC charter. [33316]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she(a) has made and (b) will make of the numbers of licence fee payers who are able to (i) receive and (ii) view (A) BBC Choice, (B) BBC Knowledge, (C) BBC Parliament, and (D) BBC News 24 at their place of residence. [33314]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: BBC digital services are broadcast free-to-view on digital terrestrial television, on digital satellite and are usually available on basic digital cable subscription packages. I provided information on digital television take up and on digital television coverage in my answer to the hon. Member for South Suffolk on 6 December 2001, Official Report, column 501W.

  Lottery Funding
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the ventures in the Edinburgh, West constituency that have benefited from lottery money within the last 12 months. [32155]

  Dr. Howells
  There have been 25 lottery awards made to the Edinburgh, West constituency, amounting to £4,628,512.00 over the past 12 months. A list of these awards is set out in the following table.
  815W

  £

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Project title

  Award date

  Award amount

  Community Fund

  Partners in Advocacy

  This project will expand the number of volunteers recruited and trained to advocate for people with learning disabilities and support them in self advocacy in Dundee, Glasgow and West Lothian, establish a new base in West Lothian and create strong publicity.

  23 March 2001

  247,505

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  Scottish Wildlife Trust Reserves

  27 March 2001

  3,691,000

  Community Fund

  Corstorphine Village Playgroup

  This group provides pre-school education and play opportunities for children. The grant will allow the group to purchase chairs.

  5 April 2001

  760

  Scottish Arts Council

  Edinburgh College of Piping Trust

  This group provides opportunities for people to practice and perform piping. The grant will be used to purchase musical instruments including practice chanters, pipes, drum and maintenance supplies.

  5 April 2001

  4,975

  Community Fund

  17 Platoon Royal Scots ACF

  This group provides growth and personal development opportunities for young people. The grant will be used to purchase equipment and fund training and publicity material.

  8 June 2001

  5,000

  Community Fund

  Kids Around The World

  This group provides opportunities for children to experience cultural diversity through summer educational programmes. The grant will be used to purchase equipment and materials and fund sessional workers, transport, entrance fees and venue hire.

  8 June 2001

  5,000

  Community Fund

  Invisible Disability Group

  This group provides social and recreational opportunities for young adults with invisible disabilities. The grant will be used to fund social activities, group work support, training and publicity.

  8 June 2001

  5,000

  Scottish Arts Council

  Common Ground Arts

  This group provides opportunities for people of all ages to participate in a wide range of arts, working particularly with people with disabilities and mental illness. The grant will be used to purchase computer equipment, art materials and equipment and fund refurbishment of shop space and workshop space, publicity, administration and exhibition costs.

  8 June 2001

  4,950

  Scottish Arts Council

  Edinburgh Chinese Dance and Culture Youth Group

  This group provides opportunities for education, tuition and participation in Chinese dance and arts. The grant will be used to fund venue hire, tutor's fees, transport, accommodation and costumes.

  8 June 2001

  3,100

  Scottish Arts Council

  The Castle Concert Orchestra

  This group provides opportunities for people to participate in orchestral music. The grant will be used to fund fees for musicians, conductor and soloist, material and equipment hire, music/score hire, venue hire, publicity, promotion and administration.

  8 June 2001

  3,285

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Queensferry History Group

  This group seeks to stimulate interest in local history and to research and record the history of the local area. The grant will be used to fund the production of a 'Guided Walk' booklet.

  8 June 2001

  5,000

  Community Fund

  134 Merchiston Scout Group

  This one year grant will fund the purchase of tents, cooking utensils, table and benches, navigation and orienteering equipment, emergency cards, ropes and stopwatches, a parachute and football strips. This project will enable the group to purchase new equipment to host a special 50th anniversary camp involving members and other community groups in a range of social and physical activities aimed at improving young peoples confidence and leadership skills. The new equipment will also allow greater diversity.

  6 July 2001

  4,997

  Community Fund

  Drylaw/Telford Community Association

  This project aims to develop the centre's volunteer programme, increase the level of community participation in the centre by extending the number of times the cafe operates weekly and increase the capacity of the organisation to support volunteers and three existing and three new groups in their group development to develop their ideas further and identify where they can find the resources to take these ideas forward.

  20 July 2001

  100,198

  Community Fund

  Black Community

  This project will support black and minority ethnic people

  20 July 2001

  152,141

  816W 817W

  £

  Distributing body

  Recipient

  Project title

  Award date

  Award amount

  Development Project

  in Greater Pilton, especially women, to overcome poverty, gain independent access to key resources (employment, training, services) and participate more fully in the community.

  Sport Scotland

  Baseball Scotland

  This group promote develops and administer baseball in Scotland The grant will be used to purchase team strips and caps, bats and balls for coaching clinics and to fund stadium rental, promotion costs, travel and accommodation for competitors.

  9 August 2001

  5,000

  Scottish Arts Council

  North Edinburgh Arts

  Towards the cost of the Oyster project to provide opportunities for leisure and learning in the context of a festival

  6 September 2001

  68,964

  Scottish Arts Council

  Aspects Art Project

  This group enables people from the local area to participate in a public arts project in order to design and install art works in a new community building. The grant will be used to fund sessional art workers and professional fees.

  4 October 2001

  5,000

  Community Fund

  21 st South Queensferry (City of Edinburgh) Scout Group

  The project aims to build a new scout hall on land leased from Edinburgh city council. This will give larger and more flexible accommodation as well as full disabled access.

  23 November 2001

  70,000

  Community Fund

  Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Institution

  This project will allow the organisation to employ additional welfare staff to assess increased applications for support from farmers and their families in Dumfries and Galloway who have been affected by the foot and mouth outbreak.

  23 November 2001

  130,765

  Community Fund

  Hamari Pechaan

  This group seeks to promote the well being of young Asian women, providing information and advice and organising cultural and social activities. The grant will be used to purchase computer equipment, and to fund fees for sessional tutors and workshop facilitators, administration, volunteer expenses, cultural outings and transport.

  6 December 2001

  5,000

  Community Fund

  Ratho Community Centre Association

  This group provides a varied programme of social and recreational activities in the local community centre. The grant will be used to purchase a bouncy castle and disco equipment.

  6 December 2001

  3,779

  Golden Jubilee
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) applications have been made to and (b) grants have been awarded by the lottery-funded awards for all grants programme, to help communities celebrate Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee in June. [30375]

  Tessa Jowell
  To date 408 applications have been made. Of these 171 have been awarded grants and 196 await a decision.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the resignation of Lord Levene from his responsibilities for co-ordinating the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations in London. [30704]

  Tessa Jowell
  None.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will publish(a) the terms of reference, (b) the instructions and (c) other guidance Lord Levene of Portsoken was given by the Government; [31076]

  (2) when Lord Levene of Portsoken was appointed by the Government to oversee aspects of the Golden Jubilee celebrations. [31077]
  818W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Lord Levene's agreement to chair a special committee responsible for directing the planning and co-ordination of the celebrations in London was announced on 17 January 2001 by the Home Secretary. The terms of reference, announced the same day, were:

  1. To direct and deliver a programme of Golden Jubilee celebrations in London without incurring additional expenditure from public funds.

  2. In planning the above, to stimulate and consider proposals from potential organisers and sponsors of events in London to celebrate the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  3. To ensure that the programme of celebrations in the capital for the Queen's Golden Jubilee is co-ordinated with the official programmes for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh in London.

  4. To provide Londoners with a lasting legacy of the Golden Jubilee celebrations.

  5. To report to the Official Committee for the Queen's Golden Jubilee.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when(a) she, (b) other Ministers in her Department and (c) other Government Ministers have visited the Golden Jubilee Office; and what the purpose of each visit was. [31082]
  819W
  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: I visited the Golden Jubilee Office on 5 December 2001 to meet the staff and hear about their work. There have been no other ministerial visits.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when information about Lord Levene of Portsoken's resignation from the role to oversee aspects of the Golden Jubilee celebrations was released to the media; on what grounds the decision to release the information was made; and who authorised the release of the information. [31079]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: No information was released to the media by my Department.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff(a) work and (b) have stopped working (i) at their own request and (ii) at the request of others in the Golden Jubilee Office; when each member of staff was appointed; what the Department was from which each was seconded; what the Civil Service grade of each is; what the main responsibilities of each is; and what the reasons were for any who stopped work. [31080]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: On 21 January 2002, 21 staff, ranging from administrative assistant (grade D) to senior civil servant or equivalent levels, were working in the Golden Jubilee Office on a wide range of policy, operational and administrative duties. They were appointed between October 2000 and October 2001, from the Home Office, Government Information Service, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Cabinet Office, and from non-government sources. One Home Office administrative officer decided to leave during 2001 because she wished to return to her previous work.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when Lord Levene of Portsoken resigned from his role to oversee aspects of the Golden Jubilee celebrations. [31078]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: 5 July 2001.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions(a) she, (b) other Ministers in her Department and (c) officials in her Department have had with Ministers and officials in (i) the Scottish Executive, (ii) the Welsh Assembly, and (iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly about the Golden Jubilee; and for each one if she will state the nature of the discussion. [31085]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: The ministerial group for the Queen's Golden Jubilee is responsible for supervising the programme to celebrate the Jubilee. I chair this group which includes Ministers from the devolved Administrations. We have discussed and approved various Golden Jubilee issues through correspondence. Senior officials from the devolved Administrations are members of the Official Committee for the Queen's Golden Jubilee (which has met every two months), and its Programmes sub-Committee (which met monthly until it completed its work in December). In addition, officials in the Golden Jubilee Office are in regular touch with officials in the devolved Administrations on a wide range of issues.
  820W

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [31738]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The number of days of annual leave for full-time staff, outside the senior civil service, within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport depends on the individual's length of service. The initial allowance is five weeks, and after 10 years' service six weeks, and has been so for the past four years. Those staff who work part-time are allowed a proportion of the annual leave allowance, according to the length of their working week.

  (b) The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by Cabinet Office at 30 days per year and has been so for the last four years.

  (c) In addition to annual leave, full-time staff, including the senior civil service, are entitled to 10 full days and one half day each year by way of public or privilege holidays.

  Broadcasting (Ministerial Audiences)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will list the television programmes which(a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have viewed in an official capacity since 8 June 2001, stating for each occasion the date on which the viewing took place; [33224]

  (2) if she will list the television programmes which (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have viewed in an official capacity since 8 June 2001, stating for each occasion the (i) date on and (ii) venue at which the viewing took place; [33321]

  (3) if she will list the radio programmes which (a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have listened to in an official capacity since 8 June 2001, stating for each occasion the (i) date on and (ii) venue at which the listening took place. [33320]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Ministers both view television programmes and listen to radio programmes as part of their official duties. They also do so in a personal capacity. However, there is no distinct boundary between the two and we do not maintain a central record.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the recordings of(a) television and (b) radio programmes which (i) she and (ii) other Ministers in her Department have attended as an invited member of the audience since 8 June 2001, stating for each occasion the (A) date on and (B) venue at which the recording took place. [33322]
  821W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Since 8 June 2001, DCMS Ministers have attended the following events which were broadcast on television and radio as invited members of the audience. Attendance at

  Minister

  Event

  Venue

  24 October 2001

  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting

  British Independent Film Awards ceremony1

  Park Lane Hotel, London

  9 December 2001

  Secretary of State

  Turner Prize 2001

  Tate Britain, London

  9 December 2001

  Minister of State for Sport

  BBC Sports Personality of the Year

  Television Centre, London

  14 December 2001

  Secretary of State

  BBC Richard Dimbleby Lecture

  Institute of Education, London

  20 January 2002

  Minister of State for Sport

  Northern Rock North East Sports Awards1

  Seaburn Centre, Sunderland

  1 Also to present an award.

  Analogue Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice she has(a) received and (b) plans to seek about when the conditions that need to be fulfilled before the analogue television signal is switched off might be fulfilled. [33331]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I have received no advice about a specific date though I have made clear that the target 2006–10 is challenging. I expect to seek advice in the light of the work set out in the Digital Television Action plan.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the meetings which(a) she and (b) other Ministers in her Department have had with representatives of broadcasters since 8 June 2001, stating for each meeting the (i) date on which it took place,(ii) the broadcasters represented at the meeting and (iii) primary purpose. [33319]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: My ministerial colleagues and I have met many representatives from the broadcasting industry in the course of our duties since 8 June 2001 as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis and in order to preserves this confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 37W, on digitally originated graphics, if she will make an assessment of the (a) benefits and (b) disadvantages to television viewers and television owners of the use of on-screen digitally originated graphics, other than electronic programme guides, to identify and promote (i) television channels, (ii) programme strands, (iii) internet links and (iv) other programmes. [33308]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I have no current plans to do so, but if the hon. Member would like to write explaining any particular issue he would like me to consider, I would be happy to do so.
  822W
  such events allows Ministers to see developments in their sector at first hand and demonstrates our support. These are, of course, in addition to visits made in a private capacity or for party reasons.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages to consumers of receiving digital television by (i) digital terrestrial, (ii) digital satellite and (iii) digital cable. [33318]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: My Department keeps all technologies under review.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Outsourcing (IS/IT Services)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 514W, on outsourcing, what the estimated size is of the reduced cost to his Department from the outsourcing of IS and IT services. [30140]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department first outsourced its IT data centre and mainframe operations in 1995, and subsequently outsourced the development and maintenance of its IT systems in 2000. Costs and benefits associated with the outsourcing of all of these IS/IT services were forecast on the basis of initial planning assumptions known at the time that the contract was let. A prudent approach was taken in the calculations in terms of spending on IT systems development and maintenance, and data centre and mainframe operational services.

  Based on these factors, a positive net present value was delivered representing a reduction of 3 per cent. in costs over the life of the contract. However, a fuller assessment of the actual financial impact of outsourcing is not available, since the contract is only in its early stages.

  Additionally, this contract cannot be viewed within the context of cost reduction alone. Various non-financial factors were also of considerable importance in the decision to proceed with strategic outsourcing. In particular, the transfer of high levels of risk associated with new IT development to the service provider.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what amount of rental income is disregarded from income support calculations when heating is included in the rent of a sub-tenant. [34372]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The disregard will increase from £9.25 to £9.40 from April 2002, and this will be included in the Up-rating Order which will shortly be laid before the House. I regret that the list of rates that was published
  823W
  in November 2000 and November 2001 gave incorrect rates for April 2001 and April 2002. The correct rates are included in the legislation and reflect movements in fuel prices.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of disability living allowance benefits appeals were won by claimants after the medical examination in(a) the West Midlands and (b) the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [30738]

  Maria Eagle
  Disability living allowance appeals cleared at hearing in Great Britain and those processed through the Appeals Service's Birmingham regional centre during the period 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001:

  Great Britain

  Birmingham regional centre

  Cleared at hearing1

  90,935

  8,330

  Found in favour

  46,770

  3,595

  Percentage found in appelant's favour

  51.4

  43.2

  1 Includes both oral and paper hearings

  Note:

  All figures are subject to change as more up to date data become available. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of claimants for disability living allowance have been refused benefit after they have been receiving disability living allowance for(a) one year, (b) five years, (c) 10 years and (d) 20 years since medical testing was introduced. [30742]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested. Since its inception in 1992, decisions about entitlement to DLA have been made on the basis of all the available evidence about a severely disabled person's care and/or mobility needs. In some cases, this evidence includes a report from the claimant's general practitioner or from an examining doctor, but there is no "medical test" which determines entitlement.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many representations he has received over the last 12 months about the Benefits Agency's use of inadequately qualified and experienced doctors to assess disabled living allowance applicants; and if he will make a statement. [30971]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on representations received regarding inadequately qualified and experienced doctors undertaking examinations for disability living allowance is not collected. The Department takes steps to ensure that only doctors with appropriate experience and qualifications conduct such examinations.

  The chief medical adviser must approve all such doctors. There are strict recruitment criteria and doctors must undertake prescribed training and demonstrate competence in these examinations. Ongoing approval is subject to satisfactory performance and attendance at an agreed programme of continued medical education. Complaints are taken into account in determining performance.
  824W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the average time taken for a review of disability living allowance in the last 12 months. [33638]

  Maria Eagle
  Reviews of disability living allowance (DLA) were replaced by Reconsiderations under the system of decision making and appeals introduced from October 1999.

  The average clearance time for DLA Reconsiderations in the year to December 2001 was 38.9 days.

  Departmental Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31740]

  Mr. McCartney
  The two main elements of DWP formed in June 2001 are the former DSS and ES. The average annual leave entitlements outside the Senior Civil Service over the last four years within those organisations have been as follows:

  Staff in the grades AA up to and including EO:

  DSS

  22 days on entry

  25 days after 1 years service

  30 days after 12 years service effective from 1 April 2002

  30 days after 14 years service effective from 1 January 2000

  30 days after 15 years service effective from 1 August 1999

  30 days after 20 years service prior to 1 August 1999

  ES

  22 days on entry

  25 days after 1 years service

  30 days after 12 years service effective from 1 April 2002

  30 days after 14 years service effective from 1 October 2000

  30 days after 15 years service prior to 1 October 2000

  Staff in HEO grade:

  DSS

  22 days on entry

  25 days after 1 years service

  30 days after 12 years service effective from 1 April 2002

  30 days after 14 years service effective from 1 January 2002

  30 days after 15 years service prior to 1 January 2000

  ES

  22 days on entry

  25 days after 1 years service

  30 days after 12 years service effective 1 April 2002

  30 days after 14 years service effective 1 October 2000

  30 days after 15 years service prior to 1 October 2000

  Staff in grades SEO up to and including UG6. Both DSS and ES:

  25 days on entry

  30 days after 1 years service

  Senior Civil Service:

  The annual leave allowances for members of the Senior Civil Service is set by the Cabinet Office and continues to be 30 days on entry.

  Performance and Verification Frameworks
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which local authorities have implemented the Verification Framework; how much the expert Help
  825W
  Team has cost; how many local authorities have applied for money from the Help Fund; which have been given grants and of how much; and what evaluation has taken place of the local authorities involved in piloting the Performance Framework. [29489]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I am pleased to announce that 32 of the 104 bids submitted to the Help Fund have been successful. As many of these are joint bids from groups of local authorities, the allocations, totalling £1.638 million, will help around 250 local authorities overall. The Help Fund was set up to address core problems in housing benefit delivery at a local level and is a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to working with local authorities to improve the standard of housing benefit administration. The funded projects will make significant improvements in areas such as training, customer service and IT capabilities. I am placing a full list of the successful bids in the Library today.

  As at 1 February 2002, 242 local authorities are compliant with the Verification Framework. A list has been placed in the Library.

  The Help Team is a partnership initiative to support local authorities which are working to improve the administration of housing benefit. Help Team visits to local authorities began in March 2001. The total forecast costs for the project until March 2002 are £970,000.

  14 local authorities participated in the pilot work for the Performance Framework. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate had inspected 11 of them before the pilot and one has now had a best value inspection. The pilots provided useful information and views on the realism of the standards, and input from these authorities has helped us improve their specification.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 27 December 2001 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Janet Hamnett. [33529]

  Mr. Darling
  I replied to my right hon. Friend today.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Electoral Modernisation
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the names of those authorities that have been approved to run electoral modernisation pilot schemes in the May 2002 local elections; and if he will make a statement. [34272]

  List of applications

  Name of Council

  Type of ballot

  Area covered

  Borough of Basingstoke and Deane

  All postal

  Three wards

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  E-voting (kiosk) and e-counting

  All wards

  Borough of Broxbourne

  E-counting

  Four wards

  London Borough of Camden

  Early weekend voting (27–28 April) in addition to 2 May

  All wards

  Chester City Council

  E-voting (touch screen machine) and e-counting

  Three wards

  Chorley Borough Council

  All postal and e-counting

  All wards

  Crawley Borough Council

  All postal

  Three wards

  826W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I have today agreed that 30 local authorities will pilot new methods of voting at local and mayoral elections this May.

  These electoral modernisation pilots build on the 2000 local election pilots and will test new and easier arrangements, such as early voting, all postal ballots and mobile ballot kiosks.

  The earlier successes of postal voting ensure it will play a key role in the pilot programme. In the 2000 local elections, most postal pilots recorded a 50 per cent. or greater rise in the number of votes cast compared with previous local elections in 1999. The 2001 general election saw a record number of postal votes cast—some 1.4 million, compared with 738,614 postal votes at the 1997 general election. Postal voting has shown that it can make a difference. The pilot programme aims, therefore, to build upon these successes and explore all-postal ballots and other techniques to make the voting process simpler, accessible and more efficient for the electorate.

  In addition over half of the pilots will explore innovative ways in which people can vote electronically using mobile phone text message services, touch telephone, local digital television and on-line voting methods using home computers, local libraries and council-run information kiosks. The councils involved will be working with IT suppliers.

  This marks an important first step towards e-voting across the country. The pilots will be crucial in building public confidence and testing technical robustness to ensure that the integrity of the poll is maintained. We are particularly keen to engage younger voters and feel these new innovations will help. Our aim is to learn from these pilots so we can confidently modernise our voting arrangements—making the most of new technology so that voting is more accessible for everyone, but at the same time secure and efficient. We propose an ever more extensive programme of pilots at future local elections to open up the possibility of an e-enabled general election some time after 2006.

  My announcement reflects the Government's commitment to modernising our democratic processes. My Department has worked with the Electoral Commission, the Local Government Association and the Office of the e-Envoy in considering all of the 41 bids received. The successful authorities, together with a brief description of the activity to be undertaken in the pilot, are listed in the table. Of the remaining authorities, three withdrew their bids, eight applications were judged to fall outside our published criteria or the scope of the enabling legislation.

  The Electoral Commission will be providing support and advice to pilot authorities. We will be providing financial support for the costs of IT investment—up to £3.5 million. Officials will now be discussing allocation details with the pilot authorities and the IT suppliers.
  827W

  List of applications

  Name of Council

  Type of ballot

  Area covered

  Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

  E-voting (option of voting on line via Council's web site prior to 2 May) in addition to traditional methods

  Two wards

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  E-counting of elected Mayoral votes

  All wards

  Epping Forest District Council

  E-counting

  All wards

  Gateshead Council

  All postal

  All wards

  London Borough of Greenwich

  All postal

  Two wards

  London Borough of Hackney

  All postal and e-counting for local elections and mayoral referendum

  All wards

  London Borough of Havering

  All postal

  All wards

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Leaflet address from all parties to each voter

  All wards

  The City of Liverpool

  E-voting and e-counting (telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging) early voting—from 27–4. Real time on-line register at any polling station in voters ward

  Two/three wards

  London Borough of Newham

  E-voting and e-counting. Early voting, mobile voting and use of languages in voting

  All wards

  North Tyneside Council

  All postal in local and mayoral elections, and e-counting

  All wards

  North West Leicestershire District Council

  All postal

  One parish

  Preston Borough Council

  All postal

  Two wards

  Rugby Borough Council

  E-counting (use of optical scanners)

  All wards

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  All postal with electronic counting option

  All wards

  St Albans City and District Council

  E-voting (kiosk and internet) and e-counting

  Two wards

  Sheffield City Council

  E-voting (kiosk, internet and SMS mobile phone text) and e-counting in addition to traditional methods

  3 wards

  Stevenage Borough Council

  All postal

  All wards

  Stratford-on-Avon District Council

  E-voting (kiosk) and e-counting

  All wards

  Swindon Borough Council

  Early voting (25–30 April) by internet or touch tone telephone (with in-built security measures) in addition to traditional methods

  All wards

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough

  All postal

  All wards

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Extended hours from 7.00am to 10.00pm

  All wards

  City of Westminster

  E-counting and extended hours (0700–2200 hrs)

  All wards

  Electoral Fraud
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the proportion of ballot papers which were the product of forgery and were not counted in the(a) 2001 and (b) 1997 general elections. [32167]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We are not aware that any forged papers were identified at either of these elections.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the official mark as a safeguard against electoral fraud; and what plans he has to introduce further safeguards. [32161]

  Dr. Whitehead
  At least five of the applications for electoral pilots to take place at next May's local elections include proposals for alternatives to the official mark, including watermarked or bar-coded ballot papers. Should they be approved and go ahead, the pilots will be evaluated by the Electoral Commission. We, together with the commission, will consider any conclusions carefully.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research he has undertaken into security and the prevention of ballot rigging in the evaluation of the feasibility of internet voting. [32090]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have jointly commissioned research by a team led by De Montfort university, into the potential barriers (among which are security issues) to electronic voting, including internet. Our partners include the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Association. We expect to publish the findings from this research by June 2002.
  828W
  We will be approving a number of pilot schemes of innovative electoral practices in the May 2002 local elections, which may include internet voting. The Electoral Commission will evaluate each pilot scheme to assess whether it met our criteria of making voting straightforward, efficient, accessible and secure. The reports will be published within three months of election date.

  Consultants
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many contracts and what fees in each financial year since 1997–98(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, (c) KPMG, (d) PA Consulting, (e) WS Atkins,(f) Accenture, (g) Deloitte & Touche, (h) McKinsey, (i) Capita, (j) AEA Technology, (k) Xansa Group.(I) Sema Group, (m) CMG Admiral, (n) ICL Group and (o) Logica received for advising his Department on PFI and PPP contracts; and if he will make a statement. [32503]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My Department's contracts for the provision of advice on PFI and PPP contracts since 1997–98 are set out in the following table. Details of the fees incurred in each financial year can be only provided by incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Number of advice contracts

  (a) PricewaterhouseCoopers

  4

  (b) Cap Gemini Ernst and Young

  3

  (c) KPMG

  2

  (d) PA Consulting

  1

  (e) WS Atkins

  0

  (f) Accenture

  0

  (g) Deloitte and Touche

  1

  (h) McKinsey

  0

  (i) Capita

  0

  (j) AEA Technology

  0

  829W

  Number of advice contracts

  (k) Xansa Group

  0

  (i) SEMA Group

  0

  (m) CMG Admiral

  0

  (n) ICL Group

  0

  (o) Logica

  0

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1041W, on special advisers, how many special advisers have left his Department since May 1997; on how many occasions the head of his Department has recommended a gap between leaving employment in his Department and taking up outside employment; if he will list the gap for each occasion this has occurred; and if he will make a statement. [31594]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Since May 1997 10 special advisers have left the Department. Special advisers, like other civil servants, are subject to the business appointment rules which require them to seek approval for taking up outside employment in defined circumstances. Following consideration by the Independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, a gap of six months was recommended in one case.

  Government Expenditure (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total Government expenditure in each London borough(a) was in each of the past five years and (b) is planned for 2002–03, broken down into (i) the Standards Fund, (ii) the Ethnic Minority Achievement grant, (iii) The Excellence in Cities grant and (iv) the Sure Start grant. [28083]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average SSA is in 2002 for councils and local authority areas in England. [32109]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The average SSA for 2002–03 in England across all 432 local authorities is £115.190 million. Different classes of authority provide different services. The table shows the average SSA by class of authority.

  £ million

  Class of authority

  Average SSA

  City of London

  54.645

  Inner London boroughs

  281.295

  Outer London boroughs

  236.383

  Greater London authority

  1,168.594

  Metropolitan district councils

  297.089

  Metropolitan fire authorities

  64.521

  Metropolitan police authorities

  150.103

  Shire district councils

  9.891

  Shire county councils

  491.364

  Shire unitary authorities

  163.422

  Shire police authorities

  60.378

  Isles of Scilly

  3.192

  830W

  Noise and Nuisance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding his Department has allocated to tackling noise and nuisance in Buckinghamshire in each of the last five years. [32174]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Local authority revenue expenditure on noise reduction is covered by the district level sub-block of environmental, protective and cultural services. Allocations for individual services within the sub-block are not identified separately.

  High Hedges
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to publish his Department's guidance on disputes between neighbours about high hedges and overhanging trees; and how such disputes may be amicably resolved. [33945]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 10 December 2001,Official Report, columns 584–85W.

  Departmental Studies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many studies initiated since 1997 have covered subjects that have previously been the subject of studies by his Department since 1972. [32959]

  Dr. Whitehead
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Department initiates studies on a wide range of issues relevant to particular aspects of its policy areas. Many policy areas are the subject of more than one study. To carry out a precise analysis of all the studies undertaken since 1997 and the policy areas they address would entail unreasonable cost. Results of studies and research projects are regularly announced on the DTLR website.

  Buses
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total public sector subsidy for buses was, at current prices, in each year between 1991 and 2001. [32956]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The figures are shown in table 19 of the DTLR publication "A Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics GB:2001 edition", which is in the Libraries of the House.

  Essen Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2002,Official Report, column 321W, ref 31544, if it is his policy to build a new dual carriageway or motorway link through mid-Wales along the route of the link in the Essen plan. [33393]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Essen plan includes the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link, of which sections of the A5 as well as roads in Wales form part. A study to consider safety and environmental problems on the A5 and A483 between Shrewsbury

  831W
  and Chester is due to report this spring and its recommendations will be carefully considered. Any recommendation for improvements to highways in Wales will be considered by the devolved Administration.

  Road Safety
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will place in the Library legal advice received by his Department about the use of repeater signs in 30mph speed limits. [32943]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Legislation on the use of repeater signs in lit 30mph speed limits is already available in the Library. Direction 10 of the statutory instrument: traffic signs regulations and general directions 1994 provides that repeater signs shall be placed at regular intervals on all roads except restricted roads or on any road where the national speed limit is in force.

  Section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 describes a restricted road as a road which there is a system of street lighting placed not more than 200 yards apart.

  Roads Investment
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what total public sector investment was in roads, at current prices, in each year between 1991 and 2001. [32955]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Figures for years up to 1999–2000 are published in table 1.16 of transport statistics Great Britain (TSGB) 2001, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House. Figures for 2000–01 are not yet available.

  Cycling
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a law compelling cyclists to have bells. [32845]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department is considering this in its review of regulations dealing with safety standards for pedal cycles.

  Urban Capacity Studies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on how many local authorities have produced urban capacity studies(a) before 7 March 2000 and (b) since 7 March 2000; and how many of these are in accordance with the good practice guidance in "Tapping the Potential" published in December 2000. [33424]

  Ms Keeble
  We have a major research project under way looking at the implementation of the policies set out in planning policy guidance note 3 "housing" (PPG3). The research will report the progress made by local authorities in carrying out the urban housing capacity studies expected by PPG3 and the extent to which these reflect the guidance set out in "Tapping the Potential".
  832W

  Airport Security
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to monitor the security of airports abroad and to publish advice on this issue to British nationals. [30520]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under international law, host states are responsible for the security applied to civil aircraft leaving the state. However, my Department closely monitors the security afforded to and carried out by UK carriers at overseas airports. My Department is also working closely with our international partners to increase the existing minimum international standards for aviation security.

  We do not discuss security measures at airports, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website contains helpful information to travellers about safety and other matters.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on what powers British Waterways has to grant itself planning permission and to carry out works in a conservation area without being subject to the normal planning procedures. [33127]

  Ms Keeble
  British Waterways has no powers to grant itself planning permission but does enjoy permitted development rights under Part 17 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 which enable it to carry out certain development in relation to canal or inland navigation undertakings without having to apply for planning permission.

  Greenfield Sites
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on whether the Government had carried out a national audit of greenfield allocations to complement the national land use database of brownfield sites. [33426]

  Ms Keeble
  The Government have not carried out a national audit of greenfield allocations to complement the national land use database of brownfield sites. Our planning policies for housing give priority to re-using previously-developed land within urban areas in preference to the development of greenfield sites. We set up the national land use database to help local authorities establish how many additional homes can be built in urban areas on brownfield sites.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many hectares of greenfield land previously allocated for housing in local plans and unitary development plans have been de-allocated since 7 March 2000. [33425]

  Ms Keeble
  The Secretary of State is a statutory consultee in the preparation of development plans and through the Government offices has been examining emerging plans carefully to identify unnecessary greenfield releases. Just over 300 objections to plans on PPG3 grounds were made in the period 1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001. Information on the hectarage of greenfield de-allocations is not collected centrally.
  833W

  Starter Home Initiative
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how the building land for the Starter Home Initiative is being sourced. [32656]

  Ms Keeble
  The majority of Starter Home Initiative assistance will help key workers to purchase an existing dwelling. Beyond this, scheme providers will obtain building land from purchases from the private sector, local authorities and other public bodies.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people in the Epsom and Ewell constituency have benefited from the Starter Home Initiative for key workers; and what the(a) average and (b) total amount granted is. [32654]

  Ms Keeble
  The Starter Home Initiative allocations announced on 6 September 2001 included a Surrey-wide scheme, including Epsom and Ewell constituency, to help 398 key workers and in addition a dedicated scheme for Epsom and Ewell covering seven key workers. The grant that has been allocated to these two schemes over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04 averages £17,605 per person.

  Bidding guidance for the Starter Home Initiative Equity Loan scheme, announced on 16 January 2002, proposed help for a further 79 key workers across Surrey.

  Worcestershire Structure Plan
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what grounds Government Departments may disregard the Worcestershire Structure Plan when considering the location of a new facility built by departments or their agencies; and if he will make a statement. [33063]

  Ms Keeble
  The non-statutory procedures set out in DOE circular 18/84 that deal with development by Crown bodies make it clear that if any development proposal would constitute a departure from the development plan, it must be dealt with like an application for planning permission for similar development and be subject to the same arrangements for advertisement and notification to my Department. If the Secretary of State decides that the proposal should be the subject of a non-statutory public inquiry and subsequent consideration by him, the local planning authority will be informed. The development plan comprises both the adopted structure plan and the local plan where applicable.

  Community Transport Services
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the proposed regulations extending fuel duty rebate to community transport services will come into force. [33071]

  Ms Keeble
  Following consultation with relevant organisations last year, we will be bringing forward regulations within the next few weeks with the intention of introducing this new entitlement as early as possible in 2002–03.
  834W

  Concessionary Fare Schemes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the gross cost is in each local authority of concessionary fare schemes at the most recent date for which information is available; and what the cost is per(a) resident, (b) resident aged 60 years or over and (c) bus passenger mile in each local authority; [33635]

  (2) what the anticipated gross cost would be to each local authority of concessionary fare schemes following implementation of the proposals in the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]; and what the cost would be per (a) resident, (b) resident aged 60 years or over and (c) bus passenger mile. [33646]

  Ms Keeble
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list by local authority those areas in which pensioners travel concessions are available(a) offering nil fares, (b) offering half fares and (c) offering concessions amounting to less than half fares. [33788]

  Ms Keeble
  The Transport Act 2000 requires that from 1 June 2001 local authorities provide their resident pensioners with at least half-fares on local buses. Some local authorities using their discretionary powers have more generous schemes.

  Ferries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the ferry crossings from mainland Great Britain that are in receipt of central Government financial support; and if he will give the extent of that support in each case, in each of the last three years. [33072]

  Mr. Spellar
  Her Majesty's Government do not subsidise ferry crossings. The Scottish Executive subsidise lifeline ferry services in the Scottish highlands and islands for which they are accountable to the Scottish Parliament. Responsibility for expenditure on such services prior to the introduction of devolution on 1 July 1999 lay with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Crossrail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether it is his policy to allow funding for Crossrail to be raised through a public bond issue. [32939]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: No decisions have yet been taken about the most appropriate method of procuring any Crossrail scheme.

  Channel Tunnel Freight Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what plans he has to increase the number of freight services using the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement; [29582]
  835W
  (2) what action has been taken since the meeting with the head of security for the French railways on 3 December last year to accelerate implementation of the measures needed to restore the number of freight services through the channel tunnel to pre-7 November 2001 levels. [29583]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 30 January 2002,Official Report, columns 322–23W.

  Rail Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many coaches are operating on the rail network; and how many are projected to be in operation in 2005. [28562]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are approximately 10,000 vehicles currently in operation on the national rail network. It is anticipated that, after taking into account those coaches which must be withdrawn from service, there will be in the region of 10,500 vehicles in operation by 2005.

  There are to date 2,218 confirmed orders for new coaches to replace older stock before 2005.

  Selby Rail Crash
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the application made by North Yorkshire Police Authority under the Bellwin scheme to cover its costs associated with the Selby rail crash. [33740]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have received a request from North Yorkshire Police Authority for assistance under the Bellwin scheme with the exceptional costs they incurred in connection with the Selby rail crash. I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in the case of North Yorkshire Police Authority given the exceptional nature of the costs incurred by the authority following the rail crash. A scheme will, therefore be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of the eligible costs above a threshold, which the authority incurred in dealing with the rail crash.

  Strategic Rail Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether public investment in the Railways under the 10-year plan includes the public sector contribution to projected payments to Railtrack in Control Period 2. [32945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Network grants to Railtrack, and its successor company, are classified as public investment support. The proportion of the renewals investment programme that is unsupported by grant is classified as private investment.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total(a) loan facility and (b) working capital facility drawn down by the Railtrack Administrator under the commercial loan agreement is. [32938]
  836W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: £1,492,017,636 has been drawn down from the loan facility. Nothing has been drawn down from the working capital facility.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the additional money originally announced on 14 January for the railways includes the additional funding for Railtrack brought forward from Control Period 3 into Control Period 2. [32937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 30 January 2002, Official Report, column 322W.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 2001,Official Report, column 9W, on Railtrack, for whom the assessment of cash-flow from assets was conducted; why his Department conducted an assessment of the cash-flows provided by assets from Railtrack, but no assessment of the direct value of assets in (i) Railtrack plc and (ii) Railtrack Group; and if he will make a statement. [32694]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to previous replies given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 31W, 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 496W, and 3 December 2001, Official Report, column 22W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether Railtrack needed to raise more money during the current financial year than was envisaged in its business plan. [32741]

  Mr. Spellar
  The evidence to the High Court on 7 October 2001 demonstrated that Railtrack plc was, or was soon likely to become, unable to meet its existing debts. On that basis it could not raise the money envisaged in its business plan.

TREASURY

  Treasury Building PFI Deal
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total costs involved in the Exchequer Partnership bond issue for the Treasury Building PFI deal were including total fees paid to banks, professional advisers and others, showing for each amount paid the(a) payer and (b) payee. [32214]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (i) Fees paid by EP up to and including financial close (May 2000), as shown in the financial model, were:

  £ million

  SG

  Financial advice to EP

  1.250

  SG

  Mezzanine underwriting

  0.100

  Chesterton

  Property/letting advice to EP

  0.900

  PwC

  Tax and accounting advice to EP

  0.100

  Ashurst Morris Crisp

  Legal advice to EP

  0.800

  C. E. Heath

  Insurance advice to EP

  0.060

  Marsh Bankrisk

  Insurance due diligence for funders

  0.030

  Failthfull & Gould

  Technical due diligence for funders

  0.150

  Allen & Overy

  Legal due diligence for funders

  0.532

  837W

  £ million

  PKF

  Model audit

  0.070

  Rating Agencies

  Bond rating costs

  0.200

  UBS Warburg

  Bond arrangement fee

  0.799

  Ambac

  Initial credit enhancement premium

  1.845

  Ambac

  Mezzanine arrangement fee

  0.132

  Total

  6.968

  (ii) Fees paid by HMT up to and including financial close were:

  £ million

  GTMS

  Project management and technical advice

  0.462

  Berwin Leighton

  Legal advice

  1.355

  Dresdner Kleinwort Benson

  Financial advice

  0.645

  Cecil Denny Highton

  Advice on accommodation requirements

  0.101

  C. B. Hillier Parker

  Specialist property-related advice

  0.013

  Roger Preston & Partners

  Mechanical and electrical engineering advice

  0.043

  Willis Corroon

  Insurance advice

  0.006

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Accountancy advice

  0.012

  Total

  2.637

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total(a) refurbishment and (b) operating costs are of the Treasury building, broken down by the principal cost headings used. [32210]

  Ruth Kelly
  As at financial close (5 May 2000), the total projected costs to the start of operations are:

  Total

  Funding requirement

  £million

  Percentage

  Net VAT paid/(received)

  0.115

  0.1

  Construction cost

  118.659

  84.2

  Pre-operating costs

  7.578

  5.4

  Senior debt service reserve

  4.392

  3.1

  Change in law reserve

  2.419

  1.7

  Cash

  0.608

  0.4

  Interest and fees:

  0.800

  0.6

  Mezzanine Debt Bond (net of interest received)

  6.394

  4.5

  Total

  140.965

  100.0

  The annual service costs payable to EP form part of the single Unitary Payment payable by HMT. These costs are expressed in March 1999 prices and are subject to indexation:

  £000

  Hard services1

  1,504

  Soft services2

  1,930

  Total services

  3,434

  Capital charges

  10,603

  Total unitary payment

  14,037

  1 Includes M&E systems, building fabric, fire and safety systems, security hardware.

  2 Includes cleaning and waste management, security personnel, Help Desk.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 10 years prior to the Treasury Building PFI deal, how much the Treasury has paid in annual rent for the Treasury Building. [32207]
  838W
  Ruth Kelly
  Figures for the years up to 1995–96 are not readily available. Figures for later years are in an answer I am giving to the hon. Member today.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assumptions have been made about inflation in the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32204]

  Ruth Kelly
  The base case assumption was a constant 2.5 per cent. annual increase in the RPI all items index.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discount rate was used for the Treasury Building PFI deal; and, using this discount rate, what the total net present cost is of the annual unitary payments over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32215]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total net present cost of the annual unitary payments over the lifetime of the deal is £169.3 million, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent. inflation.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the terms of the Treasury Building PFI deal, who owns the freehold of the Treasury Building. [32212]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The building remains a Crown freehold throughout the term of the deal. Exchequer Partnership plc will be granted a head lease for the whole site on completion of the refurbishment of the Treasury accommodation at the west end of the summer. They will then grant the Treasury a sub-lease for our accommodation for the thirty-five year operating period. Once the eastern end is refurbished, Exchequer Partnership will grant similar sub-leases to the tenants there.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total capital sum involved in the Treasury Building PFI deal was, broken down by(a) equity and (b) the different layers of debt. [32213]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  Sources of funding

  Total

  £million

  Percentage

  Ordinary Shares

  0.500

  0.4

  Shareholder Loan Stock

  6.425

  4.5

  Mezzanine Debt

  6.250

  4.4

  Bond

  127.790

  90.7

  Total

  140.965

  100.0

  Note:

  The equity comprises the ordinary shares and the shareholder loan stock, a total of £6.925 million, or 4.9 per cent. of the total funding.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total annual operating costs were for the Treasury Building in each of the four years prior to the Treasury building PFI deal, broken down by(a) cleaning, (b) security, (c) electricity, (d) water, (e) gas, (f) non-domestic rates, (g) basic maintenance, (h) exceptional maintenance and (i) other significant operating cost items. [32209]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury building is a Crown freehold so has not been subject to conventional rents. For the four years prior to the PFI deal a capital charge (an intra-Government transfer payment) has been payable on the Treasury building. The Treasury has another building—
  839W
  Allington Towers (AT) in Victoria street—which is a leasehold building so subject to rental payments to a landlord. The intention is to surrender the Allington Towers lease when the staff there have moved into the refurbished Treasury building this summer. While the

  £million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Items included in unitary payment:

  Rent/capital charge

  4.71

  4.91

  4.69

  6.62

  Cleaning/security/maintenance

  2.1

  3.03

  2.62

  2.21

  Items not included in the unitary payment:

  Rates, utilities' costs, copying. furniture and fittings

  3.114

  2.861

  2.897

  2.985

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Building PFI deal ends, how much at current prices he estimates the Treasury will pay in annual rent. [32208]

  Ruth Kelly
  At the end of the PFI deal in 2037 ownership of the building reverts to the Treasury. We then have a choice whether to negotiate a new deal with Exchequer Partnership, or another supplier, or to take responsibility for running the building ourselves once again.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been if the discount rate had been(a) 3.50 per cent., (b) 3.75 per cent., (c) 4.00 per cent.,(d) 4.25 per cent., (e) 4.50 per cent., (f) 4.75 per cent., (g) 5.00 per cent. and (h) 5.50 per cent. [32201]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under current Treasury guidance to Departments on the carrying out of investment appraisals (the "Green Book") the discount rate to be used is 6 per cent. in real terms. Were the guidance to be changed in the future, other parts of the methodology might also vary. So simply changing one variable, in this case the discount rate, is not valid.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal assuming no inflation. [32200]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Unitary Payment (UP) is set at £14.037 million per annum in March 1999 prices, to be indexed annually by the RPI. Assuming no inflation, therefore, the Treasury would pay £491.3 million over the 35 year contract term.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of issue of the Exchequer Partnership bond for the Treasury Building PFI deal, what the total extra cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been for every change of 0.1 per cent. in the bond spread. [32202]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total additional payment over the lifetime of the project would have been £6.568 million per 0.1 per cent. increase in the bond spread. The NPC impact of a 0.1 per cent. increase is £1.329 million (discounted at 6 per cent. real), and the annual increase in the Unitary Payment would have been £110,00 as at 31 March 1999.
  840W
  refurbishment of the west end of the Treasury building is going ahead, some two thirds of our staff remain in the east end of the building while the remaining third are housed at Allington Towers. The total costs of running the two buildings are set out in the table.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he estimates the bond spread of the Exchequer Partnership bond issued for the Treasury Building PFI deal would have had to widen before the project had become unviable. [32203]

  Ruth Kelly
  The contract with EP provided for a cap of £14.2 million on the Unitary Payment (i.e £13.981 at the time the contract was signed in August 1999) if funding was subsequently secured through the bond route. If the cap had been exceeded, then it would have been for the Treasury to decide whether a new, higher figure would still have provided good value for money.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer using the Treasury's inflation assumptions for the Treasury Building PFI deal, what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership will be over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal. [32205]

  Ruth Kelly
  £838.154 million. This equates to £169.3 million in net present cost terms, discounted at 6 per cent. in real terms and assuming 2.5 per cent. inflation.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total amount of cash paid by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership will be over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal assuming a constant inflation rate of(a) 2.00 per cent., (b) 2.25 per cent.,(c) 2.50 per cent., (d) 2.75 per cent., (e) 3.00 per cent.,(f) 4.00 per cent. and (g) 5.00 per cent. [32206]

  Ruth Kelly
  These calculations have no bearing on the value for money assessment since the project appraisal is conducted in real terms.

  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the total net present cost of the annual unitary payments by the Treasury to Exchequer Partnership over the lifetime of the Treasury Building PFI deal would have been if the discount rate had been(a) 3.50 per cent., (b) 3.75 per cent., (c) 4.00 per cent.,(d) 4.25 per cent., (e) 4.50 per cent., (f) 4.75 per cent., (g) 5.00 per cent. and (h) 5.50 per cent. [32216]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under current Treasury guidance to Departments on the carrying out of investment appraisals (the "Green Book") the discount rate to be used is 6 per cent. in real terms. Were the guidance to be changed in the future, other parts of the methodology might also vary. So simply changing one variable, in this case the discount rate, is not valid.
  841W
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) gross and (b) net proceeds were from the Exchequer Partnership Bond issue. [32211]

  Ruth Kelly
  The gross proceeds were £127.790 million and the net proceeds £123.639 million.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been introduced since 1997 to give tax and rate relief to amateur sports clubs; and what plans he has to give further assistance. [32152]

  Mr. Boateng
  A consultation document—"Promoting Sport in the Community"—was launched on 30 November 2001, seeking views on the best way to support community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) that make a positive contribution to the community. The Charity Commission also announced on 30 November that it would recognise as charitable the"promotion of community participation in healthy recreation by the provision of facilities for the playing of particular sports"
  this will confer the tax benefits of charitable status to qualifying CASCs.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 890W, on the Financial Services Authority, (1) what new regulations will apply to mortgage and insurance intermediaries; [33773]

  (2) if the new FSA powers will cover (a) residential mortgages, (b) commercial mortgages and (c) buy to let mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [33772]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury will be publishing consultation papers in due course setting out the mortgage and general insurance activities that are to be regulated by the financial services authority. A broad timetable has been published on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk. No change is envisaged to the definition of a regulated mortgage contract that was set out in articles 61 to 63 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI2001/544) as amended by SI2001/3544. This means that, as before, regulation will he aimed at mortgages which put a person's home at risk.

  UK GDP
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the UK recorded in the Eurostat reports, Statistics in Focus, General Statistics, No. 1/2002, "Regional Gross Domestic Product in the European Union 1999" and Statistics in Focus, General Statistics No. 2/2002, "Regional Gross Domestic Product in Candidate Countries 1999"; and if he will make a statement. [32870]

  Ruth Kelly
  Eurostat report that UK GDP per capita was above the EU average in 1999. More recent Eurostat labour market data show the employment rates of all the countries and regions of the UK are above the EU average.
  842W
  The Government are committed to raising the rate of sustainable UK growth by improving employment and productivity in all regions. The Government's approach to achieving this is set out in detail in "Productivity in the UK:3—the Regional Dimension" published alongside PBR 2001 (Cm 5318).

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 438W, for what reasons he will not list the (a) officials, (b) special advisers and (c) Ministers of his Department who are involved in the preliminary technical work for joining the euro; and if he will make a statement. [31660]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to him on 29 January 2002,Official Report, column 224W.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, columns 438–39W, (1) if he will list the names of the members of the cross-party HM Treasury Euro-Preparations Committee; and if he will make a statement; [31657]

  (2) which members of the cross-party HM Treasury Euro-Preparations Committee attended the meeting on 5 December 2001; what the agenda of the meeting was; and if he will make a statement. [31658]

  Ruth Kelly
  All parliamentary parties are invited to nominate a representative to attend meetings of the Cross Party Group on Euro Preparations. Representatives from the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and the Ulster Unionist party attended. Minutes of the meeting on 5 December have been sent to those representatives who attended.

  Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for a common prosecution policy for tax credit fraud and benefit fraud. [32644]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The prosecution policy for tax credits is an integral part of the published policy of the Board of the Inland Revenue for all its tax prosecutions. The approach to prosecutions taken by the Board of the Inland Revenue and the criteria they use in deciding whether to proceed criminally with a case are set out in this published statement. The criteria used by the Board of the Inland Revenue are similar in kind to those used by the Department for Work and Pensions when they decide whether to prosecute for benefit fraud.

  Tax Returns (Electronic Filing)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of(a) individuals and (b) companies filed their tax returns electronically in 2000. [32949]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: (a) 9.324 million tax returns were issued for the year ended 5 April 2001. Of these 324,296 individual tax returns were filed electronically.

  (b) No companies filed their corporation tax returns electronically. We do not currently have an electronic system for corporation tax returns.
  843W

  Tax Costs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the(a) yield of, (b) cost of collection of and (c) number of employees collecting (i) the climate change levy, (ii) the aggregates levy, (iii) inheritance tax, (iv) capital gains tax, (v) corporation tax, (vi) income tax, (vii) value added tax, (viii) excise duty, (ix) stamp duty, (x) customs duty and (xi) national insurance. [32869]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Inland Revenue's Annual Report contains an analysis of cost yield by tax head. No such analysis is maintained for indirect taxes, and Inland Revenue do not hold the analysis by staff numbers.

  Inland Revenue's Annual Report for year ending 31 March 2001 was laid in Parliament on 18 December 2001 as Command Paper 5304. Links to this and other key documents for the two Departments will be found at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/about/index.htm and http://www.hmce.gov.uk/about/reports/reports.htm

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies of tax compliance costs have been completed by the Inland Revenue since May 1997. [32862]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The Inland Revenue has completed a considerable number of studies of tax compliance costs since May 1997. The most significant are: some 20 Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), the Bath Report on the tax compliance costs of PAYE and national insurance, and the UK approach to compliance cost assessment of tax changes at the Sydney 2000 International Tax Compliance Costs Symposium.

  Inland Revenue (Informers)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for rewards by informers were made to Inland Revenue in each of the last three years ended 31 March 2001; of those claims, what proportion in each year resulted in payment of a reward; what the average length of time was between an informer's claim and Inland Revenue's payment of the reward; of those claims rejected, how many resulted in expression of dissatisfaction by the informer; where reward was made, how many payments resulted in expression of dissatisfaction by the informer; what target standards of service Inland Revenue sets out to meet as regards its dealings with informers; whether these have been met in the last three years ending 31 March 2001; and if he will make a statement. [32719]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No details are recorded of the total number of claims made and, therefore, no details are available of the proportion rejected. Nor are details recorded of the total number of claimants dissatisfied at not being paid a reward.

  The Inland Revenue's customer service standards for its dealings with informers are the same as for its dealings with other customers. Targets and results are set out in the Inland Revenue annual reports available in the House of Commons Library. No figures are collated separately for dealings with informers.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to section 32 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 and Inland Revenue's current 844W
  practice, what is the process employed by Inland Revenue, from the point an informer makes a claim, oral or written, for a reward, leading to the payment of the reward to him/her; in which Inland Revenue manual this process is set out; whether the Inland Revenue officer dealing with the claim may deny a reward upon his sole authority without appeal by the informer; in which Inland Revenue manual this process is set out; in the case where an informer deals with the Special Compliance Office by virtue of IH 1295 but where the investigation is taken up by another office of Inland Revenue, whether it is a requirement that the Special Compliance officer dealing with the informer makes his own report of the informer's value to Inland Revenue in the matter; and in which Inland Revenue manual this process is set out. [32723]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Board of Inland Revenue has discretion to pay financial rewards to informers. There is no right of appeal against the exercising of that discretion.

  Reward payments are exceptional and are made only where information provided leads to a recovery of duty. It follows that no consideration as to whether to pay a reward can be made unless and until actions to recover duties are concluded. It also follows that where there is no recovery of duty there can be no reward payment and, therefore, no need for further consideration.

  If following the recovery of duty it is considered that a reward payment should be made, or where the informer claims that a payment should be made, the facts are reported to technical advisers at Inland Revenue Cross-Cutting Policy for consideration in line with guidance at IH 1295. There is no requirement as to who should make that report.

  Labour Productivity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 2001,Official Report column 521W, on labour productivity, if he will make a statement on the recent reforms which will promote labour supply and improve the economy's long-term growth potential. [32070]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 4.73 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report (Cm 5318). Further detail is available in "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System No. 6", published in March 2000.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public about the loss of working families tax credit for people on sickness leave from their employment; and if he will make a statement. [30965]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not hold the figures requested for complaints on this specific issue from either hon. Members or members of the public. Periods of sick leave during a working families tax credit (WFTC) award do not have any effect on the amount of tax credits payable, and do not count as being at work for the purpose of a new or renewal WFTC application.
  845W
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 323–24W, on the working families tax credit, what the total value was of the 478 penalties imposed for false WFTC applications between October 1999 and September 2001. [26472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Further work on the number of penalties attributable to working families tax credit investigations has shown that there were 507 for the period between October 1999 and September 2001. The total value of these penalties was £512,223.78.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working families have(a) claimed and (b) been awarded the working families tax credit in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [32589]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimates are available for(a). For (b), I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 293W.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentage difference has been between the increase in public sector pay and private sector pay in each of the last five years. [27922]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Public sector (percentage increase)

  Private sector (percentage increase)

  Difference (percentage)

  1997

  2.3

  5.1

  -2.8

  1998

  3.7

  5.3

  -1.6

  1999

  3.9

  5.0

  -1.1

  2000

  3.6

  4.4

  -0.8

  2001

  5.4

  3.9

  1.5

  The annual percentage increases are from the Average Earnings Index (published by ONS) for the 12 months to the end of November of each year.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentage increase in public sector pay has been in each of the last five years; and what the cost of that increase was. [27923]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Public sector (percentage increase)

  Value of increase (£ billion)

  1997

  2.3

  2.09

  1998

  3.7

  3.45

  1999

  3.9

  3.86

  2000

  3.6

  n/a

  2001

  5.4

  n/a

  Note:

  The percentage increases in public sector pay are from the Average Earnings Index, headline rate, for the 12 months ending November each year. The indication of the cost is derived by applying the percentages to the paybill for the public sector, which is the sum of the paybill for central and local government and of the paybill for public corporations.
  846W

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) working families with children and (b) childless people in work had incomes below the tax threshold at the latest date for which information is available. [26218]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For 2000–01, the number of working families with children where there was no working adult with earned income above the personal tax threshold to be 700,000. The number of childless adults in work with income below the personal tax threshold is estimated to be 2,400,000.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the level of the contingency reserve in each of the next three years. [26133]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 297W.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much money has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the Private Finance Initiative in each of the last four years(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms, disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees; [24822]

  (2) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the Private Finance Initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [24821]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. Information on PFI expenditure is published regularly in a form agreed by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, most recently in the financial statement and Budget report 2001.

  Annuity Reform
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the consultation document on annuity reform. [34273]

  Ruth Kelly
  The joint Department for Work and pensions and Inland Revenue consultation document "Modernising Annuities" is published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and in the Library. The Government will consider the responses carefully before deciding how to proceed.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Inland Revenue report on benchmarking the level of fraud in the working families tax credit; what his timetable is for responding to it; and if he plans to make public an assessment of the level of fraud following receipt of the report. [32642]
  847W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has estimated the amount of fraud and error in(a) working families tax credit and (b) disabled persons tax credit. [33599]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are currently analysing the data from their compliance benchmarking exercise. We shall be considering the results, and questions of publication, within the next few months.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 18 December 2001,Official Report, column 197W, how many instances of potentially fraudulent or improper claims to tax credits have been communicated to the Inland Revenue via (a) the Benefits Anti Fraud Hotline and (b) the Childcare Tax Credit Hotline; and in each case how many of these reports have resulted in (i) the recovery of over payments, (ii) the imposition of penalties and (iii) prosecutions. [25220]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table shows the number of allegations about potentially improper applications for working families tax credit (WFTC) and disabled person's tax credit (DPTC), communicated to the Inland Revenue through the Benefits Anti-Fraud Hotline and the Childminder's Hotline.

  Number

  Allegations communicated to IR via Benefits Anti-Fraud hotline1

  16,676

  WFTC/DPTC recoveries

  530

  WFTC/DPTC penalties

  18

  WFTC prosecutions

  2

  Allegations communicated to IR via Childminder's hotline2

  1,672

  WFTC/DPTC recoveries

  4

  WFTC/DPTC penalties

  0

  Prosecutions

  0

  1 1 October 1999 to 31 December 2001

  2 April 2000 to 31 December 2001

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hamilton, South(Mr. Tynan) of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 980W, on child poverty, if he will set out the assumptions behind the statement that there are 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than there were in 1997. [33605]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures announced in the last Parliament there are now 1.2 million fewer children living in households with incomes below 60 per cent. of the median (after housing costs) than there otherwise would have been.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on delays in making the annual payment to the pension schemes of those who have opted out of SERPS. [33069]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no delays in making the annual payments to the pension schemes of those who have opted out of SERPS.
  848W
  However, an IT server owned by the Inland Revenue which receives information from pension providers was decommissioned in error when an office move took place in April 2000 resulting in a delay in processing data on new personal pensions applications and terminations from existing personal pensions. This error is very much regretted.

  The Inland Revenue is currently checking the cases affected and expect to process all of them and make the delayed payments and recoveries of age-related rebates during February.

  New personal pension application and termination information is now being processed normally.

  Gus O'Donnell
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who produced, and at what cost to his Department, the four cartoons released by his Department on 17 January 2002, in the selection of slides presented by Mr. Gus O'Donnell on 30 November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [31659]

  Ruth Kelly
  The whole of Gus O'Donnell's presentation was produced within the Treasury, at no additional cost to the Department.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons UK productivity growth was described as lacklustre in the slides presented by Mr. Gus O'Donnell at a seminar with students on 30 November 2001; and if he will make a statement. [31661]

  Ruth Kelly
  The slide to which the hon. Gentleman refers shows a quadrant of possible risks to the Treasury's central forecast for the UK economy in 2002, and the reference to productivity growth appeared only in the worst case scenario.

  Departmental Secondments
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 845W, on departmental secondments, if he will list the company employing each secondee in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [32603]

  Ruth Kelly
  Further to my answer of 15 November 2001,Official Report, column 845W, the number of people seconded into HM Treasury is listed in the table:

  Company

  Number of employees

  National Audit Commission (NAO)

  6

  Deloitte Touche

  1

  Tidy Britain Group (Charity)

  1

  Institute of Fiscal Studies

  1

  Kent County Council

  1

  Oxfam

  1

  Pannell Kerr Foster Services

  1

  Financial Services Authority (FSA)

  3

  University of Bristol

  1

  UBS Warburg

  1

  Bank of England

  2

  DaLASER (District Auditor)

  1

  More comprehensive details of people seconded into HM Treasury are available on our website.
  849W

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contracts his Department has had since 1997 with(a) Arthur Andersen and (b) Accenture for (i) accountancy, (ii) audit and (iii) consultancy work; and what staff have been seconded (A) to his Department from and (B) from his Department to these firms. [32426]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 1997 the Treasury has had two contracts with Arthur Andersen for consultancy work and none with Accenture. In line with Government policy these contracts were awarded following a competition. In the same period we have had three people seconded from Arthur Andersen to the Treasury, but none from Accenture. No Treasury staff have been seconded to the companies in question.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliament Square
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and others over proposals to pedestrianise part of Parliament Square; what steps he intends to take to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members are properly consulted about such proposals before work proceeds; and what assessment he has made of whether the proposals will cause disruption to right hon. and hon. Members when attending the House. [33110]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In 1997, a steering group led by the Government Office for London and Westminster city council commissioned a master plan entitled "World Squares for All" prepared by Sir Norman Foster and a supporting team of professional firms. The aims of the master plan were to improve the setting of historic sites; reduce traffic congestion and make pedestrian movement safer and more pleasant; to improve bus services; and to improve street design.

  The study area covered Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Parliament Square and Old Palace Yard. A public exhibition displaying the master plan options was launched by the Deputy Prime Minister in December 1997, and the exhibition material was subsequently displayed for Members of both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The Accommodation and Works Committee was consulted at that time.

  From the results of the public consultation a preferred strategy was identified and the Government Office for London with Westminster city council began a feasibility study for just phase 1:Trafalgar Square.

  In February 2000, a Minister from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for London launched an exhibition and public consultation exercise on the Trafalgar Square proposals. 16,000 leaflets and questionnaires were distributed. The Greater London Authority took over the lead role later that year and they have recently let a contract to implement the Trafalgar Square works.

  Beyond the master plan of 1997, no planning has yet been done on future phases for Whitehall and Parliament Square. However, the Mayor has indicated interest in seeing future phases progress. The Director of
  850W
  Parliamentary Estates represents parliamentary interests in the World Squares for All Steering Group and will ensure that there is proper consultation if plans for Parliament Square do progress.

  Parliamentary Television Service
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Select Committee if he plans to facilitate the broadcast of proceedings of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament on the parliamentary television service. [32129]

  Michael Fabricant
  The proceedings of the Welsh Assembly are already available on channel 22 of the television annunciators.

  The previous Information Committee took the view that consideration should be given to broadcasting the proceeding of the Scottish Parliament on the annunciators once there was an economic method of conveying the signal to Westminster. At present, unlike the proceedings of the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament is not broadcast by satellite and there are no plans to do so. House officials have been in regular discussion with their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament on this matter and will continue to keep it under review. In the meantime, there is a webcam service which can be seen at www.scottishparliamentlive.com.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Credit Card Fraud
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions were instituted by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales in respect of fraudulent credit card transactions by use of the Internet in 2001. [33560]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not collect statistics on prosecutions for particular offences.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints he has received regarding low flying military aircraft by constituency in the past year. [30628]

  Dr. Moonie
  Low flying complaints are not recorded by constituency. The hon. Member may, however, wish to be aware that in 2001 the number of individual complaints recorded by the Ministry of Defence Low Flying Complaints and Inquiries unit by unitary authority or county title was as shown in the table.

  Wales

  Number

  Carmarthenshire

  82

  Ceredigion

  33

  Clwyd

  8

  Denbighshire

  3

  Dyfed

  132

  Glamorgan

  17

  Gwent

  13

  Gwynedd

  26

  851W

  Wales

  Number

  Monmouthshire

  13

  Pembrokeshire

  61

  Powys

  88

  Total

  476

  Scotland

  Number

  Aberdeenshire

  42

  Angus

  14

  Argyll and Bute

  12

  Ayrshire

  15

  Berwickshire

  23

  Borders

  77

  Central Scotland

  19

  Clyde

  23

  Dumfries and Galloway

  171

  Fife

  32

  Grampian

  14

  Highlands

  122

  Lanarkshire

  12

  Lothian

  51

  Moray

  11

  Orkney

  11

  Perthshire

  32

  Rosshire

  18

  Strathclyde

  1

  Tayside

  47

  Western Isles

  3

  Total

  750

  England

  Number

  Buckinghamshire

  35

  Cambridgeshire

  113

  Cheshire

  21

  Cleveland

  6

  Cornwall

  89

  Cumbria

  168

  Derbyshire

  22

  Devon

  205

  Durham

  14

  East Sussex

  32

  East Yorkshire

  13

  Essex

  51

  Gloucestershire

  126

  Greater Manchester

  1

  Hertfordshire

  15

  Humberside

  18

  Isle of Man

  1

  Kent

  52

  Lancashire

  21

  Leicestershire

  13

  Lincolnshire

  120

  London

  12

  Manchester

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  Middlesex

  3

  North Yorkshire

  170

  Norfolk

  275

  Northamptonshire

  52

  Oxfordshire

  76

  Rutland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  17

  Shropshire

  66

  Somerset

  243

  Staffordshire

  33

  Suffolk

  129

  Surrey

  17

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  852W

  England

  Number

  West Yorkshire

  33

  Warwickshire

  22

  West Midlands

  1

  West Sussex

  65

  Wiltshire

  107

  Total

  3,008

  Although a number of the county, or unitary authority, boundaries have changed, complaints have been recorded by the address given by the correspondent. An additional 12 correspondents did not reveal an address when registering their complaint. Details of the pattern of military low flying activity by low flying area are included on the Ministry of Defence website under the address www.lowflying.mod.uk.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the ownership of land at Throckmorton airfield; and what plans his Department has for the disposal of this land(a) to the Home Office or its agencies and (b) through the privatisation of QinetiQ; [31735]

  (2)what account was taken of the land and property at Throckmorton used by QinetiQ in the preparation for the privatisation of the agency; and if he will make a statement; [31736]

  (3)what impact the construction of the proposed asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton would have on (a) the activities of QinetiQ and (b) the other defence-related activities at the airfield. [31726]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 142W. Most of the Throckmorton site, formerly known as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) Pershore, is now owned by QinetiQ. The remainder of the site, used last year to deal with some of the consequences of the foot and mouth outbreak, is in the final stages of being transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

  As part of the PPP process, all activities carried out by DERA were reviewed, and those which did not need to be retained within Government were transferred to QinetiQ on 1 July 2001, including those carried out at Pershore. Legally enforceable safeguards are in place to ensure that QinetiQ continue to provide key strategic facilities and services required by the Ministry of Defence. Against this background the company is free to explore other business opportunities.

  The future provision of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers is the responsibility of the Home Office, and although QinetiQ's site at Pershore has been identified as a potential site, a final decision has yet to be made. Subject to consultation, with QinetiQ as landowner, the local planning authorities, and the local community, the final decision with regard to siting one of these centres at Pershore rests with the Home Secretary.
  853W

  Research and Development
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure by his Department is on research and development; and how much of the total is spent in Scotland. [32460]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]In financial year 1999–2000 the Ministry of Defence spent £2,345 million net inclusive of VAT on research and development.

  I regret that it is not possible to state how much of that total figure represented expenditure in the United Kingdom or in Scotland since our data do not include a regional breakdown.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much funding has been allocated in the current financial year for research and development in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland; what proportion of the Scottish total is given (i) to DERA's own research and (ii) research funded in academic and non-DERA sites; and if he will list the non-DERA sites. [32457]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The allocation for research in the Major Customers Research Budget is £502 million inclusive of VAT. This includes work undertaken by the Ministry of Defence, industry and universities.

  The MOD does not have an allocation for development as such. The development expenditure is budgeted for within the overall equipment programme allocation and does not fall into a separate budget. The amount that is quoted for statistical purposes, in any one year, is largely a consequence of the state of the procurement cycle at which major equipment projects happen to be in, in the year in question.

  I regret that it is not possible to state how much of the total research figure represents expenditure in the United Kingdom or in Scotland since our data do not include a regional breakdown. Since July 2001, DERA ceased to exist and under public-private partnership arrangements it has separated into QinetiQ, a wholly government-owned plc, and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratories (DSTL).

  There are no available data which can provide a breakdown of research and development expenditure on MOD sites.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement listing the changes in tax legislation the interpretation of which has led to the mistaken tax treatment of some war disability pensions and service attributable pensions. [33610]

  Dr. Moonie
  The law on the tax exemption of wound and disability pensions awarded to service personnel first came into force in the Finance Act 1919. The relevant provisions have since been brought forward into the various consolidating Taxes Acts which have been introduced since then. The most recent consolidation Act was the Income and Corporation Taxes Act (ICTA) 1988 where the exemption can be found at section 315. A previous consolidation Act was passed in 1952 but this did not introduce or change this tax exemption.
  854W
  Following further discussion with the Inland Revenue, we are undertaking further work to establish precisely when the error was introduced. Meanwhile, we continue to consider approaches from pensioners, widows or their families who may have been affected by this error.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retired armed service officers and their widows in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) Hull have been identified as paying tax on retired pay awarded since 1952 on the grounds of disability attributable to or aggravated by service. [32095]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the number of Army Pensioners resident in the East Riding of Yorkshire and Hull who are so far known to have been incorrectly taxed on their invalidity pensions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tempest
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the complete work and modifications on the Tempest mine protected vehicles will cost; and if he will make a statement. [32160]

  Dr. Moonie
  Eight Tempest mine protected vehicles are being procured to replace the in-service Mamba. These vehicles are used for casualty evacuation and route proving operations where mines are present and provide high levels of protection from anti-tank/personnel mine blasts.

  Contract negotiations have yet to be concluded. I am therefore, withholding information about the cost of the programme in accordance with Exemption 7a(2) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to information whose disclosure would prejudice commercial or contractual activities.

  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British universities have contracts awarded under the auspices of the 1985 Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding; and if he will list them. [32767]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not maintain a central record of all contracts let by the US Government with British universities under the Strategic Defence Initiative.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 733W, on the Mutual Defence Agreement, what proportion of each of the total of visits by UK personnel to the United States under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement were undertaken to facilitate the transfer or exchange of military nuclear materials. [32411]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the number of visits since 1997 by UK personnel to the United States under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement which involved the exchange or transfer of military nuclear materials is not held centrally and could he provided only at disproportionate cost.
  855W

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what fees were paid to Arthur Andersen and Company for their work on the privatisation of DERA to QinetiQ. [33087]

  Dr. Moonie
  Payments to advisers such as Arthur Andersen in connection with the QinetiQ transaction are made under the terms of the relevant commercial contracts with these companies. It is Ministry of Defence policy not to release price information on individual contract values as this is commercial in confidence. This information is therefore withheld under Exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 8 January 2002 to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne),Official Report, column 563W, on QinetiQ, on what date the contract for services in connection with the proposed flotation of QinetiQ was awarded to Arthur Andersen; and if he will make a statement. [32410]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contract with Arthur Andersen as reporting accountants on the public private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA PPP) was awarded on 25 October 2000. The requirement for reporting accountants was competed under normal Ministry of Defence contracting practices through the MOD Contracts Bulletin. Arthur Andersen won the competition as they were considered to provide best value for money in comparison with their competitors.

  Army Pensioners (Cumbria)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the number of Army pensioners who have lost income through the taxation EMV who are resident in(a) Cumbria and (b) the Workington constituency. [32775]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information on the number of Army pensioners resident in Cumbria and the Workington constituency who are so far known to have been incorrectly taxed on their invalidity pensions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Employees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in Scotland by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies responsible to his Department; where these staff are located; and how many staff are employed in (i) England, (ii) London and the south-east, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) United Kingdom in total. [32439]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The latest figures for the number of Ministry of Defence Service and civilian personnel employed in Scotland (i) England, (ii) the south-east, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) the UK in total are published in the UK Defence Statistics 2001 (Table 2.4), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. A breakdown by location in Scotland is currently being collated. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  856W

  Research Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has awarded in research contracts by region in the most recent financial year. [32452]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Gross expenditure outturn for the Ministry of Defence's major customers, research budgets and the Appropriation Accounts for financial year 2000–01, published on 23 November was £513.458 million. This sum includes research work placed with Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) but excludes technology demonstrator programmes, and loans and grants to DERA. It is not possible to provide a regional breakdown of research expenditure from available data.

  Service Accommodation (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many single accommodation places exist for each of the services in Scotland for(a) officers and (b) other ranks, by location. [32443]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Getfitta Scheme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Ministers plan to play in the getfitta scheme launched on his Department's website. [32151]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The time to getfitta campaign, launched on 28 December 2001, is a corporate marketing PR campaign to raise awareness of the Territorial Army (TA) and act as a prelude to a new TA television advertising campaign in March 2002. The campaign is intended to raise awareness of, and interest in, the TA in advance of the March TV campaign, by encouraging principally young people to contact their local TA for help in getting fit, and encouraging those who are already fit to join the TA and take their fitness one step further. The campaign has been a great success and has received widespread and favourable media coverage. At the end of January, some 25,500 registrations have been achieved, which is double the expected number, 70 per cent. of them via the internet. In view of this success, no direct ministerial involvement is currently planned for the campaign.

  Armed Forces (Medical Downgrades)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) RAF were considered to be medically downgraded on 1 February, stating in each case the (i) number deployable to the front line, (ii) number deployable on military operations other than the front line, (iii) percentage of establishment this represents and (iv) percentage of trained forces in each service this represents; and if he will make a statement. [31817]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  857W

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cleaner Coal Technology
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish the conclusions of her review into the case for Government support for cleaner coal technology demonstration power plant. [34118]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report on the review has been published today. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. The report can also be accessed from the DTI's website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/cct/ cctdemohome.htm

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress with the target on total overhead costs. [23162]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory first included this Ministerial target in 2000/01. In the Annual Report and Accounts for 2000/01 the National Weights and Measures Laboratory reported that overhead costs were 53.9 per cent. of total costs, meeting the target that overhead costs are less than 55 per cent. of total costs. Overhead charges are defined as the costs not allocated to a specific service area.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employers in Stathkelvin and Bearsden constituency have breached the national minimum wage regulations. [33654]

  Alan Johnson
  The Inland Revenue enforce the national minimum wage on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry. They do not keep statistics for parliamentary constituencies. However, for Scotland as a whole, the number of employers found not to be complying with the national minimum wage legislation is:

  Number

  1999–2000

  103

  2000–01

  183

  2001–021

  162

  1 Up to and including December 2001.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police (Northern Ireland) Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance the Chief Constable has issued under section 51.2 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2002; how many officers have responded; and what information is being collected to construct the statistical information to be presented in the annual report of the Chief Constable under section 58 of the Act. [297807]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has not yet issued guidance under section 51(2) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, though work is in hand. Before issuing any guidance to police officers, the Chief Constable will consult the Policing Board, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
  858W

  PHOENIX Database
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information contained on the PHOENIX database is accessible by police in Northern Ireland; what authorisation is required for an officer to access this information; and what penalties are available to prosecuting authorities to deter unauthorised use. [29941]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland who have completed the necessary training course, the majority of whom are with the Criminal Records Office, can directly access the PHOENIX Criminal Record System via the Police National Computer (PNC). The use of a unique, personal password is required.

  Authorised personnel can interrogate criminal records; access information on wanted or missing persons and impending prosecutions.

  Penalties for unauthorised access are detailed in the relevant legislation—section 60 of the Data Protection Act 1998 and sections 1 and 2 of the Computer Act 1990.

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 878W, how many plastic baton rounds are held for training and potential use by the PSNI. [29808]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that the current stock of plastic baton rounds is 69,148 of which 7,200 are currently held by PSNI Firearms Training.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will report on the outcome of the quinquennial review into the Central Office of Information. [33837]

  Mr. Leslie
  The quinquennial review of the Central Office of Information has shown that the COI has performed very well over the past five years. It has provided good value for money in its procurement, project management and strategic consultancy services.

  The COI will continue in its present status as a Department, an executive agency and a trading fund for a further five years.

  The review recommended two significant changes which will now be implemented to create two centres of excellence.

  The Chief Executive of COI will have an additional role as the Government's chief adviser on marketing communications and information campaigns reporting to the Director of Communications and Strategy at No 10. This will strengthen the co-ordination and planning of departmental publicity strategies across Whitehall and changes should be in place by 1 April 2002.

  COI's Regional News Network and its News Distribution Service will be transferred to the Government Information and Communication Service in the Cabinet

  859W
  Office. This will ensure more effective presentation of cross-departmental and regional issues while maintaining links with Government publicity and communications generally. It will also have stronger links with the Government offices in the regions to give a better service to both the regional media and the general public.

  The review also recognised the importance of the need for major research studies which tackle cross-cutting issues. COI communications is in the ideal position to undertake this role.

  I intend that these changes should be in place by 1 April 2002, supported by a revised Framework Document, which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  PPP Contracts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that the terms of PPP contracts are in the public domain; and if he will make a statement. [23647]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  It is for Departments to decide what contractual information to publish. But we took steps in 1998 to encourage greater openness of PFI contractual information, with Treasury Taskforce Policy Statement No 4 on "Disclosure of Information and Consultation with Staff and Other Interested Parties". This publication, which is available on the Office of Government Commerce website, built on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information produced by the Cabinet Office (Second Edition 1997) which said that:
  "the approach to release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released … except where disclosure would not be in the public interest or would breach personal privacy or the confidences of a third party."

  Departmental Payments (Euros)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Government Departments will, during the next 12 months, be paying costs for European services in euros. [33558]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  If a supplier wishes to invoice a Government Department in euro it can do. The Government Department does not take the exchange risk. The euro is treated just like any other major international currency.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of senior civil servants have held civil service posts based outside London. [32907]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  At 1 April 2001, 39.9 per cent. of senior civil service posts were based outside London. Data are not collected centrally on the numbers of senior civil servants who have worked outside London in the past.
  860W

  Ministerial Guidance (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what guidance has been given by his Department to Government Departments and agencies since May 1997 with respect to(a) contacts between civil servants and representatives from, (b) sponsorship of Government Departments or events by, (c) secondees working within Government Departments from and (d) secondees from Government Departments to (i) BP, (ii) Shell, (iii) Exxon-Mobil, (iv) Enron, (v) Conoco, (vi) Texaco and (vii) TotalFinaElf; on what dates the guidance was issued; and if he will place related documentation in the Library; [33222]

  (2) what guidance has been given by his Department to Government Departments and agencies since May 1997 with respect to civil servants seeking employment within (a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Exxon-Mobil, (d) Enron, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf; when the guidance was issued; and if he will place related documentation in the Library. [33221]

  Mr. Leslie
  Civil servants on secondment to the private and public sectors continue to be civil servants and are, therefore, governed by the requirements of the Civil Service Code. Individuals from the private and public sectors on secondment to the civil service are also subject to the requirements of the Civil Service Code for the duration of their appointment. Individuals are advised of the terms of their secondment in their letter of appointment.

  Civil servants wishing to take up employment outside the civil service are subject to the requirements of the Business Appointment Rules which are set out in full in the Civil Service Management Code.

  The Directory of Civil Service Guidance sets out guidance for civil servants on sponsorship of outside events and contacts with outside interest groups, including lobbyists. Copies of the Codes and Directory referred to in this answer are in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hammond Inquiry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) under what circumstances official inquiries can be reopened; [34119]

  (2) at whose request the Hammond Inquiry concerning the application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja was reopened; who gave authorisation for this reopening; and on what grounds. [34120]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked Sir Anthony Hammond to review his earlier conclusions as a result of further papers that have now come to light.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the estimated cost to the public funds arising from the reopening of the Hammond Inquiry into the application for the naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja in 1998. [34121]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible to provide a cost until the further work has been completed. However, the cost will be minimal.
  861W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what role was played by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) special advisers in contributing to the story in the Sunday Times, edition 3 February, concerning the reopening of the Hammond Inquiry into the application for naturalisation by Mr. S. P. Hinduja. [34122]

  The Prime Minister
  My press office responded to journalists' questions and confirmed the facts.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what the terms of reference are for the reopened Hammond Inquiry; who will be able to give evidence to this inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [34123]

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Anthony Hammond QC has the following terms of reference:"To review the conclusions of his Inquiry into what approaches were made to the Home Office in connection with applications for naturalisation made by Messers SP and GP Hinduja with a view to determining whether further papers which were not previously available to the Inquiry but which have now come to light would have materially affected the conclusions reached."

  The decision on who to invite for interview is a matter for Sir Anthony Hammond.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Prime Minister what key issues he raised with the group of Afghan women on his recent visit to the region; and if he will make a statement. [30430]

  The Prime Minister
  I met a group of Afghan women refugees in Pakistan on 7 January. They told me about the brutal repression they had faced in Afghanistan under the Taliban and their hopes for a better life in the new Afghanistan. I also met a group of Afghan women in the UK on 31 January at Downing Street.

  I also discussed the issues facing women in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai, Chair of the Afghan Interim Administration, and Dr. Sima Samar, Vice-Chair and Minister for Women, during my visit to Afghanistan on 7 January, and their visit to London on 31 January. We agreed that education and training are key in restoring rights to women in Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai confirmed that getting girls back to school is an urgent priority for the Interim Administration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Assessment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he takes to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of chief constables and police authorities. [30214]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 January 2002]: The Police Act 1996 requires Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to inspect and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of every police force in England and Wales.
  862W
  Where an inspection finds that a force is not efficient or effective, or is at risk of becoming so, the Home Secretary is empowered to require specific measures to be taken by the police authority.

  Under the Local Government Act 1999 police authorities are required to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised. Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an authority is failing in its duties under the Act, he may direct the authority to take such action as he considers necessary.

  The White Paper "Policing a New Century" (CM 5326) set out the Government's intention to introduce a National Policing Plan, three year plans for police authorities, and a framework of Regulations, codes of practice and guidance. These and other measures are currently before Parliament in the Police Reform Bill. The new Standards Unit will also have a key role in performance and spreading best practice in the light of the proposed changes.

  Police Service (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special constables there were in Devon and Cornwall constabulary in(a) 1992 and (b) 1997; and what the latest available figure is; [17274]

  (2) how many special constables have left Devon and Cornwall Constabulary since 1997; how many have been recruited since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [17275]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1997, 752 special constables have been recruited to Devon and Cornwall constabulary and 859 have left.

  Annual strength figures for the specified years are set out in the table:

  Strength

  December 1992

  946

  March 1997

  1,148

  March 2001

  804

  Source:

  Figures for December 1992 provided by HMIC. Figures for March 1997 and 2001 provided by RDS.

  Home Office-funded research into the premature wastage of special constables, completed last year, found that the primary reasons for leaving were often external to the service. However, the research identified some underlying management factors contributing to the decision to resign.

  Recommendations aimed at reducing the wastage included making improvements to: the management structure within which specials operate; the quality of training provided locally; the flexibility of duties and hours offered and to local efforts to monitor and prevent wastage.

  The Government are committed to increasing the special constabulary and as part of the police reform process we are looking at radical improvements in the management, welfare and deployment of special constables.
  863W

  Fingerprinting
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fingerprint experts have had training to deal with the non-numeric standard. [16954]

  Mr. Denham
  All registered fingerprint experts are trained to be capable of dealing with the non-numeric standard. There are currently 1,470 police fingerprint experts on the fingerprint register in England and Wales.

  As part of the change to the evidential standard, the training programme for all fingerprint experts in England and Wales has been revised. All new fingerprint officers undergo the new modular training programme which incorporates the change from the previous 16 point standard. All fingerprint experts trained prior to 11 June have been made aware of these issues through their local bureau trainers.

  Metropolitan Police
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government plans to increase the number of officers in the Metropolitan police. [18726]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to increasing police numbers and have set up the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) to enable forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above previous plans in the three years to March 2003.

  The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has been allocated 2,044 recruits over the three years of the CFF. The number of police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) within funding limits defined by government grant and council tax precept set by the Mayor and Greater London Assembly. The mayor has indicated that he proposes to increase the police precept to secure a significant increase in the total number of police officers in London. The actual number will depend on the result of the budget process within the MPA and GLA.

  I am advised by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis MPS that police officer recruitment to the Metropolitan police is at an all-time high with an average of over 1,100 applications received a month.

  The MPS has also benefited from the Home Office funded National Recruitment Campaign, from the provision of free rail-travel within a 70-mile radius of London and from the last year's £3,327 increase in London Allowance for officers recruited on or after 1 September 1994 and not in receipt of housing allowance.

  In addition, Metropolitan Police Officers will benefit from the starter home initiative through which about 550 London police officers and support staff will be helped to buy a first home over the next three years.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers there are in the Metropolitan police; what the budgeted work force target is; and what the figures are for detective officers. [20390]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 5 December 2001]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the budgeted work force total for
  864W
  2001–02 is 26,254 and on 31 December 2001 the actual strength of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was 25,994.

  I am also told that the budgeted work force total for detectives for 2001–02 is 5,439 and the actual detective strength on 31 December 2001 was 4,228. The MPS is actively recruiting towards its budgeted work force total.

  Police White Paper
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from members of the police force regarding the Home Office White Paper; and how many of these express concerns about the impact on retention and recruitment in the police force. [24265]

  Mr. Denham
  The White Paper invited comments by 21 January 2001. We received approximately 1,100 representations, of which the vast majority were from police officers. We are still considering representations and will place a summary in the Library.

  Police Officers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the award of early pensions on medical grounds to serving police officers. [25440]

  Mr. Denham
  Last month the Police Negotiating Board agreed in principle ways to deliver a fair and more consistent approach towards early retirement due to ill health, so that forces can ensure wherever possible that officers continue in employment where they are capable of performing sufficient duties to make their retention operationally justifiable. This should enable forces to reduce the level of ill-health retirement still further and match the performance of the best quartile of forces by 2005.

  In the White Paper the Government also announced that they will establish a national occupational health strategy for the police service, which should assist forces to manage cases of ill health more effectively at the outset.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the category and amount of each item of funding outside the revenue support grant which his Department made available to(a) Westminster city council and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [26247]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is given in the table. The grants included are those paid solely to the councils except in the case of Drug Action Teams, the Crime Reduction Programme and the Partnership Development Fund. In those cases, the council is a member of a partnership and funding is allocated to one or more of the partners, for the benefit of the partnership as a whole.
  865W

  £

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Westminster

  Drug Action Teams

  Development Grant

  35,782

  37,484

  35,782

  37,484

  Communities Against Drugs

  —

  —

  31,497

  31,497

  Crime Reduction Programme and Partnership Development Fund

  176,582

  384,149

  —

  1,214,250

  Adult and Family Asylum Seekers and Unaccompanied Asylum-seeking children

  11,242,108

  12,751,486

  —

  —

  Referral Order Pilots

  59,791

  62,000

  62,000

  62,000

  Communities Against Drugs

  —

  —

  199,400

  277,800

  1 Estimated

  Child Curfew Orders
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the issue of child curfew orders is appropriate. [28414]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: We are ready to consider applications from local authorities or the police to set up local child curfews where:
  an area has been identified which has a particular problem of antisocial or criminal behaviour at night by unsupervised under 16-year-olds
  the local community has been consulted, in the way set out by statute
  the proposed curfew is necessary and proportionate to prevent crime and disorder.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what target has been set for responding to hon. Members' letters to the Immigration Department. [31579]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office's published service delivery agreement for 2001–04 commits all Home Office Directorates, including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), to replying to 95 per cent. of public correspondence within 20 working days and 95 per cent. of ministerial correspondence within 15 working days by the end of 2001–02. Improving performance against published targets for dealing with correspondence is recognised as a priority for IND as part of the wider Home Office programme to modernise business processes and information management.

  IND has dedicated resources to improve the service provided to MPs on casework related correspondence.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to provide a substantive reply to the letter of 25 September from the hon. Member for Christchurch about alcohol and under-age drinkers. [28425]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]: I wrote to the hon. Member, in reply to his letter, on 30 January 2002.
  866W

  Crime (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to combat gang violence and the gang culture in young people(a) in Coventry and (b) in the UK. [28883]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]: Reducing all aspects of youth crime, including gang violence where this occurs, is a key priority within the Government's crime reduction programme. Our approach in all areas is to support the police, crime reduction partnerships and the Youth Offending Teams in developing effective local solutions. In addition, we have introduced a wide programme across Government including Youth Inclusion Programmes and Summer Splash schemes.

  The Youth Inclusion Programme in Coventry includes organised intensive workshops and group discussions about group/peers behaviour, designed to provide young people with opportunity to voice their concerns and experiences of gang culture.

  Burglary
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the detection rate for offences of burglary. [30110]

  Mr. Denham
  The detection rates for all recorded crimes of burglary, and the numbers of recorded burglaries, for the last four years for England and Wales as a whole are given in the table.

  Detection rate (percentage)

  Number of recorded burglaries

  1997

  23

  1,015,075

  1998–991

  19

  953,184

  1999–20002

  13

  906,468

  2000–01

  12

  836,027

  1 There was a change in the counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998 which placed a greater emphasis on counting crimes in terms of numbers of victims. Numbers of recorded crimes and detection rates after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  2 There was a change in the rules for counting detections in April 1999, the new instructions providing more precise and rigorous criteria for securing a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. For example, detections obtained by the interview of a convicted prisoner were no longer included. Numbers of detections before and after this date are not directly comparable.

  867W

  Jamie Nicol Connolly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason Jamie Nicol Connolly was refused entry to the United Kingdom at Heathrow on 26 October 2001; and if he will make a statement; [31071]

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the refusal to allow Jamie Nicol Connolly from Canada leave to enter the United Kingdom at Heathrow on 26 October 2001; and if he will make a statement. [31070]

  Angela Eagle
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 5 February 2002 about this matter.

  Voluntary Sector Compact
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the second annual meeting to review the compact on relations between the Government and the voluntary and community sector. [34086]

  Angela Eagle
  The second annual meeting to review the compact took place on 29 October 2001. A report of the meeting has been placed in the Library.

  I am pleased to say that both the sector and Government welcomed progress made on developing the compact. The focus of Government and sector activities since the launch of the national compact in November 1998 has been the development of the five underpinning codes of good practice on funding; consultation and policy appraisal; black and minority ethnic organisations, and volunteering and community groups.

  The annual review meeting recognised and agreed that implementation of compact principles and the spreading of good practice must be the future focus of compact activities. Implementation will be about ensuring that there is a practical and positive impact on Government/ sector relations at all levels, particularly at local and community level. There is more to do and the sector and Government will need to continue to work in partnership to achieve our shared aims.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to reappoint Professor Michael Banner as Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee. [34087]

  Angela Eagle
  Professor Banner completed his first four year term as Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee on 31 January 2002. I am grateful to him for his work in leading this important committee, and am pleased that he has accepted another four year term as Chairman.

  National Identity Card
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing a national identity card. [32078]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have made no estimate of the cost of introducing a national identity card.
  868W
  The Government are considering whether a universal card which allowed people to prove their identity more easily and provided a simple way to access a range of public services would be beneficial. Such an entitlement card scheme could also help to combat illegal working and could reduce fraud against individuals, public services and the private sector.

  In reply to another question from my hon. Friend today, I have announced that the Government intend to publish a consultation paper in the spring or early summer. Work on the cost of an entitlement card scheme will be progressed in the run up to the publication of the consultation paper. This work is not yet sufficiently developed to make an estimate of costs.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on a national identity card. [32077]

  Mr. Blunkett
  After the terrorist atrocities in the United States of America on 11 September, the issue of introducing an identity card scheme was raised by many people. I have received over 600 letters from right hon. and hon. Members and members of the public on identity cards since September 2001.

  At the time the Government said that we were not planning to introduce an identity card scheme as part of our response to the events of 11 September, but that the policy was being kept under review. We said that we were considering whether a universal entitlement card which would allow people to prove their identity more easily and provide a simple way to access public services would be beneficial. We also said that a scheme could help to combat illegal working and it could also reduce fraud against individuals, public services and the private sector.

  We have made it clear that the introduction of an entitlement card would be a major step and that we will not proceed without consulting widely and considering all the views expressed very carefully.

  There are many arguments—both philosophical and practical—for and against a scheme. One of the options which the Government have already ruled out is making the failure to carry an entitlement card an offence. However there are a range of other issues to explore and we intend to publish a consultation paper in the spring or early summer. This will cover the whole issue of identity fraud and a range of possible responses in the short, medium and long-term including the advantages and disadvantages of an entitlement card scheme—but also other measures which might be taken to improve the security of existing forms of identification issued by the Government.

  In order to ensure that the paper will be balanced and comprehensive and present to the public as full a picture as possible, the Government wish to discuss its emerging ideas with interested parties prior to publication.

  Murder Trial Witnesses
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the practice is in regard to the provision of holidays and other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the(a) police and (b) prosecuting authorities. [32195]
  869W
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the practice is in regard to the provision of holidays and other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the(a) police and (b) prosecuting authorities [32194]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no distinct provision for holidays or other benefits given to witnesses in murder trials by the police or prosecuting authorities.

  However, where the court necessarily lists a case for trial when a witness is due to be on holiday then some provision can be made to compensate the witness for any loss incurred by way of a financial loss allowance. Alternatively, arrangements can be made to return a witness from holiday to attend court.

  Air-guns
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from ACPO regarding the Brocock Air Cartridge pistol; and what action he has taken. [31489]

  Mr. Denham
  The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) drew particular attention to the problems associated with this type of air weapon last July when they asked for the definition of "readily converted" under the terms of section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982 to be revised. But, this section only applies to imitation firearms and could not be used in respect of air cartridge pistols which are already defined as firearms (although not subject to certification). We have been consulting further with the Forensic Science Service who in turn have been liaising with the police in order to establish the full extent and nature of the problem. This has confirmed the ease with which these weapons can be converted to fire cartridge ammunition. This is wholly unacceptable and the company concerned has decided not to import these weapons pending a fully informed decision on what should he done either by way of further modification to the weapons or changes in existing controls.

  People Trafficking
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to legislate on trafficking people; and if the Government will incorporate the definition set out in the European framework. [31638]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Effective legislation to criminalise and punish trafficking in human beings is an essential component of any strategy to tackle this crime. Such a strategy must also encompass effective enforcement, alongside support and assistance for victims, prevention and education.

  United Kingdom Ministers were among the first to sign the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime and are committed to implementing its measures, one of which is the introduction of trafficking offences. The European Union Framework Decision on trafficking in human beings has been provisionally agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council and will he formally adopted by the Council as a legally binding document in the near future.
  870W
  We will introduce legislation on the trafficking offences as soon as parliamentary time permits and will ensure that it meets the requirements necessary to implement the European Union Framework Decision.

  Police Training (Street Patrols)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum time period for elementary training of a police recruit before he or she is permitted to take part in a street patrol. [30454]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Police recruits undertake supervised street patrol with a tutor constable on completion of their initial training, normally after 20 weeks' service and follows their foundation training course (15 weeks at National Police Training, and 18 weeks at Hendon for the Metropolitan police). This training equips recruits with the knowledge and skills to perform the full range of police duties, and is consolidated through further training in force during the remainder of the probationary period of two years. Most recruits are considered ready for unsupervised street patrol after 32 weeks' service.

  Football
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answers of 25 January 2002 of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn),Official Report, column 1112W, on football, if he will draw the attention of the Football Association to the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 in respect of its application to footballers and club officials; and if he will make a statement. [32080]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for the police and courts to enforce the measures introduced by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and the responsibility of the football authorities to determine whether or not to impose sporting sanctions in respect of player misbehaviour. The football authorities are aware that players are not exempt from the law of the land.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional security measures are planned by his Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31800]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office has a wide ranging set of procedures and/or plans to deter and detect theft and fraud:

  Fraud Strategy

  An updated Home Office Fraud Strategy, Policy and Response Plan is in the final stages of consultation before being promulgated across the Office.

  Existing advice and guidance on fraud and theft is formally documented.

  Whistle-blowing

  A documented departmental policy already exists and conforms to Cabinet Office guidance.

  Risk Management

  A Home Office Risk Management Team is now firmly established.

  It is facilitating a risk management programme across the office.
  871W
  Annual Systems Assurance Statements (ASAS)

  A system of annual assurance statements operates with the purpose of providing an assurance to the Departmental Accounting Officer (DAO) from delegated budget holders on the adequacy and effectiveness of their systems of internal financial control.

  As part of ASAS 2001 Directors signed up to specific statements on counter-fraud and corporate governance and risk management, respectively.

  Corporate Governance Assurance Statements (CGAS)

  CGAS reports are provided to the DAO by the Accounting Officers (AOs) of the Prison Service, Forensic Science Service and the Passport Records Agency.

  Internal Control—Audit and Assurance Unit (AAU)

  The Chief Internal Auditor provides an assurance to the DAO on the corporate governance framework and systems of internal control in the financial and operational systems across the wider Home Office through the internal audit programme which is based on an analysis of risk and priority.

  In undertaking this work auditors consider the risk of fraud and report on this, as appropriate.

  A high proportion of internal audit resource is dedicated to the Home Office's key financial systems and the Department's Agencies and NDPBs.

  Internal Control—Other

  Staff are expected to comply with the Finance Manual and other procedures that are issued by Accounts Branch from time to time.

  Members of staff are not allowed to accept gifts, hospitality or benefits in kind as these could lead to a perception of a conflict of interest and/or of impropriety and guidance on this is available in the Staff Handbook.

  Service level agreements between Directors/Chief Executives and the Departmental Security Officer underline the importance of protecting valuable assets and this is reinforced through security awareness training and publicity campaigns.

  Staff are encouraged to lock away items such as lap-tops, mobile telephones and personal valuables.

  Where there are guard patrols out of hours, guards are asked to check for unprotected assets and make them safe. This is reinforced by random sweeps by the Departmental Security Unit.

  Authority to remove equipment is given by Heads of Unit and checked on exit by guards. There are also random checks of vehicles on exit.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32002]

  Angela Eagle
  Following the winter supplementary estimate, the total departmental expenditure limit for the Home Office stood at £9,862,267,000.

  Salary and pension costs accounted for £1,702,987,000 or 17.25 per cent. of the department expenditure limit.

  Passports
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many increases there have been in the cost of passports in the past 10 years; and what those increases have been. [32244]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been four increases to the cost of passports in the past 10 years. In November 1992, March 1998, December 1999 and the last recent increase in January of this year. The increases are as follows:
  872W
  Fee increase November 1992

  The adult fee increased by £3 from £15 to £18.

  The child fee also increased by £3 from £15 to £18, but with a free renewal provided after five years.

  Fee increase March 1998

  The adult fee increased by £3 to £21.

  The child fee became £11 for a five year issue, replacing the £18 fee for a 10 year issue which was then renewed free of charge after five years.

  Amendments increased by £6 to £11

  Jumbo passports increased by £4 to £31.

  An additional counter fee of £10 was introduced.

  Fee increase December 1999

  The adult fee increased by £7 to £28.

  The child fee increased by £3.80 to £14.80 and became compulsory.

  Amendments increased by £6 to £17

  Jumbo passports increased by £7 to £38.

  The additional counter fee increased by £2 to £12.

  Fee increase January 2002

  The adult fee increased by £2 to £30

  The child fee increased by £1.20 to £16

  Amendments increased by £1 to £18

  Jumbo passports increased by £2 to £40.

  The additional counter fee increased by £3 to £15.

  The fee for a collective passport, for organised trips for schools and youth groups increased by £2 to £42.

  Two new services were also introduced in January of this year. A one week guaranteed service now costs an additional £15 and a same day premium service, an additional £30.

  Prison Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether additional financial commitments for the Prison Service resulting from the Prison Service pay review will be met through additional central Government funding; and if he will make a statement. [32551]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: This award will be contained within existing departmental expenditure limits. It will be funded by an adjustment to current Prison Service spending plans in the latter part of 2001–02 and during 2002–03. For example, some maintenance of the prison estate will be re-scheduled to take place later. Efficiency savings made from the wider Home Office budget will also contribute to the cost. Prison Service funding for 2003–04 onwards will be determined by the 2002 Spending Review Process.

  Non-Human Primates
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in(a)establishing an EU register of non-human primates in breeding, supply and research establishments and (b)enforcing minimum standards of housing and care across member states; and if he will make a statement. [32629]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 January 2002]: We understand that the European Commission has no plans at present to establish such a register.
  873W
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate monitors the implementation of minimum standards, as set out in published codes of practice, for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied and used for scientific procedures in designated establishments in Great Britain. Standards in designated Northern Ireland establishments are similarly monitored under separate inspection arrangements.

  We are unable to comment on enforcement of minimum standards of housing and care in European Union (EU) states other than the United Kingdom, (UK) as set out in Annexe A of Directive 86/609/EEC, as that is not the responsibility of the UK Government.

  The Home Office is playing a leading role in discussions within the Council of Europe that are expected to determine future, improved European provisions for the accommodation of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps have been taken to ensure that non-designated overseas breeding and supply establishments of non-human primates supplying the UK are complying with the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and Supply Establishments; and if he will make a statement; [32630]

  (2) how often non-designated overseas breeding and supply establishments of non-human primates supplying the UK are inspected in person by members of the Home Office Inspectorate; and if he will make a statement; [32631]

  (3) how many wild-caught non-human primates, by (a) species and (b) purpose of procedure, are in UK facilities designated under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [32628]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 January 2002]: The Home Office does not maintain a register of stock held at designated establishments, but there are no current project licences in force for the use of wild caught non-human primates under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Non-designated overseas breeding and supply establishments do not comply fully with the provisions of the United Kingdom (UK) Code of Practice, which are considered by many to be the most stringent in the world. Overseas breeders who wish to supply animals for use in the United Kingdom are, however, expected to comply with the guidelines issued by the International Primate Society, and are visited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, both prior to acceptance to supply non-human primates for use in the United Kingdom, and periodically thereafter.

  Two sets of visits to particular overseas breeding and supply establishments were undertaken in the period October to December 2001. In addition all establishments currently supplying the UK have been visited during the last three years.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the ban on the use of great apes in research and testing in the UK was made; and if he will make a statement. [32632]
  874W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 January 2002]: In announcing, in November 1997, that the Government would not allow the future use of great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, pygmy gorillas, and orang-utans) as laboratory animals, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained that this was a matter of morality. The cognitive and behavioural characteristics and qualities of these animals are such that it is unethical to treat them as expendable for research.

  This policy was set out in the Supplementary Note to the Home Secretary's response to the Animal Procedures Committee interim report on the review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Copies of this document were deposited in the Library.

  Immigration Appeals
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum delay he allows between the Secretary of State receiving appeal decisions under rule 15(2) and 16(5), and 18(9A) and 19(6) amended by SI 4014 (L.31) 2001 and serving them on the appellants. [27186]

  Angela Eagle
  We anticipate that almost all determinations received by the Home Office under these rules will be served within 48 hours. The remainder will be served within a further period which would exceed six weeks only in exceptional circumstances.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new arrangements for service of appeal decisions under rules 15(2), 16(5), 18(9A) and 19(6) will come into operation. [27188]

  Angela Eagle
  The new arrangements came into operation on 7 January 2002.

  Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to come to a decision on the recommendation of the adjudicator on 17 October 2000, relating to the possibility of exceptional leave to remain being given to Mr. Mustaf Uka, his wife and children (Home Office Reference U48661 and Port Reference BDD/00/10800). [32261]

  Angela Eagle
  It is most regrettable that this case was not actioned earlier and that Mr. Uka's solicitor did not receive responses to their correspondence. A caseworker will now make a decision in this case as a matter of priority and notify the solicitor accordingly.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK in 2001. [29688]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]: Between January and September 2001, inclusive, 15,060 grants of exceptional leave to remain were made. This figure refers to principal applicants only, and is provisional. Annual figures for 2001 are not yet available.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions are published quarterly. The next publication will present data for the final quarter of 2001, and will be available from 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.
  875W

  Immigration Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary measures are in place for Immigration Service personnel who do not treat visa applicants with a basic level of courtesy; and if he will make a statement. [31227]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office, including the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, has clear procedures to be followed whenever there is an allegation of misconduct.

  High standards of courtesy and professionalism are expected of all Immigration Service staff when carrying out official duties. Any complaint that there has been a failure to meet these requirements is treated very seriously, and if substantiated could result in disciplinary action.

  The Immigration Service Complaints Unit has national responsibility for arranging and overseeing the formal investigation of allegations of misconduct or inefficiency made against Immigration Service personnel or other staff contracted to carry out work on behalf of the service. Written allegations of discourtesy are investigated in accordance with the formal complaint procedures. Verbal complaints about the conduct of staff are normally dealt with on the spot by a supervising officer.

  The formal complaint procedures are monitored by the Complaints Audit Committee (CAC), an independent body appointed by the Immigration Minister.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment was made of the advantages and disadvantages of(a) rural and (b) urban sites for the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [31733]

  Angela Eagle
  No final decisions have been taken on the locations of any trial accommodation centres and an assessment of each potential site on its individual merits will be made in due course.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on local public services, with specific reference to(a) health and (b) police, of the construction of a new asylum accommodation centre. [31734]

  Angela Eagle
  In making final decisions on preferred sites, we will take all the relevant factors into account including those to which the hon. Member refers. These assessments have not yet been made.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when work began on identifying the possible sites for the proposed asylum accommodation centres. [31729]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office began to identify possible sites for the trial centres following my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's statement to the House on 29 October 2001.

  Visas
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are made for members of the public to visit the offices handling visa applications. [31954]
  876W
  Angela Eagle
  The Immigration and Nationality Public Enquiry Office based in Croydon provides a fast track service for all straightforward applications for further leave and indefinite leave to remain combined with an urgent return of passport facility. All callers are seen on the day. Three other regional inquiry offices based in Liverpool, Birmingham and Glasgow offer a more restricted service in terms of opening hours and the type of applications they are able to consider.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce to Parliament when the average time taken for completing applications for student visas has reached his target figure of three weeks. [31958]

  Angela Eagle
  We aim to decide 70 per cent. of all new general and settlement applications within three weeks. We are working hard to achieve this as soon as possible. Information on the Immigration Nationality Directorate website will be regularly updated to reflect the current position. This will also be included in information provided by the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau and in letters acknowledging receipt of applications.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what changes are being introduced to improve the administration of the issuing of student visas; [31952]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the extra time required to reduce the backlog of work in which the Department processes one year student visas. [31957]

  Angela Eagle
  We are making best use of current resources and looking at options for additional staff in order to reduce the time taken to process new general immigration cases and to reduce the backlog of such cases, including those made by overseas nationals who are studying in the United Kingdom. We aim to reduce the turnaround time for new straightforward applications to three weeks as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to staff dealing with student visas on the importance of providing a fast, efficient and courteous service. [31951]

  Angela Eagle
  All staff are aware of the need to carry out their duties in a professional manner. Performance is continually monitored by management who would take appropriate action to remedy any weaknesses. Any allegations of inefficiency or discourtesy will be fully investigated.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training is given to staff who deal directly with the public who visit the visa issuing office. [31953]

  Angela Eagle
  All staff within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate posted to the Public Enquiry Office in Croydon receive induction training on joining the service, plus a further two weeks of immigration rules based modular training. Additionally, during their initial six to eight weeks they are mentored by experienced public counter officers. All elements of the training focus on providing a fast, fair and professional service to the public.
  877W
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the processing of one year student visas will achieve the target of completion in three weeks for 70 per cent. of applications. [31956]

  Angela Eagle
  As a result of the measures being taken we expect significant progress to have been made in deciding 70 per cent. of all new immigration applications within three weeks by the spring.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2002,Official Report, columns 550–51W, on visas, how he will calculate the average waiting time to process a one year student visa when applications are decided within three weeks. [32083]

  Angela Eagle
  We would expect the majority of student applications to be decided within three weeks. However, we are introducing a casework information database which, when fully operational, will enable us to monitor our performance on general immigration casework more effectively.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training staff receive in answering telephone queries on visa applications. [31955]

  Angela Eagle
  Staff attend a 10-day training course in the Immigration Rules before joining the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB). They then join a mentoring programme in INEB where they progress from listening to calls with experienced members of staff to taking a number of calls with a mentor listening in.

  When their mentor and the new agent feel they are ready they are listened in to by a senior mentor and their line manager before they are allowed to take calls without another member of staff listening in. The length of time this takes varies from person to person and can take between 10 days and several weeks. Also, agents receive regular mentoring and training on all aspects of the Immigration Rules throughout their time in INEB.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans NASS has to exclude the children of asylum seekers from mainstream education; and if he will make a statement. [31944]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement to the House on 29 October that the new Accommodation Centres would offer education facilities. We are working with key stakeholders to establish the range of such facilities that will be available to children in the trial centres.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long NASS placed asylum seekers in the Landmark Tower buildings in Liverpool. [31942]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Services has one contract with the Landmark Company and this came into effect on 3 April 2000. Asylum seekers were dispersed to the Landmark Tower buildings from 3 April 2000 but dispersals to that location were suspended in early July 2001 and have not yet resumed.
  878W
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time has been over the last six months that NASS has taken to respond to(a) telephone inquiries and (b) written inquiries on applications for asylum. [31940]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service deals with applications for support from asylum seekers.

  The information requested is not currently available.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time has been over the last six months that NASS has taken to process a claim for emergency accommodation under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [31941]

  Angela Eagle
  National Asylum Support Service (NASS) does not process claims for emergency accommodation. Emergency accommodation is provided by the voluntary sector agencies under contract to NASS.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans NASS has to extend the deadline for appeal against a NASS decision to(a) refuse and (b) withdraw support from asylum seekers. [31943]

  Angela Eagle
  Following representations from the Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) decided to review the Asylum Support Appeals (Procedure) Rules 2000. No timetable has yet been set for this review, but we hope to complete it this year.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants who have been offered dispersal placements outside London have declined the offer of support in each of the last six months. [31948]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  It is not currently possible to track the number of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) cases where the asylum seeker has refused the offer of accommodation in the cluster areas.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unsuccessful asylum applicants have been removed in each of the last six calendar months. [31947]

  Angela Eagle
  The number of asylum seekers who were removed from the United Kingdom in the six months to September 2001 is given in the table. Information more recent than September is not yet available.

  month

  Total asylum seekers1removed2,3

  Principal applicants removed2,3

  Dependants removed2,3

  April

  830

  780

  55

  May

  915

  870

  45

  June

  840

  730

  115

  July

  920

  795

  125

  August

  930

  835

  100

  September

  890

  760

  135

  1 Persons who had sought asylum at some point.

  2 Provisional figures, rounded to the nearest five. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  879W
  3 Includes persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them and persons leaving under the Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organisation of Migration (IOM).

  Information on the number of asylum removals in the fourth quarter (October to December) of 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time has been over the last six months that NASS has taken to process an application for asylum; and if he will make a statement. [31939]

  Angela Eagle
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) deals with applications for support from asylum seekers. The information requested is currently unavailable. A project is currently under way to set up a procedure for calculating the time taken by NASS to process applications.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to involve asylum-seeking children and young people in the consultation on the forthcoming asylum White Paper. [31824]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 67W.

  Citizenship Application
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the application for citizenship made by Mrs. Mehar of Southend, which was acknowledged by the IND of 28 February 2001, Reference M1103724CQ, to be determined; and if he will invite the IND to remove from such acknowledgments the phrase passed to a case worker who will contact you shortly. [32262]

  Angela Eagle
  Mrs. Mehar's application was received on 15 December 2000. It has now reached its turn for consideration and she has been asked to submit documentary evidence to confirm her eligibility for naturalisation as a British citizen. Once consideration has begun, decisions are normally made within six months.

  The wording of the acknowledgment letter has already been amended to reflect changes in the way naturalisation cases are handled.

  Immigration Office, Croydon
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department If he will make a statement on the delays involved in the treatment of post received at the Immigration Office, Croydon. [30492]

  Angela Eagle
  We aim to decide 70 per cent. of all new general and settlement cases within three weeks and met this for the first half of 2001. But because of the exceptionally high number of applications received and the introduction of process changes, it has recently been taking up to eight weeks to consider new applications. We are working to reduce this to three weeks or less as soon as possible.
  880W

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Investors in People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent consultations she has held with the Learning and Skills Council and other interested parties concerning the future financing and delivery of Investors in People. [30810]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: There is regular on-going consultation between my Department, the Learning and Skills Council, Small Business Service and Investors in People (IiP) UK about the future financing and delivery of Investors in People.

  On 21 January 2002, in accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, my Department started a review of Investors in People (IiP) UK. Following Cabinet Office guidelines, the terms of reference for the first stage of the review are:
  to review the role and functions of Investors in People UK as outlined in its remit letter, and the efficiency and effectiveness with which they have been carried out, and how these functions contribute to the delivery of wider DfES and Government objectives.
  to consider the continuing relevance and likely need for these functions in the future and whether there is a need for any reductions or expansion of these functions.
  to consider whether continued non-departmental public body status is the best way of delivering these functions or whether some, or all, of the functions could be delivered more efficiently and effectively through other means eg privatisation, contracting out, rationalisation or merger with other bodies.
  to consider what IiP UK's customers, end users of the Standard and other key stakeholders think about its role, performance and responsiveness to their needs.

  We welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the review from all those with an interest in the work of IiP UK. Comments which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by 8 March 2002 to:

  Jan Gibbons

  Department for Education and Skills

  W8c Moorfoot

  Sheffield S 1 4PQ

  Or by e-mail to janice.gibbons@dfes.gsi.gov.uk

  I have asked that the first stage of the review should be completed by spring 2002.

  Schools (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new primary and secondary schools were opened in the Harwich constituency between 1979 and 1997; and what proposals have been made for building new schools within the Harwich constituency since 1997. [30982]

  John Healey
  Reliable information is not available on the number of new primary and secondary maintained schools opened prior to 1996. Since 1996, proposals have been made to establish one new maintained school in the Harwich constituency. The new community secondary school is expected to open on 1 September 2002 in Clacton.
  881W
  We do not hold information on the building of new schools. It is for local education authorities to determine the need for additional school places in the maintained sector and, where necessary, to build or support the provision of new schools. The Department makes available capital funding for new school places; many of these are provided in existing schools.

  Skills Shortages (Construction)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of recent research by Communities Scotland on skill shortages in the construction industry; and what steps she will take to tackle such skills shortages. [31175]

  John Healey
  Skills policy for Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. However, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), which is sponsored by my Department, continues to exercise its statutory functions for Scotland as a cross-border public authority. In the first instance, it is therefore for the Board to consider, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, how to address the findings of the report.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1006W, if he will publish the latest available information on the overall floor area of temporary school accommodation in each local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [31609]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The data we have on temporary buildings will be appraised shortly with a view to publishing analysis later this year, to support benchmarking.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31787]

  Estelle Morris
  My Department takes the threat of fraud very seriously, and pursues those who attempt to perpetrate fraud against it, either internal staff or outsiders (eg contractors). This is set out clearly in the Department's "Fraud Policy Statement".

  Current measures which are in place for determining and detecting theft and fraud are as set out:

  (i) our Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is a specialist team which investigates cases of suspected fraud/irregularity

  (ii) we have set out, in the Department's Fraud Response Plan, our strategy for dealing with the threat of fraud

  (iii) the Fraud Sub Committee (a committee of the Department's Audit Committee) was set up in early 2000, to oversee the Department's Fraud Response Plan and the work of the SIU

  (iv) we have a clear Whistleblowers Policy to which all staff have ready access. This enables staff, in confidence, to raise any concerns of wrongdoing

  (v) the Standards of Behaviour and Departmental value which we expect all staff to practice are communicated to staff and reinforced in the Department's Fraud Policy Statement

  (vi) SIU delivers a three year rolling programme of Fraud and Control Awareness to staff across the Department. This includes highlighting our anti-fraud policies, the actions that

  882W

  we have taken against offenders, lessons learned from cases which have been investigated, and stresses the need for sound systems of internal control as being key to combat the threat of fraud

  (vii) we have a strong Internal Audit function, which promotes the delegation of risk management to operational managers, and the maintenance of risk registers as a management tool

  (viii) Internal Audit is involved in programme design and project boards

  (ix) the head of SIU chairs the Fraud Response Liaison Group, which provides a forum for the exchange and sharing of relevant information, and facilitates a co-ordinated approach to investigations by all interested parties.

  Proposed enhancements to the current arrangements are:

  (i) we are developing a Fraud Risk Assessment Strategy which will inform us as to those areas which represent the greatest threat of fraud and where resources can he targeted

  (ii) SIU is to become more proactive in undertaking a programme of inspection work to detect irregularity in those areas most exposed to the risk of fraud. The results of this work will support the level of assurance given by Internal Audit to the Accounting Officer

  (iii) we are forming a 'High Level Senior Management Risk Group' which will alert the board to key areas of risk, including the risk of fraud

  (iv) we are in the process of reviewing the current contact procurement and management arrangements, which will include reviewing the policy for the Financial Appraisal and Monitoring of all DfES contracts in order to enhance the current contract monitoring arrangements

  (v) consideration is also to be given to enhancing the current guidance to staff on contract management which will include raised awareness as to the possibility of fraud.

  In our determination to prevent and detect fraud, the measures set out above have been developed over the years as we have taken on board concerns and lessons learned from past experiences.

  School Computers (Pornographic Material)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what systems are in place to monitor school computer systems for misuse by staff or students with particular reference to pornographic material; [31829]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the course of action she recommends governors and headteachers should take when (a) a member of staff and (b) a student is discovered to have used school computers for viewing pornographic material. [31830]

  John Healey
  The monitoring of schools systems for misuse by staff or students with particular reference to pornographic material is the responsibility of the individual school. However, access to unsuitable materials is something we take very seriously and we have produced advice for schools and local education authorities on all aspects of the internet safety.

  Schools deal with misuse through their normal disciplinary procedures, involving the police where appropriate. The Department ensures that information and advice is available to governors and head teaches who have to prevent access to unsuitable material and deal with any problem directly.
  883W
  The Department's 'Superhighway Safety' guide includes such advice on how to monitor content and activity on the internet and take action if necessary.

  Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects the prisoners learning and skills unit to complete its review of the funding procurement and delivery of prison education. [32253]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: The prisoners' learning and skills unit review of the funding and procurement arrangements for prison education should be completed by November 2002. The comprehensive review is designed to ensure that there are more equitable funding arrangements across the prison estate.

  Student Funding
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average annual funding per student aged 16–18 is in 2001–02 in(a) school sixth forms, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) further education colleges; and what the average annual funding is per mature student studying for level 3 courses in colleges. [32263]

  John Healey
  Separate average funding figures by age and level of study are not available. However the latest estimate of the average delegated funding per sixth form student in schools for 2001–02 is £3,330. The total funding per full time equivalent student in further education sector colleges per year in 2001–02 is £3,660. A separate figure for sixth form colleges is not available. It should be noted that these figures are not directly comparable, as the FE funding figure includes total public funding allocated for further education, while the schools' figure is based only on delegated funds and excludes other funding which the school receive centrally from LEAs which impact on post-l6 students. The Department intends to make more comparable funding figures available shortly.

  Graduate Teacher Scheme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the funding for the graduate teacher scheme has been allocated; how many places are being provided on the scheme; and how many people have applied for the scheme. [32636]

  Mr. Timms
  For information on how graduate teacher programme places are allocated, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 290W.

  In 2000–01, there were 1,507 new entrants to the graduate teacher programme. In 2001–02, 2,250 fully funded places are available. These attract grants of up to £4,000 towards training costs and of up to £13,000 towards the trainee's salary costs. In addition to that, over 1,000 places with funding of up to £4,000 each are being offered this year to schools willing to meet trainees' salary costs from their own budgets. In the current academic year to date, the Teacher Training Agency has received a total of 3,307 applications for places on the graduate teacher programme, 2,350 of which have been approved.
  884W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when schools were given details of the number of places on the graduate teacher scheme. [32637]

  Mr. Timms
  The Teacher Training Agency informs schools of the likely number of graduate teacher programme places that will be available in each of the three annual allocations rounds approximately six weeks before the deadline for submission of applications.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the number of teachers taken on by schools who have not received funding under the graduate teacher scheme. [32639]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the number of unqualified teachers whose schools are not receiving funding under the graduate teacher programme is not collected centrally. There is no requirement that schools should appoint prospective trainees before receiving confirmation that a place on the programme will he offered.

  Trailblazer Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultation he has with(a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) regional development agencies when determining Trailblazer status. [32852]

  John Healey
  A representative from the Department of Trade and Industry was part of an interdepartmental shortlisting panel selection workshop last December in Sheffield, where a consensus was reached on all 31 expressions of interest received for Trailblazer status.

  The regional development agencies were not consulted during the selection process. An economic analysis of the skill needs of each sector was available to the shortlisting panel.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which sector skills councils were awarded Trailblazer status; and what is the(a) budget and (b) location of each. [32854]

  John Healey
  From the 31 expressions of interest received, the following five sectors were invited to form a Trailblazer Sector Skills Council:

  Apparel, footwear and textile

  Audio visual industries

  Land-based industries

  Oil and gas extraction; petroleum refining and distribution; and chemical manufacture

  Retail.

  Each will have up to £100,000 for their development phase and up to £1 million for support of core activities in their first year.

  The Trailblazer SSCs will operate throughout the UK. Each Trailblazer SSC will be responsible for deciding the location of their own offices.

  Ceramic Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will meet the Chairman for
  885W
  Ceramic Training and Development to discuss options for the ceramics industry in respect of sector skills councils. [32853]

  John Healey
  I am very pleased that the Chairman for Ceramic Training and Development has shown this level of interest in the development of sector skills councils. I understand that he has already met with an official from my Department to discuss options for the ceramics industry. It is, I believe, appropriate during the development of SSC's or during the negotiation of other arrangements, that contact remains between officials and potential SSC members. I have asked officials to continue the dialogue with the ceramics industry and look forward to receiving a report on the progress in due course.

  School Standards Fund (Kensington and Chelsea)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Standards Fund received by schools in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–20. [33043]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund for Westminster local education authority and for Kensington and Chelsea local education authority in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The figures include both Government and local authority contributions. The amount actually paid to schools depends on local expenditure decisions by schools and the local authority.

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  58,983

  Beacon Schools

  187,750

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  2,500

  City Learning Centres

  703,331

  Developing and Extending Maintained Nursery School Services

  28,421

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  292,590

  Early Years Training and Development

  16,168

  Education and Health Partnerships

  23,424

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  1,219,975

  Excellence in Cities

  818,518

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  10,584

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  3,823

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  44,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  23,280

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  69,478

  National Grid for Learning

  226,701

  New National Curriculum

  23,200

  Performance Management Training

  67,930

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  259,500

  Pupil Support Allowance

  70,000

  Qualifications

  22,884

  School Improvement

  405,343

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  75,947

  School Leadership

  43,072

  School Security

  32,452

  Seed Capital Challenge

  82,294

  Small School Support Fund

  23,879

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  304,361

  Special Educational Needs

  70,029

  Study Support

  56,281

  886W

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  18,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Teacher Incentives

  13,650

  Teaching Assistants

  32,613

  Teenage Pregnancies

  26,100

  Working Environment Fund

  36,165

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  62,921

  Total

  5,457,347

  2001–02

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  57,500

  Beacon Schools

  279,750

  Children in Public Care

  13,404

  City Learning Centres

  895,000

  Classrooms of the Future

  225,000

  Devolved Capital

  468,815

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  37,530

  Early Professional Development

  124,900

  Early Years Training and Development

  24,239

  Education Health Partnerships

  23,065

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  1,164,506

  Excellence in Cities1

  904,690

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  57,610

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  184,877

  Information Management Strategy

  44,510

  Key Stage 3: National Implementation

  214,743

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  20,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  77,400

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  56,802

  National Curriculum

  23,996

  National Grid for Leaming

  346,722

  NDS Condition Funding

  211,019

  Performance Management

  45,257

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  309,037

  Pupil Learning Credits

  84,496

  Pupil Support Allowance

  70,000

  Qualifications

  3,734

  Recruitment and Retention Fund

  204,000

  School Achievement Awards

  214,550

  School Improvement

  256,000

  School Laboratories

  119,894

  School Leadership

  75,081

  School Security

  32,641

  Seed Capital Challenge

  89,166

  Sick Children

  3,830

  Small Schools Fund

  88,159

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  305,524

  Special Educational Needs

  139,784

  Study Support

  191,361

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Children

  9,000

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teachers' Sabbaticals

  12,000

  Teaching Assistants

  32,800

  Teenage Pregnancies

  26,100

  Traveller Children Achievement

  55,469

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  64,895

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  18,000

  Total

  7,946,856

  City of Westminster

  2000–01

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  120,072

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  189,000

  Beacon Schools

  100,000

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  3,000

  Developing and Extending Nursery School Services

  25,036

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  443,863

  Early Excellence Centres

  76,260

  Early Years Training and Development

  57,038

  Education and Health Partnerships

  38,337

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  2,136,538

  Excellence in Cities

  1,364,696

  Excellence in Cities: Excellence Challenge

  11,303

  Expanding Local Authority Music Services

  363,500

  887W

  Standards Fund allocations

  £

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  6,372

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and Key Stage 3

  77,000

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  71,210

  National Grid for Learning

  365,898

  New National Curriculum

  40,300

  Performance Management Training

  47,967

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  363,518

  Pupil Support Allowance

  163,000

  Qualifications

  73,786

  School Improvement

  742,811

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  107,290

  School Leadership

  67,141

  School Security

  50,141

  Seed Capital Challenge

  104,705

  Small School Support Fund

  39,075

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  656,125

  Special Educational Needs

  119,071

  Specialist Schools

  96,538

  Study Support

  107,586

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  9,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Support for Performance Management Training

  47,967

  Teaching Assistants

  336,453

  Teenage Pregnancies

  44,300

  Working Environment Fund

  51,562

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  93,408

  Total

  8,812,067

  2001–02

  Adult:Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  41,854

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  194,630

  Beacon Schools

  175,000

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  39,600

  Children in Public Care

  21,780

  Class Size Initiative

  16,333

  Devolved Capital

  340,330

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  44,060

  Early Excellence Centres

  170,000

  Early Years Training and Development

  38,108

  Education Health Partnerships

  25,160

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  2,136,538

  Excellence in Cities1

  1,458,320

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  247,056

  Information Management Strategy

  68,988

  Key Stage 3: National Implementation

  230,343

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  50,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  181,800

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  50,376

  National Curriculum

  41,528

  National Grid for Learning

  530,618

  NDS Condition Funding

  613,298

  Performance Management

  80,789

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  380,129

  Pupil Learning Credits

  232,713

  Pupil Support Allowance

  163,000

  Qualifications

  7,468

  Recruitment and Retention Fund

  343,000

  School Achievement Awards

  276,200

  School Improvement

  529,000

  School Laboratories

  107,290

  School Leadership

  66,269

  School Security

  50,591

  Seed Capital Challenge

  114,877

  Sick Children

  6,223

  Small Schools Fund

  160,289

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  740,000

  Special Educational Needs

  201,928

  Specialist Schools

  269,816

  Study Support

  321,429

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Children

  9,000

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  40,000

  Teachers' Sabbaticals

  84,0005

  Teaching Assistants

  511,567

  Teenage Pregnancies

  44,300

  Truancy Buster Awards

  8,000

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  103,329

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  36,000

  Total

  11,602,927

  1 Including Gifted and Talented Children, Learning Support Units and Learning Mentors

  888W

  Threshold Transfers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of difficulties experienced by schools in going from Threshold 1 to Threshold 2; and if she will make a statement. [33055]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]: Crossing the performance threshold promotes a teacher to point 1 of the upper pay scale. Further progress is by discretionary performance points recommended by heads and awarded by governing bodies. Teachers on point 1 since September 2000 will first become eligible for a performance point from September 2002. To make best use of these points, heads and governors will need to distinguish the most effective teachers from those who are doing a satisfactory job. I recognise that these decisions will sometimes be difficult, but I believe that heads and governors are fully capable of making them.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she plans to announce the final disposal arrangements and plans for intermediate and high level nuclear waste; and what is the(a) quantity and (b) location of present (i) intermediate and (ii) high level waste in store. [29698]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answers of 31 January 2002,Official Report, columns 470–71W. The Government and the devolved Administrations on 12 September launched a national debate in our consultation paper "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely". A copy of the paper is in the Library. Disposal is one of the several waste management options that, the paper proposes, we need to review. The consultation period closes on 12 March and we would welcome comments from all over the UK.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she set up the Radioactive Waste Management Information Needs Research Project; what arrangements are in place for its co-ordination; what resources have been made available, covering what time period, for the research project; who has been appointed to the Steering Committee of the Research Project; and what criteria were used in making the appointments. [19883]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced on 12 September that the Government had commissioned Wilkinson Environmental Consulting to carry out a review of information needs in relation to options for managing radioactive waste. This will help to inform the national debate and research programme which we propose in our 12 September consultation paper "Managing Radioactive Waste Safely". A Steering Group has been established to assist the Department in the management of the project and consists of the following people:
  889W

  Name

  Richard Wood (Chair)

  DEFRA Radioactive Substances Division

  Peter Barlow

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.

  Professor Geoffrey Bolton

  Royal Society

  Martin Courtis

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  Fred Dawson

  Ministry of Defence

  David Glazbrook

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Health and Safety Executive

  Elizabeth Gray

  Scottish Executive Environment and Radioactive Substances Division

  Cllr. John Henney

  Copeland borough council

  Stewart Kemp

  Nuclear Free Local Authorities

  Ken Ledgerwood

  Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland

  Peter McKay

  British Energy

  Gordon McKerron

  Social Policy Research Unit, Sussex University

  Mike Squibbs

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Harvard Prosser

  National Assembly for Wales

  Jonathan Selwyn

  United Kingdom Centre for Economic and Environmental Development

  Julie Tooley

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Rachel Western

  Friends of the Earth

  Clive Williams

  Environment Agency

  The members of the group were chosen in order to bring together a wide range of expertise in relation to radioactive waste management, including waste producers, non-government organisations, regulators, scientists and academics, and officials from Government Departments and from the devolved Administrations. Membership of the group will be kept under review.

  The membership, terms of reference, and minutes of meetings of the Steering Group are published on the Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk

  The contract was let to Wilkinson Environmental Consulting on 28 July 2000 following competitive tender. The contract provides for a final report to be handed over at the end of May 2002 then provides for further work up to the end of November 2002. The estimated cost of the project is £146,441 excluding VAT. Further details of the project are on the website.

  Landfill
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she calculates how many hours of inspectors' time is appropriate for landfill sites, with particular reference to the amount of material dumped per week. [25379]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: Under the waste framework directive, waste operations are subject to appropriate periodic inspections by the Environment Agency. In carrying out inspections at licensed sites, including landfill sites, the agency must have a regard to the guidance provided in Waste Management Paper No. 4, which provides a system of risk-based inspections, known as the Operator Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA). OPRA takes into account the performance of the operator and the environmental risks of the waste operation in determining how often a site is inspected, with a minimum inspection frequency of one every three months. The environmental risks include the type of waste operation and the amounts of waste involved.

  The period of time of each inspection will vary and will depend on a number of factors, including the nature and size of the landfill, the terms and conditions of the licence, and any issues arising during the inspection.
  890W
  The agency has issued guidance on an appropriate inspection methodology for use by their inspectors and is available at www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ commondata/105385/methodology.pdf.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she next intends to meet the Fishermen's Association Ltd. to discuss their concerns on proposed changes in the enforcement of fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement. [28649]

  Mr. Morley
  The enforcement of fisheries policy in Scottish waters is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations govern the transport of live animals; and what penalties can be imposed upon those who do not comply with them. [28847]

  Mr. Morley
  The principal regulations governing the transport of live animals are: The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, which makes general and specific provisions for the welfare of animals during transport— a breach of the Order is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding £5,000 (or £1,000 per animal if more than 10 animals are involved)— and The Transport of Animals (Cleansing and Disinfection) (England) (No.2) Order 2000, which requires vehicles to be cleansed and disinfected after the journey is completed. A breach of the Order is punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding £5,000. A transporter's authorisation to transport live animals under WATO can also be suspended or revoked.

  Sheep Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the European Commission's decision on the levels of(a) the sheep annual premium and (b) the less favoured area supplement on the future viability of the UK sheep industry; and if she will make a statement. [31520]
  891W
  Mr. Morley
  At the Sheepmeat Management Committee on 18 January it was agreed to set the final rate of the Sheep Annual Premium (SAP) for 2001 at 9.086 euros (£5.62). The Less Favoured Area supplement remained at 6.641 euros (£4.11).

  A number of factors depressed returns to sheep farmers in 2001, in particular the closing of export markets because of foot and mouth disease. We expect returns to improve in 2002, with the reopening of export markets and the introduction of a fixed rate Sheep Annual Premium set significantly above the final rate of the premium for 2001.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the level of the sheep annual premium that would be payable to United Kingdom sheep producers if the British market price for lamb were used in the calculation of the sheep premium in place of the average European Union price; and if she will make a statement. [31521]

  Mr. Morley
  The calculation of the rate of the Sheep Annual Premium prior to the changes agreed in December 2001 was based on several factors related to sheep production in the European Union, not only on the

  Subsidies paid directly to farmers in 2001

  £

  Subsidies on product

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  UK

  Crop subsidies

  Arable area payments on:

  Wheat

  330

  2

  16

  1

  349

  Barley

  180

  5

  68

  7

  259

  Other cereal crops

  22

  1

  5

  1—

  27

  Oilseed rape

  94

  1—

  9

  1—

  103

  Linseed

  10

  1—

  1—

  1—

  10

  Peas and beans—stockfeed and human consumption

  67

  1—

  1

  2—

  68

  Other crops

  7

  1

  1—

  11—

  8

  Other crop subsidies

  3

  2—

  1—

  2—

  3

  Livestock subsidies:

  Beef special premium

  126

  24

  46

  46

  242

  Suckler cow premium

  80

  25

  61

  45

  211

  Slaughter premium

  49

  7

  13

  15

  84

  Extensification payment scheme

  50

  15

  34

  27

  126

  Over-30-month scheme

  91

  17

  23

  26

  157

  Beef national envelope

  11

  3

  8

  5

  26

  Sheep annual premium

  74

  53

  42

  13

  182

  FMD light lambs

  1

  2

  2

  2—

  5

  Other subsidies:

  Dairy agrimonetary compensation

  56

  8

  6

  9

  79

  Total subsidies on products

  1,249

  162

  334

  194

  1,943

  Other subsidies

  Set-aside

  162

  1

  20

  1

  184

  Other animal disease compensation

  11

  1

  1—

  16

  29

  Less favoured areas support schemes

  42

  42

  61

  18

  164

  Agri-environment schemes:

  145

  34

  34

  7

  220

  Countryside stewardship

  49

  2—

  2—

  2—

  49

  Countryside premium (Scotland)

  2—

  2—

  9

  2—

  9

  Tir Cymen and Tir Gofal

  2—

  13

  2—

  2—

  13

  Organic farming

  27

  3

  5

  1—

  35

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  48

  7

  10

  5

  71

  892W
  average market price; for this reason it is not possible simply to substitute the British average market price for the European Union one. However, in 2001 the average market price for sheepmeat in Great Britain was some 24 per cent. below the European Union average price, and calculating the rate of the Sheep Annual Premium separately for Great Britain and for the rest of the European Union would have increased the rate in Great Britain and reduced it elsewhere.

  From 2002 the Sheep Annual Premium will be at a fixed rate of 21 euros per eligible animal, and will not be affected by fluctuations in market prices.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how CAP funding is spent in the United Kingdom broken down by(a) types of schemes and (b) nations. [31254]

  Mr. Morley
  Latest estimates of CAP funding paid directly to farmers in 2001 are shown in the table, broken down by nations of the UK. CAP funding also includes indirect market support measures which cannot be split by nation and direct payments to farmers. Indirect market support cost £497 million in 2000–01.
  893W

  Subsidies paid directly to farmers in 2001

  £million

  Subsidies on product

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  UK

  Nitrate sensitive areas

  3

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3

  Woodland schemes

  8

  1—

  5

  2

  14

  SSSI3

  9

  2

  5

  1—

  16

  Other

  2

  8

  1—

  1—

  10

  Total other subsidies

  504

  113

  149

  49

  815

  Total subsidies

  1,754

  276

  482

  243

  2,760

  1 Negligible:less than 0.5

  2 Not applicable

  3 Payments for sites of special scientific interest are not part of CAP

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the(a) Ministry of Defence and (b) Home Office about the proposed asylum accommodation centre on land adjoining her Department's land at Throckmorton, Worcestershire; and what assessment she has made of the implications for compensation claims for local residents following the burial of foot and mouth carcases at the site. [31724]

  Mr. Morley
  No discussions of this matter have taken place with either the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office. Since the land does not belong to this Department nor does the possible use fall within its remit, we have not made an assessment of the implications for any compensation claims made by local residents following the burial of foot and mouth carcases in the area.

  Departmental Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in her Department in each of the last four years. [31753]

  Mr. Morley
  Following the creation of DEFRA, all staff were given an annual leave entitlement of 30 days from 1 August 2001 as one of the first steps towards harmonising terms and conditions of service for then ex-MAFF and ex-Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions staff who joined together to form the new Department.

  Prior to the creation of DEFRA, MAFF's entitlements, including those of its executive agencies (excluding the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, whose chief executive will reply direct), were determined by grade and length of service as given in the table. Details of average annual leave entitlements could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Days

  Total service

  Grade

  On entry

  After one year

  After 10 years

  After 15 years

  From 1 April 1997

  Up to HEO

  22

  25

  —

  30

  SEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 1998

  Up to EO

  22

  25

  —

  30

  HEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  894W

  Days

  Total service

  Grade

  On entry

  After one year

  After 10 years

  After 15 years

  From 1 April 19991

  Up to EO

  22

  25

  —

  —

  HEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 2000–31 March 20012

  Up to EO

  25

  —

  —

  30

  HEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 2001–31 July 2001

  Up to EO

  25

  —

  30

  —

  HEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  1 After 13 years total service

  2 After 12 years total service

  Days

  Total service

  Grade

  On entry

  After one year

  After 10 years

  After 15 years

  Ex-intervention hoard before 1 August 2001

  Up to AO

  22

  25

  —

  30

  EO and HEO

  25

  —

  —

  30

  SEO to Grade 5

  25

  —

  30

  —

  Above Grade 5

  30

  —

  —

  —

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)

  Days

  Grade

  On entry

  After one year service

  After 10 years service

  After 15 years service

  From 1 April 1997

  Up to HEO

  22

  25

  —

  30

  SEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 1998

  Up to HEO

  22

  25

  30

  —

  SEO and above

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 1999

  All staff

  22

  25

  30

  —

  From 1 April 2000

  All staff

  25

  —

  30

  —

  From 1 April 2001

  All staff

  25

  —

  30

  —

  895W

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32012]

  Mr. Morley
  Salary costs and pension contributions are forecast to account for 13.7 per cent. of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31786]

  Mr. Morley
  For physical security the Department already has a wide range of measures in place which can be varied or adapted to meet specific needs or changed circumstances for any of our sites around the UK. Measures typically include access control (including guard services and pass wearing procedures), staff and visitor checks, staff awareness, intruder detection systems, good liaison with local police etc.

  As to fraud, the Department has a fraud policy statement which is available to all staff. It has also issued guidance for managers on how to handle suspected instances of fraud. Staff are in no doubt that fraud is regarded very seriously, and that the Department will always prosecute perpetrators and also take disciplinary action against staff where these actions are considered appropriate. Professional investigation, legal and internal audit advice is always available in support, and the Department seeks to maintain an awareness of current practice and developments in the detection and prevention of fraud.

  Aquatic Mammals
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her latest estimate is of the population of(a) grey seals, (b) common-seals and (c) dolphins in the waters around England and Wales. [32597]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 2000, the grey seal population around England and Wales was estimated at 10,100 individuals and the common seal population of eastern England (few breed elsewhere in England and Wales) was estimated to be between approximately 3,800 and 4,500.

  The inshore populations of bottlenose dolphin (primarily off Wales) are estimated at about 160 (not including the Channel Islands). No separate estimate of numbers of other dolphins in waters around England and Wales has been made, but a 1994 survey of small cetacean abundance in the North Sea and adjacent waters gave an estimated population of white beaked and white sided dolphins of 11,760.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the trends over the past 20 years in the populations of(a) grey seals, (b) common seals and (c) dolphins in the waters around England and Wales. [32596]
  896W
  Mr. Meacher
  (a) Surveys carried out by the Natural Environment Research Council for the Home Office and the Scottish Executive over the past 20 years have shown that the British population of breeding grey seals is growing at a rate of about 6 per cent. per annum since 1984. There is considerable variation around this rate of increase at English and Welsh colonies.

  (b) The common seal population of eastern England (few breed elsewhere in England and Wales) crashed in 1988 due to an outbreak of phocine distemper virus. Prior to this, the population was over 4,000; in 1989 the numbers approximately halved. It has now recovered to between 3,800 and 4,500.

  (c) The majority of the bottlenose dolphin population in English and Welsh waters is located in Cardigan Bay. The population has remained stable over the last decade, with an estimated population of 127 in mid 1990s compared with an estimated 121 in 2000. No assessment has been made of trends of other dolphin populations in the waters around England and Wales.

  Marine Law
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action the Government are taking to implement proposals for the comprehensive reform of UK marine law and policy. [32243]

  Mr. Meacher
  The forthcoming Marine Stewardship report will set out our vision for the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment. Within this context, and alongside existing initiatives such as the review of marine nature conservation, we are considering whether legislative changes are needed.

  Environmental Protection Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many individuals have taken action against(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council under Section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and in how many cases they were successful. [32178]

  Mr. Meacher
  No individuals have taken action against (a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council under Section 91 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Litter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people in Buckinghamshire were prosecuted for littering in each of the last five years; and in how many cases they were convicted. [32176]

  Mr. Meacher
  In each of the last five years, no people in Buckinghamshire have been prosecuted for littering offences.

  Water Meters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many water
  897W
  meters were installed in houses (a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Buckingham constituency in each of the last five years. [32186]

  Mr. Meacher
  The net increase in the number of household customers charged on the basis of metering in each of the past five years, in England and Wales, was as shown in the table.

  Net increase in household customers charged on the basis of metering 1

  1996–97

  2278,000

  1997–98

  559,000

  1998–99

  >486,000

  1999–2000

  353,000

  2000–01

  244,000

  1 To the nearest thousand

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total number of complaints received (including pest control)

  4,171

  4,698

  5,022

  6,437

  4,648

  Number of Pest Control Complaints

  2,301

  3,018

  2,850

  3,855

  2,367

  Number of Nuisance Complaints

  380

  356

  312

  349

  239

  Proportion of total complaints (percentage)

  9.1

  7.6

  6.2

  5.4

  5.1

  Number of Noise Complaints

  531

  410

  531

  683

  639

  Proportion of total complaints (percentage)

  12.7

  8.7

  10.6

  10.6

  13.7

  Number of Other Complaints

  959

  914

  1,329

  1,550

  >1,403

  Number of Abatement Notices Served

  21

  7

  16

  11

  9

  Number of Fines Levied

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 To 31 January 2002

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fines for dog fouling were issued by(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council in each of the last five years; what the average fine levied in each year was; and what the total sums raised in each year were. [32177]

  Mr. Meacher
  In each of the last five years there were no fixed penalty fines issued for dog fouling offences by(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council.

  Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many successful prosecutions have been undertaken by the Environment Agency concerning pollution in Buckinghamshire in the last five years; and what was the average level of fine imposed. [32181]

  Mr. Meacher
  Buckinghamshire is served by two Environment Agency regions, Anglian and Thames.

  The Anglian region has successfully undertaken 13 prosecutions in the last five years and fines totalling £366,350 have been imposed averaging £28,180 per prosecution.

  Since 1999, the Thames region have taken successful prosecutions on seven occasions and fines of £12,100 have been imposed averaging £1,871 per prosecution.
  898W
  2 Figures for 1996–97 were not collected on the same basis as later years.

  Information is not collected on a constituency basis.

  Noise/nuisance Complaint
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) noise and (b) nuisance complaints were investigated by (i) Buckinghamshire county council and (ii) Aylesbury Vale district council in each year since 1997; what proportion of reported complaints this represented; how many abatement notices were issued in each year; and how many fines were levied for non-compliance in each year. [32173]

  Mr. Meacher
  Buckinghamshire county council do not have responsibility for investigating or reporting noise complaints as this rests with the district councils within its area. Figures requested for Aylesbury Vale district council are shown in the table.

  Information on prosecutions in Thames region prior to 1999 is held manually and its retrieval from archives would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many complaints have been received by the Environment Agency concerning pollution in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1997. [32180]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since 1 June 2000, the Environment Agency has received 198 complaints about pollution in the Aylesbury Vale district council area, which equates approximately to the Buckingham constituency. Information on earlier complaints is held manually and its retrieval would involve disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost savings resulting from energy efficiency measures introduced by(a) Buckinghamshire county council and (b) Aylesbury Vale district council in accordance with the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. [32179]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has not made any estimates of the cost savings arising from the Home Energy Conservation Act (HECA) 1995. Nor is there any requirement for energy conservation authorities to make such an assessment. This would be an extremely difficult exercise, since the financial savings resulting from energy
  899W
  saving measures under HECA fall to individual householders through cheaper fuel bills. This information is therefore not readily available.

  Buckinghamshire county council does not have any responsibilities under HECA, which applies only to local housing authorities.

  Maize
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the UK's fodder maize is grown in(a) England and (b) each region. [32302]

  Mr.Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: Estimates from the June 2001 Agriculture and Horticulture census indicate that England accounts for 93 per cent of the maize area in the UK. Virtually all of the maize area is used for fodder.

  Information by UK country and English regions is provided in the table.

  Area of maize

  2000

  2001

  UK area (hectares)1

  104,090

  129,208

  Percentage of UK:

  England1

  93.8

  92.5

  Wales1

  6.1

  6.4

  Scotland1

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland1

  0.1

  1.1

  England (hectares)2

  97,634

  119,557

  Percentage of England:

  North-east

  0.2

  n/a

  North-west

  8.4

  n/a

  Yorks and Humber

  2

  n/a

  East midlands

  7

  n/a

  West midlands

  13.4

  n/a

  Eastern

  6.4

  n/a

  South-east

  18.7

  n/a

  South-west

  43.9

  n/a

  n/a=not yet available

  1 Includes an adjustment in respect of minor holdings.

  2 These data refer to main holdings only, ie minor holdings excluded.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many working days were lost within the Rural Payments Agency between 16 November 2001 and 31 January 2002 as a result of industrial action. [31973]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The number of working days lost within the Rural Payments Agency between 16 November 2001 and 31 January 2002 as a result of industrial action was 3,704.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total and (b) percentage were of arable payments made by the Rural Payments Agency to arable farmers in the 16 November 2001 to 31 January 2002 window. [31972]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The number of arable payments made by the Rural Payments Agency to arable farmers nationally in the 16 November 2001 to 31 January 2002 window was 39,697 paid, out of a total 42,738 received, representing 92.88 per cent.
  900W

  Arable Payments
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) level and (b) percentage were of arable payments made to farmers at her Department's Exeter office within the window period to 31 January. [31971]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The number of arable payments made to farmers at the Department's Exeter office within the window period to 31 January were 6,740 paid out, of a total of 8,282 received, representing 81.38 per cent.

  Refrigerators
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what advice she will give to councils in setting their budget for 2002–03 in advance of the Government deciding how much assistance will be given for the storage of refrigerators; [33602]

  (2) whether she intends to make up shortfalls between individual councils' expenditure on the storage of refrigerators and the grant given for that purpose to each council for the period December 2001 to March 2002; [33603]

  (3) when she expects to announce the level of assistance to councils for the storage of refrigerators for the financial year 2002–03. [33604]

  Mr. Meacher
  £6 million was added to the provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 to cover the costs of implementing the ozone depleting substances regulation relating to the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002.

  We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action, including guidance to local authorities, is required for 2002–03.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the target time is for a response from her Department to a farmer's claim for compensation. [30975]

  Mr. Morley
  We aim to pay farmers compensation for livestock slaughtered for FMD control within three weeks of receipt of correct documents. At the peak of the outbreak this aim was not met due to the volume of claims being received at the same time.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the reports produced by the cattle plague commissioners following the outbreak of cattle plague in the 1870s were consulted by officials from her Department and MAFF the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease; and if she will make a statement. [31455]

  Mr. Morley
  The veterinary and scientific advice that underpins the Government's disease control policies has evolved over many years. While no particular reference has been made during the current outbreak of foot and
  901W
  mouth disease to the recommendations made in the cattle plague reports, many of them are still relevant today and were implemented last year.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy on public access to(a) the Disease Control System Database and (b) the Veterinary Laboratory Agency Foot and Mouth Disease Care Database. [31218]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Data Protection Act 1998, any individual, on request, may have access to their personal records held on either the Disease Control System Database and/or the Veterinary Laboratory Agency Foot and Mouth Disease Care database. General public access is not permitted to personal records.

  Animal Movement Restrictions
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether all the passports of offspring under restriction on 21 January have been collected; what steps have been taken to prevent any more offspring being moved while under restriction; and when she expects the backlog of offspring under the cull to be slaughtered. [34085]

  Alun Michael
  There were 659 offspring of BSE infected or suspect cattle in Great Britain under restriction on 21 January 2002 with 44 passports outstanding. But all outstanding passports have now been collected.

  Officials wrote on 18 January to all owners of offspring under restriction reminding them that their cattle must not be moved without permission. Farm visits to identify offspring, issue restriction notices and remove passports are again taking place.

  I expect that the additional backlog of cases due to foot and mouth disease will have been cleared by 1 April 2002.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact of incorporating the ECHR in the UK domestic judicial system. [32054]

  Mr. Wills
  We keep the impact of the Human Rights Act on the judicial system under continuous review. An analysis of its impact on the workload of the courts is produced quarterly, and is placed on the human rights part of our website. A breakdown of the cases in which the Human Rights Act has been raised and their outcome is also on the site.

  There has been no significant increase in either the length of cases or the number of cases awaiting hearing, attributable to the Human Rights Act, since 2 October 2000.

  Legal Services Commission
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the budget 902W
  for the Legal Services Commission in the current financial year is; and what is her forecast for each of the next two years. [32045]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Service's Commission's budget in the current financial year is £70.350 million, which is the baseline being rolled over into the next two years of the SR 2000 Spending Review period. The requirement for 2003–04 onwards will be under consideration in the SR 2002 Spending Review.

  Data Protection
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff employed on data protection are employed outside London; and in which locations. [32573]

  Mr. Wills
  In respect of the Lord Chancellor's Department, none. Responsibility for administering and enforcing the Data Protection Act 1998 lies with the Information Commissioner, who carries out these responsibilities independently of Government, but is sponsored by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I understand that the Commissioner currently employs 169 staff on data protection matters at her offices in Wilmslow, Cheshire.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is being done to protect businesses from companies which use threatening and confusing letters to demand excessive amounts of money in return for data protection registration. [32474]

  Mr. Wills
  The Information Commissioner, who carries out her responsibilities independently of Government, has a duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 to disseminate information about the operation of the Act. The commissioner launched a public information campaign on 17 January 2002 to alert organisations to the fact that while they may need to be on the register of data controllers, they should not he misled by businesses who have no statutory powers to maintain the register. Notices were placed in a number of national newspapers and the commissioner has set up a dedicated website at www.doineedtonotify.co.uk to help organisations establish whether they need to notify. She has also made available a self-assessment guide which can be obtained by phoning 0870 9027 522.

  I understand that the commissioner is prepared to take legal action against the companies concerned wherever possible and appropriate and that she is liaising closely with the Office of Fair Trading, trading standards authorities and the police on the matter.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the regulatory burdens imposed by data protection legislation. [32076]

  Mr. Wills
  Since the Lord Chancellor's Department assumed responsibility for data protection issues in June 2001, I have received representations about the level of fees chargeable for subject access under the Data Protection Act 1998, in particular with regard to manually held health records. The issue here is to strike a balance between ensuring that cost is not a barrier to individuals requesting access to their health records and allowing the NHS to recoup costs incurred in servicing requests, so that essential resources are not diverted from patient care.
  903W
  The Government are committed to continuing discussion with key interest groups and to working closely with the information commissioner with the aim of achieving a long-term solution.

  I have also received representations about the effect upon small businesses of the Act's notification requirements, including the annual fee of £35, and of the commissioner's forthcoming employment practices data protection code. We do not consider the level of fee to be an undue regulatory burden, although it will be kept under review. We are carefully considering the other representations in consultation with the commissioner.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31792]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has a wide range of security measures in place to deter and detect theft and fraud. These include physical security standards for all departmental buildings, personnel security procedures and arrangements to safeguard valuable departmental assets. The security of buildings is reviewed on a periodic basis and security arrangements in general are reviewed in the light of any emerging threats or serious incidents. The Department's programme to achieve compliance with BS7799, the British Standard for Information Security Management, will quality assure existing practices and introduce improvements where these are found to be necessary. Measures include more extensive use of risk assessment, security education and awareness for staff and reviews of physical security arrangements.

  The Department also maintains sound systems of internal control, which include controls to prevent and deter fraud. These systems are kept under review and are subject to regular audit coverage. All incidents of suspected or detected fraud are subject to rigorous investigation and appropriate action is taken against those found guilty of wrongdoing. Where fraud occurs, in addition to the investigation of the particular incident consideration is also given to whether controls need to be improved to prevent any further re-occurrence. The Department maintains an effective capability to investigate incidents of fraud. This includes a cadre of trained staff.

  The Department has anti-fraud policies, together with policies on confidential reporting (whistleblowing), staff conduct and disciplinary procedures. These are communicated to all staff.

  Land Registry
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints he has received about the accuracy of the Land Registry in the last 12 months. [32049]

  Mr. Wills
  During the calendar year 2001, the Land Registry received 368 complaints relating to errors and incorrect information being supplied.
  904W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff from the Land Registry are employed outside London; and in which locations. [32574]

  Mr. Wills
  Currently there are 7,623 staff employed by the Land Registry outside central London. The breakdown by location is as follows:

  Number

  Birkenhead

  510

  Coventry

  302

  Croydon

  213

  Durham

  678

  Gloucester

  423

  Harrow

  257

  Hull

  291

  Lytham

  502

  Leicester

  286

  Nottingham

  633

  Peterborough

  402

  Plymouth

  757

  Portsmouth

  213

  Stevenage

  387

  Swansea

  618

  Telford

  330

  Tunbridge Wells

  275

  Weymouth

  389

  York

  157

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on reform of the Land Registry. [32048]

  Mr. Wills
  Last year, I received the report of the Quinquennial Review of the Land Registry's status and business operations. This report was published in June 2001 and is available on the Land Registry's website www.landreg.gov.uk.

  Ministers have accepted the independent reviewer's recommendation that the Land Registry should continue to operate as a separate Government Department and executive agency with trading fund status.

  On 12 December 2001, Official Report, column 915W, I announced that the Government had approved an interdepartmental programme of work in response to the report of the Quinquennial Review. Recommendations in the report which relate to the business processes of the Land Registry are being taken forward under the framework of a 10-year strategic business plan which, subject to ministerial approval, will be published in the spring.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what functions the Public Guardianship Office performs; and what her estimate is of its running costs. [32055]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The PGO provides an integrated service for its clients, safeguarding their financial interests while avoiding state intervention. In protecting their financial interests, the PGO works with others to meet the clients' broader social needs. The functions of the PGO are to protect and promote the interests of its clients by overseeing and supporting the activities of receivers
  905W
  appointed by the Court of Protection to manage their financial affairs; to manage the financial affairs of people whom the Court of Protection adjudges mentally incapable of doing so for themselves, where there is no one else willing or suitable to act as receiver, and to carry out the administrative functions arising from the Court of Protection's jurisdiction under the Enduring Power of Attorney Act 1985.

  The current estimated running costs of the PGO are £21,790,000.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets she has set for reply to(a) letters from hon. Members and (b) letters from members of the public to the Public Guardianship Office. [32684]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office has a key performance measure which applies to letters from hon. Members as well as letters in general from the public. It currently required 85 per cent. of letters to be responded to within 15 days of receipt. In the period 1 April to 30 November 2001 this target was exceeded and 91.9 per cent. of letters received a response before the target date.

  However, it is very unfortunate that the Public Guardianship Office mislaid my hon. Friend's letter dated 26 November and as a result a response was sent well outside of this target. The PGO has apologised for this unacceptable delay.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many properties the Public Guardianship Office controls on behalf of people for whom they take responsibility. [32685]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office (PGO) acts as receiver for clients where there is no other suitable person available to act or where for other reasons the court of protection considers it appropriate that there should be an independent receiver. The PGO acts as receiver to 110 clients who own property. Monitoring, guidance and advisory activities are carried out by the protection division of the PGO to ensure that there is adequate supervision of private receivers by means of issuing authorities and directions. 2,863 protection division clients own property.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people are under the protection of the Public Guardianship Office. [32400]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are approximately 1,000 clients under the direct receivership of the PGO and a further 20,000 clients within the protection division of the PGO. In addition the PGO performs a registration service for enduring powers of attorney (EPA): approximately 12,000 EPAs are registered annually.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what official foreign visits officials from the Public Guardianship Office have been made since it was established; at what cost; and for what purpose. [32401]
  906W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Nicholas Smedley, then Acting Chief Executive of the PGO, accompanied Denzil Lush, Master of the Court Protection, to the Biennial Conference of the Canadian Public Trustees and Guardians, which was held in Nova Scotia, Canada on 27–31 May 2001. The purpose of the visit was to build on existing relations, gather information, keep abreast of international legislation and enable the PGO to promote its radical programme of change. Both Mr. Smedley and Master Lush presented papers to the conference. The total cost of the visit was £4,008.56.

  In September 2001, Julie Burlinson, (MERIS Project Manager) Chris Barnwell (Court Manager) and Neil Ross (Account Manager) visited Reykjavik, Iceland. The purpose of this visit was to conduct an evaluation of one of the short-listed suppliers for MERIS. MERIS (Mental Health Renaissance Information System) is the project which will provide an IS system to support the core functions of the PGO. The total cost of this visit was £2,095.50.

  Website
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements he has in place for monitoring and updating his Department's website. [32404]

  Mr. Wills
  The LCD website www.lcd.gov.uk is monitored daily by its content editor and updated as required by the Department's technical web manager.

  Law Commission
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Law Commission bills have been introduced but failed to gain Royal Assent since 1979. [32166]

  Mr. Wills
  As far as can be ascertained within the time available, since 1979 three Law Commission Bills have been introduced but have not received Royal Assent. All three Bills were however enacted in subsequent parliamentary sessions. This does not include any Law Commission Consolidation Bills that may have been introduced but did not receive Royal Assent, as this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the recommendations of the Law Commission that have been rejected by the Government since 1979. [32165]

  Mr. Wills
  The list of Law Commission reports since 1979 that have been wholly rejected by the Government, that can be ascertained in the time available, is set out in the table. The list does not include reports that were accepted only in part. A list of individual recommendations that have been rejected could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  907W

  Report number/date

  Title

  96–9 November 1979

  Criminal Law: Offences Relating to Interference with the Course of Justice

  104–28 October 1980

  Insurance Law: Non-Disclosure and Breach of Warranty

  110–29 October 1981

  Breach of Confidence

  121–19 July 1983

  Law of Contract: Pecuniary Restitution on Breach of Contract

  127–26 January 1983

  Transfer of Land: The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants

  145–5 July 1985

  Criminal Law: Offences Against Religion and Public Worship

  149–25 September 1985

  Criminal Law: Report on Criminal Libel

  152–20 November 1985

  Property Law: Liability for Chancel Repairs

  168–3 September 1987

  Private International Law: The Law of Domicile

  175–8 December 1988

  Family Law: Matrimonial Property

  178–20 April 1989

  Landlord and Tenant Law: Compensation for Tenants' Improvements

  204–14 November 1991

  Transfer of Land: Land Mortgages

  219–7 December 1993

  Contributory Negligence as a Defence in Contract

  236–20 December 1995

  Fiduciary Duties and Regulatory Rules

  City Status (Golden Jubilee)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the successful applicants for city status in celebration of Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee will be announced. [32584]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor hopes to announce the results of the competition by the end of march.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32007]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 of £2,754,934,000 to be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions is 9 per cent.

  This figure excludes expenditure on judicial salary costs which fall to the Department.

  Departmental Leave Entitlements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last four years. [31745]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The annual leave entitlements for staff below the senior civil service in LCD and its agencies is as follows:

  LCD Headquarters (1998–99 to

  Pay Bands A-E (AA to SEO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year's service; 30 days after 10 years' service

  Pay Bands F-G (Grades 7 and 6)—25 days on entry; 30 days after 10 years

  The Public Guardianship Office (1998–99 to date)

  Pay Ranges 1–4 (AA to EO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 30 days after 10 years

  Pay Ranges 5–8 (HEO to Grade)6–25 days on entry; 30 days after 10 years

  The Court Service
  908W
  1998–99

  Spans 1–4 (AA to EO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 27 days after 10 years; and 30 days after 20 years

  Spans 5–6 (HEO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 27 days after 10 years; and 30 days after 15 years

  Spans 7–9 (SEO to Grade 6)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 30 days after 10 years

  1999/2000

  Spans 1–4 (AA to EO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year: 28 days after 10 years' service; and 30 days after 20 years

  Spans 5–6 (HEO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after on 28 days after 10 years; and 30 days after 15 years

  Spans 7–9 (SEO to Grade 6)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 30 days after 10 years

  2000–1

  Spans 1–4 (AA to EO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 29 days after 20 years; and 30 days after 20 years

  Spans 5ߝ6 (HEO)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 29 days after 10 years; and 30 days after 15 years

  Spans 7–9 (SEO to Grade 6)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year; 30 days after 10 years

  2001–02

  Spans 1–9 (AA to Grade 6)—22 days on entry; 25 days after one year, 30 days after 10 years

  (b) The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days and has been so for the last four years.

  Court Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons are employed in the Court Service. [31864]

  Mr. Wills
  There are 11,087 employees in England and Wales.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid is being provided by the United Kingdom Government to prisoners in Afghanistan. [33607]
  909W
  Clare Short
  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), acting under its mandate provided by the Geneva Conventions, is responsible for assisting war detainees in Afghanistan. ICRC delegates visit detainees, register them and, with the consent of the detaining authority, offer psychological support and extra help to make their conditions of detention more acceptable, such as exchanging correspondence with families. Since November 2001, the ICRC has registered almost 5,000 detainees, in some 40 places of detention.

  My Department has so far provided £3 million to the ICRC in Afghanistan in response to the current crisis.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugee camps have been set up in Afghanistan; and what estimate she has made of the total number likely to be required. [32746]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations estimates that almost 1.2 million Afghans are displaced inside Afghanistan, primarily due to conflict and drought, with the north and west of the country accounting for over 60 per cent. of the total displaced. Significant numbers do not reside in camps, but are hosted by already vulnerable communities. The United Nations currently lists over 900 centres where significant numbers of internally displaced people (IDPs) have gathered, both in organised camps and among host communities.

  International organisations are helping to support the return of IDPs to their homes. Nevertheless significant numbers remain displaced. The largest organised camps are at Maslakh in Herat, Spin Boldak near the Pakistani border, and in Mazar-i-Sharif city. The International Organisation for Migration is currently re-registering the estimated 200,000 population of Maslakh camp and opening a new camp in Herat to accommodate new arrivals. We are not aware of requirements for further new camps in Afghanistan.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many international troops are currently deployed to protect aid convoys in Afghanistan. [32745]

  Clare Short
  The responsibility for establishing and maintaining security across Afghanistan lies with the Afghan Interim Administration. The role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is to help the Afghan Interim Administration provide security and stability only in and around Kabul; it is not involved in providing security for aid convoys.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made about the amount of aid required in Afghanistan; and how much has been delivered. [32743]

  Clare Short
  In late September last year, the UN launched an inter-agency donor alert for $584 million (£413 million) to cover the humanitarian needs of Afghans over the winter months from October 2001 to March 2002. This was subsequently revised to $657 million (£464 million). Latest UN figures indicate that donors have contributed almost $583 million (£412 million) towards that appeal. My Department has contributed £60 million since last September.
  910W
  Based on a preliminary needs assessment, the UN Secretary General announced at the Tokyo conference on Afghan reconstruction last month that $10 billion (£7.1 billion) will be needed over the next five years to cover the costs of recovery, reconstruction and on-going humanitarian needs in Afghanistan. Of this some ․1.3 billion (£0.9 billion) is needed in 2002 to cover immediate needs. Overall, donors have pledged $4.5 billion (£3.2 billion) over the next five years; ․1.8 billion (£1.3 billion) of which is for commitments over this next year. The Department for International Development has committed £200 million over the next five years for both reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. This pledge is in addition to the significant sums that DFID contributes to the World Bank, European Union and Asian Development banks who will also be channelling funds into Afghanistan over coming years. DFID's share of the European Union pledge alone will be 20 per cent.

  My Department has a well-earned reputation for rapid and flexible disbursement of funds. We will continue our efforts to turn pledges quickly into cash, and will encourage our counterparts in the international community to do likewise. Timely disbursement of support is critical if we are to continue to meet immediate and longer-term needs in Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the programmes funded by the UK Government which are targeted to support women's needs and interests in Afghanistan. [30423]

  Clare Short
  We strongly support the common programming approach under the United Nations-led Strategic Framework for Afghanistan, which is intended to provide a principled, co-ordinated and coherent approach to programming. One of its key themes is the protection and advancement of human rights, with particular emphasis on women's empowerment.

  We recognise the need to build the capacity of Afghanistan's women to enable them to take full part in the reconstruction of their society, including the new Interim Administration, and to ensure that legal, constitutional and other provisions are not discriminatory against women. Our funding for support of Afghan women during the recovery and reconstruction of Afghanistan is being channelled through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations who will work closely with the Interim Administration and who have expressed a commitment to involving Afghan women in the design and implementation of their strategies and programmes.

  To date this includes an allocation of ․1 million to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) for a programme to support Afghan women's leadership through awareness raising, capacity building and gender mainstreaming; as well as local level, quick impact recovery projects supporting women. We are also in discussion with the Ministry for Women on how we can provide other support to its activities.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department plans to give to micro-credit schemes for women in Afghanistan. [30425]
  911W
  Clare Short
  As recovery and reconstruction activities begin in Afghanistan, the programmes that we support will be carefully designed and monitored to ensure that women and girls benefit. Women are both often the poorest members of communities, and the best organisers. We are therefore identifying how we can support women's livelihoods. For example, we are currently funding a women's income generation project implemented by Ockenden International in western Afghanistan.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people in her Department worked on Afghanistan in(a) 1999, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) January 2002; and on what tasks and in which policy areas they were deployed. [33761]

  Clare Short
  Accurate figures are difficult to provide, as the number of staff in my Department working on Afghanistan over the years has varied according to the situation. However, within my Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD), a London-based desk officer has dealt with Afghanistan, supported by a range of professional advisers as required. Since last September, a team of four people has been working full-time on the Afghanistan crisis supplemented by technical and project administrative support in the region.

  Since the events of September last year, my Afghanistan team has been managing a £60 million programme, the objectives of which are to: help the process of stabilisation by supporting the peacemaking efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary General and the establishment of the Afghan Interim Administration; help kick-start the rehabilitation and recovery effort; help meet immediate life-saving needs within Afghanistan especially those over the remaining winter months; support refugee needs in neighbouring countries and assist with the resettlement of returnees and IDPs; assist with the promotion and protection of human rights, including the provision of objective information; and encourage forward planning for Afghanistan's post-conflict recovery.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in remote areas of Afghanistan. [32744]

  Clare Short
  Thanks to the efforts of the UN-led humanitarian system, and with the support of the international community, a potential humanitarian catastrophe has been averted in Afghanistan. However, there are some remote areas of Afghanistan (especially in the west) where the humanitarian situation remains serious because of the drought. Worsening weather conditions in the north and north-east are making food deliveries increasingly difficult. The precarious security situation in some parts of Afghanistan continues to restrict access for humanitarian agencies. As a result there are pockets of unmet needs where vulnerable people cannot be reached. WFP and other humanitarian agencies are continuing to do their best to deliver life-saving assistance to those in need.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much food aid has been deployed in Afghanistan since 11 September 2001 utilising UK Government resources. [32540]
  912W
  Clare Short
  The lead agency for the provision of emergency food aid is the UN World Food Programme (WFP). In October 2001, WFP appealed for ․257 million (approximately £185 million) to feed 7.5 million people for six months. They estimated that almost 500,000 metric tonnes of food (mainly wheat) would be required for this period.

  We have contributed £6 million towards WFP's operations inside Afghanistan—for both direct procurement and transportation of food, and for logistical support to help speed up the movement of food aid into the country. We have also supported a number of agencies—the UN, Red Cross and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) —for supplementary feeding and secondary distribution of food inside Afghanistan.

  DFID Office (Kabul)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the personnel appointed to her Department's Office in Kabul by(a) rank and (b) gender. [30429]

  Clare Short
  The DFID Kabul office consists of a Head of Office (male), two humanitarian advisers (one male, one female), one administrator (female), and 20 Afghan support staff (19 male, one female).

  Central Africa
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help the Government are giving to(a) the people of Goma and (b) the Governments of Congo and Rwanda. [30322]

  Clare Short
  During the present financial year we have committed over £10 million to meet the most urgent humanitarian needs in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as well as providing practical and political support for the peace process and Inter-Congolese Dialogue. This support is channelled through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Some £2 million of this has been provided in response to the needs of the people of Goma and the surrounding area in the wake of the Nyiragongo volcanic eruption. We are funding the UN, the British Red Cross Society and a number of other NGOs to provide emergency relief goods; water, sanitation and medical services support; and co-ordination of the overall relief response.

  DFID is the leading bilateral donor in Rwanda, providing £30 million in development assistance this financial year. We are committed to help Rwanda meet the International Development Targets (IDTs) within a sustainable economic and social framework that facilitates peace and security, reconciliation, economic growth and inclusive government.

  Fairtrade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in Fairtrade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33552]

  Clare Short
  My Department is providing £120,000 to the Fairtrade Foundation over three years (2001–03) in support of its efforts to target new groups through its
  913W
  annual Fairtrade Fortnight campaigns. In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be attending the launch of this year's campaign on 4 March 2002.

  Global Health Fund
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further funds her Department will direct towards the Global Health Fund and from which part of her Department's budget. [32116]

  Clare Short
  The UK was one of the first donors to make a pledge to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. DFID has committed £200 million over five years from its budget. As the fund gets up and running, we will closely monitor its effectiveness and the value it adds to the international effort against the three diseases, and review our contributions accordingly.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is undertaking to ensure the Global Health Fund meets its pledge to leverage additional financial resources. [32115]

  Clare Short
  The UK and others have worked hard to ensure that one of the criteria for assessing applications to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria (GFATM) will be the level of domestic Government, public sector and civil society commitment (both financial and political) to fighting the three diseases. This will be a strong in-built incentive for increased domestic health spending.

  The UK has also made clear that for the fund to realise its full potential, donors will need to increase spending on health through bilateral and multilateral channels in tandem with their fund contributions, not least to ensure that health systems are able to deliver the drugs and commodities the fund will finance. The UK has committed over £1 billion since 1997 to such health systems strengthening.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress was made at the first board meeting of the Global Health Fund in Geneva; and if she will make a statement. [32112]

  Clare Short
  The first board meeting of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria took place on 28–29 January. The fund was legally established as a foundation in Switzerland. The board approved a call for proposals and finalised a set of guidelines for their submission, which are designed to help potential recipient country partnerships apply for funding. The guidelines also explain the proposal review process. The fund is therefore on target to make its first decisions on disbursing resources to countries at the second board meeting, due to take place in the week beginning 22 April.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources are available to the Great Lakes region through the Africa conflict prevention pool. [32276]

  Clare Short
  Resolving the conflict in the Great Lakes region is a priority for the UK Government. In the current financial year 2001–02, £3.6 million has been allocated to support programmes in the Great Lakes region through 914W
  the Africa pool. In addition to this, the UK contribution to United Nations peacekeeping in the region is forecast to be £27.3 million.

  In addition, DFID also contributes indirectly to conflict prevention through governance and humanitarian work.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list her Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32793]

  Clare Short
  The Department's spend by month since 1997–98 is:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  April

  70

  49

  159

  76

  177

  May

  66

  63

  72

  79

  86

  June

  50

  152

  122

  118

  200

  July

  186

  163

  80

  103

  139

  August

  71

  112

  112

  149

  105

  September

  61

  121

  158

  230

  170

  October

  140

  117

  101

  111

  195

  November

  126

  152

  119

  117

  157

  December

  133

  145

  161

  518

  361

  January

  64

  118

  141

  142

  71

  February

  177

  116

  163

  146

  —

  March1

  438

  462

  611

  396

  —

  1 March expenditure includes moneys advanced earlier in the year and brought to account during April and May.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest £ million.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available [33200]

  Clare Short
  No staff have been seconded between DFID and these companies since 1999.

  Tanzania
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) the Ministry of Defence and (c) the Foreign Office concerning the advice given to the World Bank by the International Civil Aviation Organisation on 8 November on the Tanzanian air traffic control system. [32904]

  Clare Short
  When I received a copy of the letter of 8 November from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to the World Bank, I sent copies to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. I have since had discussions and correspondence with these Departments on the content of the ICAO letter.

  The Government of Tanzania are working with the ICAO during their follow-up visit to Tanzania this week, to address the issues of technical applicability and value for money of the proposed air traffic control system for Tanzania.
  915W
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place a copy of the letter dated 8 November 2001 from the International Civil Aviation Organisation to the World Bank concerning the Tanzanian air traffic control radar project in the Library. [32226]

  Clare Short
  I will place in the Library of the House a copy of the letter of 8 November 2001 from the International Civil Aviation Organisation to the World bank regarding the proposed air traffic control system for Tanzania.

  Zambia
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to divert resources into free primary education in Zambia to assist poor parents with the cost of schooling. [31672]

  Clare Short
  We are participating in the Basic Education Sub-Sector Investment Programme (BESSIP) launched in mid-1999. Its main targets are to ensure that all children of school-going age have access to primary education in 2005, and to reduce the costs to parents.

  The Ministry of Education is developing this experience with our support into a five-year sector-wide strategic plan, based on Zambia's poverty reduction strategy. It is intended that the plan will be co-financed by the Zambian Government in partnership with the private sector, churches, civil society and donors. Education is a priority use of additional funds released through debt relief under HIPC.

  Ghana
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made on the education fees charged to rural families in Ghana. [31668]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to the principle that primary education should be free. We are supporting the Government of Ghana's policy to deliver all Ghanaian children free, good quality basic education by 2005 through our education sector support programme. This amounts to £50 million over five years and helps to help achieve improved primary education outcomes through working in partnership with the Ministry of Education and other donors. Our assistance is also closely aligned with the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy, which includes a commitment to enforce the regulations on illegal school fees in primary schools.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional security measures are planned by her Department to deter and detect theft and fraud. [31788]

  Clare Short
  We are constantly monitoring the adequacy and effectiveness of our security arrangements. As part of the refurbishment of my Department's new building in London, we have installed new access control equipment, including security pillars and card readers which operate on the presentation of a valid security pass.
  916W
  Asset-control tagging of valuable and attractive DFID equipment has also been introduced. We propose to extend these systems to our other UK buildings.

  The Internal Audit Department are due to review internal guidance for handling fraud and study individual cases to detect systems weaknesses and identify areas for improvement. Our corporate governance procedures require heads of department to confirm that they have identified all instances of fraud in their area of responsibility and have taken appropriate action.

  Overseas Service Aid Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what figures are held on the number of people recruited to the Overseas Service Aid scheme who had children born overseas while they served on this scheme; and how many people hold British citizenship by descent as a result of being born abroad while their parents were serving on this scheme. [30330]

  Clare Short
  The Department does not maintain these figures on the Overseas Service Aid Scheme which has been run down over a number of years.

  It is highly unlikely that the information on British citizenship by descent was ever held in any systematic way. Any attempt to determine the figures, therefore, could only be at disproportionate cost to the Department.

HEALTH

  Food Standards Agency
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Food Standards Agency annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2001 will be published. [34117]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Food Standards Agency's annual report and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2001, was laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House. A version in Welsh as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993 is in preparation and will be published shortly.

  Young Mothers
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were born to women under the age of 18 years, per year, between 1990 and 2001(a) in the UK and (b) in Bassetlaw. [33510]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to John Mann, dated 5 February 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on how many children were born per year since 1990, to women under the age of 18 years in the UK and in Bassetlaw. (33510)
  Figures for 1990 to 2000 are given in the table below. Data for 2001 are not yet available.
  917W

  Live births to women under the age of 18 years, 1990–2000

  (a) UK1

  (b) Bassetlaw2

  1990

  17,996

  34

  1991

  17,215

  37

  1992

  16,141

  26

  1993

  15,806

  22

  1994

  14,648

  35

  1995

  15,401

  24

  1996

  17,698

  42

  1997

  18,213

  53

  1998

  18,063

  36

  1999

  17,200

  30

  2000

  16,206

  31

  1 Includes births registered in England. Wales and Scotland to non-residents of the country in which the birth was registered. Births to non-resident mothers in Northern Ireland are excluded from these figures.

  2 To women resident in Bassetlaw.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target of efficiency and other value for money gains in the NHS equivalent to 3 per cent. per annum of health authority unified allocations. [14902]

  Mr. Hutton
  Allocations to health authorities are based on an overall assessment of the resources required to cover inflationary pressures and deliver national targets. Allocations to health authorities in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 were made net of 3 per cent. efficiency savings. This means that health authorities needed to achieve the efficiency target to fully fund delivery of national targets and inflation.

  A new Public Service Agreement target for value for money was agreed as part of Spending Review 2000:
  The cost of care commissioned from trusts which perform well against indicators of fair access, quality and responsiveness, will become the benchmark for the NHS. Everyone will be expected to reach the level of the best over the next five years, with agreed milestones for 2003—

  The aim of this new target is to ensure that cost-savings are not at the expense of service quality. The year 2001–02 is the first year covered by this new Public Service Agreement target. We will be monitoring progress against this new target as data become available.

  NHS Prescriptions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the fee paid to community pharmacists for dispensing NHS prescriptions. [27866]

  Ms Blears
  Remuneration paid to community pharmacies is intended to reward them for the national health service pharmaceutical services they provide. The total remuneration to be paid for services in any given year is known as the global sum. The global sum is distributed through a system of fees and allowances, some of which relate directly to the number (and type) of prescriptions dispensed, some of which do not. For 2001–02 the global sum for England and Wales is £806.6 million, an increase of 3.7 per cent. over 2000–01.
  918W
  The fees paid to community pharmacies for dispensing NHS prescriptions vary according to the item prescribed. The large majority of prescriptions attract the basic dispensing fee, the current rate for which is 87.4 pence per item.

  Bioaerosols
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect of the inhalation of bioaerosols on human health. [29621]

  Yvette Cooper
  The health effects of bioaerosol inhalation depend upon the type of biological material contained in the aerosol, its pathogenicity and virulence, the quantity inhaled and the susceptibility of the individual who inhales the aerosol. Health effects from the inhalation of a bioaerosol range from none to very serious, often fatal, disease. It is not possible to detail all the potential health effects of bioaerosol inhalation within the scope of this answer, as there are many pathogens that can be transmitted through the bioaerosol route. There are also non-pathogenic bioaerosols that can have adverse health effects varying from mild allergic reactions to acute asthma attacks.

  While the health effects of many specific pathogenic microbial bioaerosols, such as those containing Anthrax spores, Legionella bacteria or Aspergillus fungal spores, are well known, the health response to non-specific diverse bioaerosols is less well understood. For these bioaerosols, such as those produced during harvesting or composting, which contain a mixture of micro-organisms in combination with organic and inorganic particles. The nature of the human response varies greatly and can also change as a result of sensitisation due to repeat exposure to the bioaerosol. For such bioaerosols there has been no detailed study undertaken into the associated health effects.

  Consideration of the health effects of bioaerosols inhalation falls to a number of bodies within us.

  The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) advises Health and Agriculture Ministers and the Health and Safety Commission on the health risks to workers and the public from dangerous pathogens, including bioaerosol risks. The ACDP assesses risks and advises on the containment measures and precautions to be taken to minimise the risk of exposure to dangerous pathogens. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1999 cover occupational exposure to bioaerosols. These place obligations upon employers to prevent, or minimise, the risk of exposure to harmful bioaerosols.

  The Environment Agency are funding a range of research projects to evaluate the wider health effects of bioaerosols such as those that arise from incineration or composting of waste.

  Inhaled bioaerosols containing naturally occurring pathogens can pose a particular threat to patients in hospitals. Specific environmental and general control strategies have been put in place to prevent exposure to this bioaerosol risk in hospitals through National Health Service Estates.
  919W

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) named day written questions and (b) ordinary written questions to his Department tabled before 30 November 2001 have yet to receive a substantive reply; [33708]

  (2) what the tabling date was of the earliest written question to his Department which is still awaiting a substantive reply. [33709]

  Ms Blears
  Our records show that 25 ordinary written questions and 16 named day questions tabled before 30 November 2001 have yet to receive a substantive reply.

  The earliest tabling date was 18 October.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason he has not replied to the written question on stroke research ref. 14028, from the hon. Member for Coventry, South. [32658]

  Jacqui Smith
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 1 February.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) the reasons why he has not replied to question 19322 tabled by the hon. Member for Aylesbury on 26 November 2001 and (b) when he intends to provide a reply. [33710]

  Ms Blears
  I replied to the hon. Member today. I am sorry that the hon. Member did not get an earlier substantive reply; this was due to an administrative error within the Department.

  Out-patient Treatment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in(a) rank and (b) alphabetical order of NHS trust, by NHS region, the (i) proportion and (ii) numbers of patients waiting (A) over 12 and (B) over 18 months or more for out-patient treatment (1) at the latest available date, (2) in March 1997 and (3) in June 1997. [17928]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are only collected on the number of patients waiting over six months for a first out-patient appointment. Beyond this time period, data are not broken down into those patients waiting over 12 or 18 months.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from Leicester University hospitals about the timescale for delivering a diabetes national service framework; and if he will make a statement. [18479]

  Jacqui Smith
  To date, we have received seven letters from local hon. Members enclosing a letter from a consultant at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust about the delayed implementation of the diabetes national service framework.
  920W

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have(a) been tested for digital hearing aids and (b) had them fitted under the NHS in (i) England and (ii) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency. [19058]

  Jacqui Smith
  By the end of December 2001, 19,353 adult patients had been assessed for digital hearing aids and 14,856 adult patients had been fitted by the 20 trusts involved in the pilot project. There are currently no pilot sites in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  I announced on 24 December 2001 that a further £20 million would be made available in 2002–03 so that a further 30 NHS sites can join the modernising hearing aids project during that year. Decisions on which sites will become involved in the project from April will be made shortly.

  Critical Care Beds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many funded critical care beds were closed in(a) each health authority area and (b) England at the latest available date. [19322]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The number of funded critical care beds that were closed in each health authority is not collected.

  The latest published figures showed that there were 3,011 available adult critical care beds in national health service trusts in England at midnight on the 29 November 2001. Details are available along with the results of the census of general and acute beds that was carried out as at midnight on Thursday 29 November 2001.

  Elderly Patients (Emergency Re-admissions)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of emergency readmissions of elderly patients for each quarter of the last five years. [20866]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the rate of emergency re-admission within 28 days for people aged 75 and over.

  Quarter

  Percentage1

  1996–97

  Q1

  6.7

  Q2

  6.6

  Q3

  6.8

  Q4

  7.0

  1997–98

  Q1

  7.2

  Q2

  6.7

  Q3

  8.0

  Q4

  8.2

  1999–2000

  Q1

  7.7

  Q2

  7.3

  Q3

  7.2

  Q4

  7.6

  2000–01

  Q1

  7.4

  Q2

  7.1

  Q3

  7.3

  Q4

  7.7

  921W

  Quarter

  Percentage1

  2001–02

  Q1

  7.3

  Q2

  7.1

  1 Percentage of people aged 75 and over re-admitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge from hospital.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if

  Trust1

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Occupancy rate (percentage)

  2000–01

  Barnet Community Health Care NHS Trust

  207

  187

  90.5

  BHB Community Health NHS Trust

  245

  223

  91.3

  Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust

  732

  621

  84.8

  Camden and Islington Community Health Service NHS Trust

  358

  352

  98.2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health NHS Trust

  567

  543

  95.8

  East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust

  514

  480

  93.4

  Enfield Community Care NHS Trust

  262

  244

  93.1

  Forest Healthcare NHS Trust

  213

  190

  89.0

  Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust

  8

  6

  77.1

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  72

  65

  90.4

  Haringey Healthcare NHS Trust

  240

  235

  98.1

  Harrow and Hillingdon Health Care NHS Trust

  83

  81

  97.7

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  116

  109

  93.9

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  164

  162

  98.8

  Kingston and District Community NHS Trust

  308

  289

  94.0

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  391

  354

  90.7

  Redbridge Health Care NHS Trust

  245

  203

  83.2

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  122

  114

  93.4

  South London and Maudsley NHS Trust

  947

  916

  96.7

  South West London and St. Georges Mental Health NHS Trust

  595

  541

  90.9

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  13

  10

  75.2

  1 Pre-April 2001 trust configurations

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of(a) men and (b) women aged over 65 years have clinical depression; [24540]

  (2) what proportion of (a) men and (b) women aged over 65 years with clinical depression live (i) alone, (ii) alone in private households and (iii) in residential care. [24536]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  It is estimated that around 10–15 per cent. of the population aged 65 and over have depression. More severe states of depression affect about 3–5 per cent. Of order people.

  The recent Office for National Statistics report "Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000" contains information about the prevalence of mental disorders among adults in private households.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK have dementia; and how many of them are(a) over and (b) under 65 years. [24537]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally. The 1998 Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study estimated that around 600,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from dementia, including around 17,000 people under the age of 65.
  922W
  he will inquire of the NHS acute trusts in London in order to ascertain the occupancy rate of beds in acute mental health wards in each London hospital; and if he will make a statement. [22085]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 2001]: The latest data available are for 2000–01 and are shown in the table.

  The data are collected annually at national health service trust level, rather than by individual hospital site.

  "Winning the Generation Game"
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each of the conclusions in section 6.4 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, "Winning the Generation Game",(a) what progress his Department has made and (b) what future plans his Department has for acting on them; and if he will set out against each of the conclusions the targets and deadlines that have been set. [24209]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 335W.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women in England suffer from Alzheimer's disease. [24693]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: This information is not routinely collected. The 1998 Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study estimated that about 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia. Alzheimer's disease causes up to 60 per cent. of cases of dementia.
  923W
  The only available statistical returns are for hospital admissions. The number of admissions in England, by sex, for Alzheimer's disease in 2000–01 is shown in the table.

  Number

  Male

  1,984

  Female

  3,538

  Sex not known

  41

  Total

  5,563

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time taken to answer NHS Direct's telephones(a) at weekends, (b) between 6 pm and 11 pm, (c) between 11 pm and 6 am and (d) during daytime office hours in the last 12 months. [24700]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: It is not currently possible to provide the information on average time taken to answer NHS Direct calls as requested. However, the average time it takes for NHS Direct to answer the telephone is approximately 30 seconds after the confidentiality message finishes.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls NHS Direct received in each of the last six months. [24699]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information on the number of calls to NHS Direct for each of the last six months is shown in the table.

  Month/year

  Total calls

  2001

  June

  401,000

  July

  409,000

  August

  398,000

  September

  369,000

  October

  427,000

  November

  416,000

  December

  511,000

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) by main diagnosis NHS hospitals, England 1995–96 to 2000–01

  S00–S09 Injuries to the head

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  S00 Superficial injury of head

  9,731

  10,829

  11,000

  10,875

  12,293

  11,379

  S0l Open wound of head

  20,180

  23,186

  23,824

  23,668

  27,184

  25,883

  S02 Fracture of skull and facial bones

  29,839

  31,419

  30,265

  27,837

  30,825

  28,318

  S03 Dislocation sprain and strain of joints and ligaments of head

  317

  381

  367

  410

  349

  314

  S04 Injury of cranial nerves

  78

  63

  94

  96

  106

  68

  S05 Injury of eye and orbit

  3,655

  3,503

  3,320

  3,255

  3,591

  3,230

  S06 Intracranial injury

  23,226

  20,036

  16,529

  11,942

  12,790

  11,892

  S07 Crushing injury of head

  30

  16

  11

  19

  16

  5

  S08 Traumatic amputation of part of head

  127

  116

  102

  111

  123

  123

  S09 Other and unspecified injuries of head

  40,912

  42,193

  41,102

  40,163

  43,271

  39,175

  Total

  128,096

  131,742

  126,615

  118,376

  130,548

  120,387

  Note:

  A Finished Consultant Episode (FCE) is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year. Data for 1995–96 to 1997–98 are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data. 1998–99 to 2000–01 data are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.
  924W

  Month/year

  Total calls

  Source:

  NHS Direct sites

  St. John Ambulance Volunteers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in 2001 St. John Ambulance volunteers carried out duties normally the responsibility of London ambulance service personnel. [24308]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: Figures are not held centrally for the number of times the London ambulance service have called upon the individual services of St. John Ambulance.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to increase support and training for head injury survivors. [25453]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: We are keen to help ensure that all disabled people, including those with head injury, are able to play a full part in society. One important way of doing this is by helping people return to work whenever possible. Currently local authorities are taking the lead on Joint Investment Plans on Welfare to Work for disabled people initiative. The idea of these plans is to provide effective and joined up services for disabled people who want to work, to stay in work, or to move closer to the world of work.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to compile up-to-date epidemiological data on the extent and severity of traumatic brain injury. [25454]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 January 2002]: There are no plans to extend our data collection. We already collect data on the number, extent and severity of traumatic brain injury, as shown in the table, which has data for the last five years. Around one million people a year receive a head injury in the United Kingdom, and over 100,000 of those attend hospital.
  925W

  Hospital Management
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to assess the need for franchised management of persistently failing hospitals. [29398]

  Mr. Hutton
  If a national health service body is not performing one or more of its functions adequately or at all, or there are significant failings in the way the trust is being run, the Secretary of State for Health has the powers, under section 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001, to intervene.

  In the case of trusts that have recently received a zero star performance rating they are required to provide an action plan, agreed with the Department, to address the particular areas of performance which they need to improve. Franchise arrangements will be considered only if these trusts fail to make progress against their action plan.

  GPs
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to attract back retired general practitioners to work in the medical profession; and if he will make a statement. [29968]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are committed to increasing general practitioner numbers in line with the NHS Plan target for at least an extra 2,000 by 2004. To deliver this we are, in consultation with the profession and others, exploring and implementing change to make general practice more attractive.

  These changes already include increasing the number of training places, recruiting from overseas, providing additional training and support for new GPs; improving GPs' working lives by reducing bureaucracy and introducing family friendly packages; giving better support by providing better information technology, better buildings and different ways of working; developing flexible career options; and offering cash incentives to new GPs or returning GP retainees. These measures are intended to attract new GPs, to retain those now practising, and to encourage the return of those who are qualified but not currently working in general practice.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he has used in the evaluation of primary care groups in their applications to become primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [29969]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts are established after full and open consultation locally. Each application to establish a PCT is assessed against the nationally published criteria for assessment contained in Health Service Circular 1999/167. Applications must demonstrate:

  The benefits of what will be achieved

  The degree of support for the proposal

  The 'fitness' of the proposed organisation to deliver

  The impact on other organisations.

  926W

  Mobile Phones
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his definition is of other sensitive sites referred to in the Stewart report on "Mobile Phones and Health"; and whether this includes sites directly on top of homes. [31345]

  Ms Blears
  In May 2000, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart, issued a report on "Mobile Phones and Health". This report included a number of recommendations designed to provide more information to people about base stations in their area. It included a recommendation that there should be an independent random on-going audit of all base stations to ensure that exposure guidelines are not exceeded outside the marked exclusion zones and that the base stations comply with their agreed specifications. The group said that particular attention should be paid initially to the auditing of base stations near to schools and other sensitive sites. The group was particularly concerned about schools, as at open meetings held by the group around the country, concern had been expressed about the potential exposure of children in schools and this was seen as a sensitive issue. The group was not specific about other sensitive sites. There was no specific concern about homes directly underneath base stations as the radio signals are generally directed to the horizon and not downwards.

  The IEGMP was also concerned about possible interference caused by the use of mobile phones in hospitals and other sites where the radio frequency radiation could possibly interfere with sensitive equipment. They, therefore, made a recommendation that health authorities/health boards should issue guidance on the use of mobile phones and should ensure that all hospitals comply. This guidance includes the placing of visible warning signs at entrances to buildings to indicate that mobile phones should be switched off. In addition, health care establishments have liaised carefully with mobile phone organisations to ensure that any risk is negligible to patients and staff when considering the location of base stations on their premises.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each NHS(a) region, (b) health authority and (c) trust the mortality rate (i) in hospital and (ii) within 30 days of discharge of people aged 75 and over in each quarter in the last four years, giving (A) the actual number and (B) the proportion of the total of those aged 75 and over admitted in each case. [31876]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]: The information requested is shown in the tables.

  The mortality rate in hospital for patients aged over 75 is only available at national, regional and health authority level. (Table 1—regional rate and table 2—health authority rate).

  The mortality rate within 30 days of discharge for patients aged 75 and over is available only at national level (table 3).
  927W

  Hospital episode statistics: Discharge episodes aged 75 and over with death rates by regional office of treatment: NHS hospital trusts in England 2000–01

  Discharged

  Regional office

  Live

  Death

  Total number discharged

  Death rate (percentage)

  Northern and Yorkshire regional

  247,466

  21,057

  268,523

  7.8

  Trent regional office

  198,438

  17,330

  215,768

  8.0

  West midlands regional office

  185,538

  17,812

  203,350

  8.8

  North-west regional office

  266,002

  22,366

  288,368

  7.8

  Eastern regional office

  201,050

  17,659

  218,709

  8.1

  London regional office

  213,809

  21,605

  235,414

  9.2

  South-east regional office

  278,148

  26,701

  304,849

  8.8

  South-west regional office

  225,356

  18,159

  243,515

  7.5

  Total

  1,815,807

  162,689

  1,978,496

  8.2

  Note:

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Hospital episode statistics: Discharge episodes aged 75 and over with death rates by health authority of treatment, England 2000–01

  Discharged

  Health authority

  Live

  Death

  Total number discharged

  Death rate (percentage)

  QA2

  Hillingdon HA

  5,602

  710

  6,312

  11

  QA3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  17,696

  1,170

  18,866

  6

  QA4

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  6,199

  976

  7,175

  14

  QA5

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  16,522

  1,972

  18,494

  11

  QA6

  Bedfordshire HA

  14,509

  1,296

  15,805

  8

  QA7

  Berkshire HA

  21,828

  2,370

  24,198

  10

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire HA

  16,144

  1,577

  17,721

  9

  QAA

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  11,626

  1,412

  13,038

  11

  QAC

  Bromley HA

  9,755

  881

  10,636

  8

  QAD

  Croydon HA

  7,141

  841

  7,982

  11

  QAE

  East Kent HA

  24,630

  2,526

  27,156

  9

  QAF

  West Kent HA

  27,773

  3,191

  30,964

  10

  QAG

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  10,261

  1,120

  11,381

  10

  QAH

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  20,026

  1,888

  21,914

  9

  QAJ

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  20,732

  2,226

  22,958

  10

  QAK

  East Surrey HA

  210

  18

  228

  8

  QAL

  West Surrey HA

  21,790

  2,156

  23,946

  9

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  31,561

  2,789

  34,350

  8

  QAN

  West Sussex HA

  37,532

  3,412

  40,944

  8

  QAP

  Barking and Havering HA

  13,197

  1,515

  14,712

  10

  QAQ

  Barnet HA

  12,654

  1,438

  14,092

  10

  QAR

  Brent and Harrow HA

  9,329

  722

  10,051

  7

  QAT

  Camden and Islington HAS

  24,016

  1,483

  25,499

  6

  QAV

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  15,234

  1,757

  16,991

  10

  QAW

  East London and The City HA

  13,819

  1,494

  15,313

  10

  QAX

  North Essex HA

  28,385

  3,138

  31,523

  10

  QAY

  South Essex HA

  23,575

  2,426

  26,001

  9

  QC1

  South Lancashire HA

  5,312

  462

  5,774

  8

  QC2

  Liverpool HA

  16,559

  1,140

  17,699

  6

  QC3

  Manchester HA

  29,300

  1,974

  31,274

  6

  QC4

  Morcambe Bay HA

  14,022

  1,287

  15,309

  8

  QC5

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  10,171

  1,041

  11,212

  9

  QC6

  Salford and Trafford HA

  13,526

  1,259

  14,785

  9

  QC7

  Sefton HA

  20,779

  1,776

  22,555

  8

  QC8

  QC8 Stockport HA

  11,801

  1,006

  12,807

  8

  QC9

  West Pennine HA

  16,935

  1,546

  18,481

  8

  QCC

  Northamptonshire HA

  17,419

  1,615

  19,034

  8

  QCE

  Oxfordshire HA

  18,907

  4,659

  20,566

  8

  QCF

  Suffolk HA

  23,106

  2,189

  25,295

  9

  QCG

  Barnsley HA

  8,086

  778

  8,864

  9

  QCH

  North Derbyshire HA

  13,020

  1,105

  14,125

  /

  QCJ

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  20,738

  1,550

  22,288

  7

  QCK

  Doncaster HA

  13,781

  1,071

  14,852

  /

  QCL

  Leicestershire HA

  27,738

  2,383

  30,121

  8

  QCM

  Lincolnshire HA

  21,548

  2,236

  23,784

  9

  QCN

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  17,233

  1,650

  18,883

  9

  QCP

  Nottingham HA

  27,675

  2,450

  30,125

  8

  QCQ

  Rotherham HA

  8,323

  821

  9,144

  9

  QCR

  Sheffield HA

  26,214

  2,130

  28,344

  8

  QCT

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  11,143

  1,127

  12,270

  9

  QCV

  North Cheshire HA

  11,273

  1,034

  12,307

  8

  928W 929W

  Hospital episode statistics: Discharge episodes aged 75 and over with death rates by health authority of treatment, England 2000–01

  Discharged

  Health authority

  Live

  Death

  Total number discharged

  Death rate (percentage)

  QCW

  South Cheshire HA

  20,213

  1,884

  22,097

  9

  QCX

  East Lancashire HA

  18,782

  1,450

  20,232

  7

  QCY

  North West Lancashire HA

  31,735

  1,914

  33,649

  6

  QD1

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  13,281

  1,119

  14,400

  8

  QD2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  23,407

  2,039

  25,446

  8

  QD3

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  19,487

  1,681

  21,168

  8

  QD4

  Isle of Wight HA

  4,179

  549

  4,728

  12

  QD5

  Somerset HA

  18,688

  1,556

  20,244

  8

  QD6

  South and West Devon HA

  28,871

  2,227

  31,098

  7

  QD7

  Wiltshire HA

  17,097

  1,770

  18,867

  9

  QD8

  Avon HA

  47,221

  3,899

  51,120

  8

  QD9

  Birmingham HA

  45,941

  4,288

  50,229

  9

  QD 1

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  19,071

  1,988

  21,059

  9

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  15,380

  1,478

  16,858

  9

  QDD

  Bradford HA

  20,381

  1,563

  21,944

  7

  QDE

  County Durham HA

  17,109

  1,498

  18,607

  8

  QDF

  East Riding HA

  17,181

  1,461

  18,642

  8

  QDG

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  12,451

  1,323

  13,774

  10

  QDH

  Leeds HA

  28,376

  2,284

  30,660

  7

  QDK

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  24,365

  1,430

  25,795

  6

  QDK

  North Cumbria HA

  11,960

  1,086

  13,046

  8

  QDL

  South Humber HA

  14,082

  1,156

  15,238

  8

  QDM

  Northumberland HA

  17,031

  1,638

  18,669

  9

  QDN

  Sunderland HA

  13,949

  1,192

  15,141

  8

  QDP

  Tees HA

  22,906

  1,916

  24,822

  8

  QDQ

  Wakefield HA

  12,655

  1,111

  13,766

  8

  QDR

  North Yorkshire HA

  29,737

  2,762

  32,499

  8

  QDT

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  19,365

  1,793

  21,158

  8

  QDV

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  19,636

  1,506

  21,142

  7

  QDW

  Dorset HA

  44,830

  3,358

  48,188

  7

  QDX

  North and East Devon HA

  26,547

  1,888

  28,435

  7

  QDY

  Gloucestershire HA

  22,466

  1,955

  24,421

  8

  QEA

  Coventry HA

  13,579

  1,440

  15,019

  10

  QEC

  Dudley HA

  10,272

  1,115

  11,387

  10

  QED

  Herefordshire HA

  7,598

  596

  8,194

  7

  QEE

  Sandwell HA

  7,852

  856

  8,438

  10

  QEF

  Shropshire HA

  16,038

  1,242

  17,280

  7

  QEG

  Solihull HA

  155

  12

  167

  7

  QEH

  North Staffordshire HA

  20,646

  1,710

  22,356

  8

  QEJ

  South Staffordshire HA

  15,019

  1,411

  16,430

  9

  QEK

  Walsall HA

  6,123

  989

  7,112

  14

  QEL

  Warwickshire HA

  14,326

  1,446

  15,772

  9

  QEM

  Wolverhampton HA

  11,986

  1,040

  13,026

  8

  QEN

  Worcestershire HA

  16,273

  1,667

  17,940

  9

  QEP

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  14,465

  1,393

  15,858

  9

  QEQ

  West Hertfordshire HA

  14,095

  1,254

  15,349

  8

  QER

  Cambridge HA

  27,959

  2,384

  30,343

  8

  QET

  Norfolk HA

  54,956

  3,579

  58,535

  6

  Total

  1,815,807

  162,689

  1,978,496

  8

  Note:

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Deaths in hospital within 30 days of surgery

  England

  Number of patients1 with operations

  Number of deaths

  Percentage Who died

  Emergency admissions:

  1997–98

  120,500

  12,400

  10.26

  1998–99

  136,000

  14,600

  10.71

  Non-emergency admissions:

  1997–98

  204,200

  2,800

  1.38

  1998–99

  224,400

  3,200

  1.41

  1 Aged 75 and over

  Notes:

  1. Rounded to the nearest 100.
  930W
  2. "Surgery" includes many medical interventions and is consistent with definitions used in Clinical Indicators.

  Source:

  NHS Performance Indicators, Department of Health, July 2000, ad hoc analysis

  Lister Hospital
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the accident and emergency department at the Lister hospital. [32298]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The Hertfordshire and south Bedfordshire acute services review aims to explore the best way to provide local

  931W
  people with much better acute services and to meet NHS plan targets for modernising and improving patient services over the next 10 years.

  The proposals have not progressed as far as to put forward specific recommendations for accident and emergency departments and the review will continue with ongoing work.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions he has given to health authorities on the distribution of funding to(a) primary care groups and (b) primary care trusts for 2002–03; and what arrangements he is putting in place for the funding of primary care trusts from 2003 onwards. [30617]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Circular 1998/171 set out the principles for health authorities to follow in setting primary care group and primary care trust allocations. For 2002–03 these principles continue to `pply but are supplemented by additional guidance set out in HSC 2001/34, "Health Authority Revenue Resource Limits 2002–03". Copies of these documents have been placed Library.

  From 2003–04, the intention is that allocations will be made direct to primary care trusts. This is subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament. Allocations will continue to be based on the principle of weighted capitation.
  932W

  Epsom Hospital
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which postcodes are included in the catchment area for Epsom hospital's maternity unit; and how many patients came from each of those postcode areas in the last year for which information is available. [33706]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the year 2000–01 the following information was collected:

  Postcodes within catchment area

  Delivery episodes

  CR5

  20

  KT11

  85

  KT17

  199

  KT18

  171

  KT19

  329

  KT20

  172

  KT21

  107

  KT22

  208

  KT23

  60

  KT4

  103

  SM2

  46

  SM7

  142

  Other postcodes (outside defined catchment)

  249

  Total

  1,891

  Note:

  Postcodes listed fall wholly or partly within the catchment area, which is defined as that area for which Epsom general hospital was the designated district hospital prior to becoming a trust hospital in 1991.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Employment Tribunals Survey
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will place in the Libraries of both Houses those parts of the 1998 survey of employment tribunals for which they have full data sets or robust data, in particular those which relate to the 64 per cent of applications to the employment tribunals which come from employees who have not attempted to resolve matters directly with their employers in the first instance, as cited in the government consultation paper Routes to Resolution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I refer my noble friend to my Answer to his Question of 20th November. As I said then, we plan to publish the full report and data set on the applicant and employer surveys and place them in the House Library later this month, recognising the desire of your Lordships to see them before the Second Reading of the Employment Bill 2001.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am not certain that I quite heard the Minister. Did he say that he was going to publish the documents before Second Reading?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, that is an advance. I remind the Minister that he previously said that that would be done by the Bill's Committee stage. I assume that he has read this important but, we think, totally wrong survey. If he has done so, can he tell me what it actually says and what the question actually is? Was the question answered in exactly the same way by workers and employers? The Minister referred to the figure of 64 per cent, but he has sometimes referred to 62 per cent and once to 37 per cent. That could involve any combination of employers and employees. If we can have that information this afternoon, now that the Minister has read the report, why cannot we read the report today?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we moved the date forward because we wanted the House to have the report before Second Reading. Clearly, the statistic is open to interpretation. For those who have not followed this matter in detail, I should explain the statistic. People were asked whether they had had a
496
meeting before they went to a tribunal. The interpretation turns on those who said that they had no meeting and had had other correspondence or communication to solve the matter. That is clearly a matter of interpretation. That is why it is right to put the data set and the question—and all the questions—in the Library so that everyone can form their own view.
Too much weight has been put on the particular figure. The survey and all the other information that we have makes it clear that employers and employees are not using grievance procedures properly before going to a tribunal. That may be partly because people are not using the procedures and in other cases it is clearly because there are no procedures. We want to make certain that they do so before going to a tribunal.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, the Minister recognises that a number of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, on this and other occasions are extremely germane—if that is not tautologous—to the Employment Bill, which is about to come before this House. Does the Minister accept that it is a problem that the House of Commons did not have the information before the Bill was passed and sent to your Lordships' House? Will he undertake that when we debate that Bill, he will not, in this regard, use the argument that it has already been through the House of Commons?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that I would never do that, and I certainly will not in this case.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister have any more recent figures? Having sat for 20 years or more on an industrial tribunal, I wonder whether what I read in the papers is correct; namely, that there has been a great increase in the number of applications to industrial tribunals since 1998. If so, can he give us recent statistics showing how the Figures compare?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is common ground to everyone that there has been a very substantial increase. Equally, it is clear that there are very good reasons for that, which relate to legislation, changes in the workforce, and so on. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy pointed out when previously we debated the issue, there is an excellent report on t his matter showing how the various social trends have impacted on the rise in applications. I do not think that that alters the fact that not enough people, either previously or currently, are making use of grievance procedures.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any figures are available on the number of applications to tribunals that are concerned with unfair dismissals, in relation to which the use of internal procedures may not be appropriate or even possible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give particular figures on that. Clearly, there is a percentage in relation to which it would be wrong to expect people to use the procedures, because harassment or other issues are involved. The legislation is, of course, drafted very clearly so that such people do not have to use grievance procedures before going to tribunals.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why, just before the TUC conference, the Government dropped their proposal to charge fees for bringing cases to employment tribunals?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is throughout the Bill obviously a question of accessibility. It is absolutely key that accessibility should be given to people to allow them to go to a tribunal. As we shall see when we consider the Bill, we are very concerned about that and in no way want to stop it. At the same time, we want to make certain that grievance procedures are in place and that they are used.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, can my noble friend slip on something a little more transparent? Does he recognise that that is the only statistic from any piece of research, contrary to the previous research by his own department, that indicates that there is a need to take powers, as the Bill will do, to prevent people having access to employment tribunals? Will he tell us now how many of the so-called defaulting 64 per cent—or 62 per cent, or whatever the figure is; he has seen the figures and we have not--made approaches to management other than in the first instance and directly, by telephone, by some other means other than a meeting or through representatives? What are the percentages relating to that category, which is recognised in the background paper that his department produced? What percentage of cases involve matters such as sexual harassment, racial harassment and the like, in relation to which, the research suggests, a direct approach in the first instance for a meeting would have been inappropriate?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, although I believe that it is better to wait for the full report, I can give your Lordships one figure which is absolutely clear. In 37 per cent of cases there was no communication whatever; that is, there was no meeting and no grievance procedure and no contact was made. Under any consideration, that is a substantial figure. We are not trying to stop people going to tribunals. However, we want them to make use of grievance procedures and, more importantly, we want to ensure that grievance procedures are in place. I believe it has been forgotten that that is a key part of the Bill. It is equally true that 12 per cent of workplaces with 10 or more employees have no disciplinary procedure and 10 per cent of workplaces with 10 or more employees have no grievance procedure. I believe that those figures are equally important when considering this issue.

Young People: Summer Activity Programmes
2.43 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements and funding are in place for providing young adults with summer jobs and activities for 2002, especially in areas of social deprivation and community tension.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Connexions service, working with key local partners, offers guidance to young people looking for jobs and other personal development activities during the summer. The Government are committed to providing activity programmes which develop self-esteem and interpersonal skills and promote community cohesion by enabling young people from different backgrounds to work together in structured and purposeful activities. More than £20 million of public funding will be available for activity programmes in the summer of 2002.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and welcome the information that she gave. However, can Her Majesty's Government also apply some of the measures implemented in the United States following the community disturbances there in the 1960s when the public and private sectors organised huge numbers of summer job opportunities for young adults? How will the Government assist the urgent expansion this year of summer programmes for young adults in the UK by agencies, universities, the voluntary sector and industry?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am fully aware of the programmes that were developed in the US in the 1960s and, indeed, of some of those developed in the 1980s. However, some programmes in the United States were later criticised because they were designed primarily to give manual jobs to young people during the summer and did not include the type of interpersonal and other skills development that we would want to see.
Therefore, our focus has been on combining finding activities for young people and developing their skills. As I said, the Connexions service, and the Careers Service where Connexions has not yet rolled out, will provide advice and guidance. We shall be looking to develop summer activities for 16 year-olds. Approximately £13 million will fund about 16,000 young people in 2002. The Home Office summer programmes and the Youth Justice Board programmes will also be running. In addition, Millennium Volunteers, with an annual budget of £15 million, is seeking to sign up 100,000 people by December 2003. The Higher Education Active

499
Community Fund has £27 million to support 14,000 higher education students and will run until August 2004.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what is happening in areas such as Burnley, Bradford and Oldham and whether the community is participating in the framework in devising programmes which are geared in particular at the employment of young people in those areas?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, the purpose of many of those programmes is to enable communities which are most in need to provide such activities. The Bridging the Gap report highlighted that as a critical point in determining the futures of young people. We know that those who drift into economic inactivity at the age of 16 are more likely to be unemployed by the age of 21. That is one of the driving forces in developing those schemes.
Lord Patel of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an empty mind is a dangerous mind and that the root cause of riots in Leeds, Bradford, Oldham and Burnley was unemployment and lack of activity? If so, what method of communication do Her Majesty's Government propose to ensure that the benefit of schemes reaches under-privileged young adults?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the primary method is the use of the Connexions service, which is being set up. Noble Lords will he aware that the service is currently being established in the 47 learning and skills council areas. The service will work with 13 to 19 year-olds, and a prime motivation behind it is to ensure that all such opportunities are related to young people. But, of course, we are also keen that the youth service works with young people, and we are providing an additional £30 million to the Transforming Youth Work Development Fund for work of that kind.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister accept from me, as someone who in the past has worked on housing estates in Southwark, Lambeth and Camden, a warm welcome for the investment that the Government are making in this area? Does she agree that this is a way in which to introduce greater social cohesion? Does she also agree that people at university are encouraged to consider entering teaching, social work and other professions by learning about the conditions of people who perhaps have a very different experience from their own?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for those comments. I believe that it is important that government learn from the experience. For that reason, an expert task force will be brought together. It will include specialists from local areas who have practical experience and are able to work with us to develop the programmes to greater effect.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Baroness is familiar with the findings of the
500
summer schemes which have been in place for younger children. Those schemes show that children approach secondary school with a great deal more confidence and a higher expectation to do well. Can she tell me whether similar findings have emerged from the very innovative schemes that have just started in terms of, for example, take-up of further education and attitudes towards criminal behaviour?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, such evidence is beginning to mount in relation to both the areas to which the noble Baroness referred. The draft evaluation report from the Connexions summer activity scheme said that 75 per cent of the participants agreed that the programme had influenced their plans for the future and that the greatest influence was an encouragement to return to further education. Equally, with regard to the Youth Justice Board "Splash" programme, 102 such programmes took place in the year 2000. They involved 20,000 young people who had come "off the streets", as it were, and participated over the five weeks of the summer. We know that the total crime rate fell by 6 percent against a national average of 3.8 per cent; that criminal damage fell by 14.2 per cent compared with a national rise of 8 per cent; and that domestic burglary fell by 26.6 per cent compared with a national rise of 8 per cent.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether such programmes will be accessible to those with disabilities and special educational needs'? Will children in care be able to take part in the programmes?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always the noble Baroness raises an important point. My understanding is that they will. I shall refer that point back to the department to ensure that that is fully taken on board.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister clarify some of the figures that she has mentioned? First, she spoke of £20 million and then of £30 million for young people. She has also floated the figures of £15 million and £27 million. Can she tell the House how much money is available for this project?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friend behind me to say "Lots". If I have confused the House, I apologise. The figure of £20 million specifically refers to activities that take place in the summer. I gave more blanket figures, as the noble Baroness has, quite rightly, pointed out concerning the different programmes that are under way. The £20 million is certainly committed.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the task force report into the services available in Burnley last June and has she seen the section of that report that was drafted and prepared by the young people on the task force? I commend the report to her. I would appreciate her assuring the House that her officials will consider some of the

501
recommendations put forward by the young people in relation to what they consider is necessary to engage them during summer breaks.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that nothing is more important than the experience of the young people themselves. They know exactly what they would like and they know what is missing. A crucial part of any development is that they should be involved. I shall refer back the comments made by my noble friend.

Economic Growth
2.52 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to sustain economic growth to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forecast as set out in page 3 of the Pre-Budget Report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the frameworks for fiscal and monetary policy, which have been in place since 1997, and the Government's tough decisions in reducing the public debt to a sustainable level have ensured that the United Kingdom has the best possible chance of sustaining healthy economic growth in a climate of global weakness.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, with the reduced growth rate in the last quarter of last year of 0.2 per cent-1.9 per cent on an annual basis—and with the prospects for growth this year being as bleak as they are, how can the Government seriously consider raising taxation, which will depress growth still further? Is there a new wealth-creating agenda, as described by the Chancellor in The Times this morning?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to The Times. I do not know whether he heard the Chancellor speaking on the "Today" programme this morning. We have only the preliminary estimate for GDP growth for 2001, which is 2.4 per cent. That is slightly above the figure expected in the Pre-Budget Report. The report expects growth in 2002 to be between 2 and 2.5 per cent. The premise of the noble Lord's question is not accurate.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, the Minister speaks of a provisional estimate of 2.4 per cent for GDP last year. Is he at all concerned that last year the British economy suffered the steepest fall in manufacturing output since the depth of the recession in 1991, combined with the fastest growth in personal borrowing since the peak of the Lawson boom in 1990?
502
How long can that situation be sustained? Surely consumer credit is far too easy and the squeeze on industry is far too tight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have never denied that there are particular difficulties for manufacturing industry. We are glad to debate that at any time. The estimate of growth for last year is pretty well complete. Our expectation of growth in 2002 is that it will be faster than in any other G7 country. That is not simply a Treasury estimate; it is a view held by the IMF, the OECD and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It is a fairly widely held view.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as the Minister will be aware, an important part of that growth is provided by exports of our manufacturing industry in particular. In that context he will also be aware of the importance of the exchange rate. One of the objectives of Her Majesty's Government is to have a stable and competitive exchange rate. Is it currently stable and competitive?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is indeed the Government's objective to have a stable and competitive pound over the medium term. That does not mean that we have an exchange rate target at any particular period in time; we do not have a particular exchange rate target now. A stable and competitive pound can be achieved only through sound public finances and through low and stable inflation.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, how important does the Minister regard the EU's stability and growth pact in sustaining economic growth as compared with the golden rule?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, our own criteria contribute, and have contributed, successfully over the past five years to the stability of the economy and to the public finances in this country. The stability and growth pact is an additional criterion to which we pay considerable attention.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, Members on the Government Front Bench like to wear their hearts on their sleeves in relation to the National Health Service. They routinely condemn our Benches for heartless cruelty. How, then, did they feel on discovering that, in the five years since they came to power, they have invested less in health and in education than any government in any five-year period since the Second World War?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am more inclined, as I have said previously, to be a "speak your weight" machine rather than to wear my heart on my sleeve. I do not recognise the noble Lord's figures as being accurate. I should be glad to hear them in more detail, but in any case they do not appear to be relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, returning to my noble friend's supplementary question, is the Minister

503
confident that the Chancellor recognises that the world slow-down—not to say recession—would be a great deal worse had it not been for the 10 dollar a barrel fall in the price of oil over the past year, which was a major fiscal stimulus to the world? Does he recognise that to increase taxation now would undo that good and that the Government have plenty of scope to borrow, as far as it may be necessary, and that at present it is cheap to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no particular insight into the Chancellor's mind, nor do I know what facts he retains in it, particularly in the period running up to the Budget. That confirms my view that I should not express opinions about taxation levels in the run-up to the Budget.

Gibraltar
2 58 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they still intend to offer Spain joint sovereignty over Gibraltar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Government resumed talks with Spain in July 2001 in accordance with the terms of the Brussels communique issued in November 1984. At the most recent round of talks under the Brussels process, which took place in London yesterday, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister reaffirmed their common aim of concluding a comprehensive agreement before the summer, covering all outstanding issues, including co-operation and sovereignty. A copy of the joint communique issued after that meeting has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Have the British Government sought an undertaking from the Governrnen t of Spain that, in the event of the people of Gibraltar rejecting in a referendum any joint proposals put forward by Britain and Spain, Spain will respect that decision of the people of Gibraltar and will, in the words of Mr Hain, treat Gibraltarians as they are entitled to be treated and not resort to harassment and interference with their rights of free movement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will know that we have pressed the Government of Gibraltar to be involved in the current discussions. Noble Lords will know that we have proposed that a framework agreement should come out of those talks which will then be followed by a referendum. If the people of Gibraltar vote "yes", it will be implemented; if they vote "no", it will not.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Brussels process which began under the previous Conservative administration
504
included reference to all difficulties between the countries, including sovereignty? Would it not be timely now to have the full participation of the Gibraltar Government in these talks? There would then be no question of the Gibraltar government appearing to be an obstacle to the co-operation which is required at this stage in order to achieve an acceptable agreement which may ensure the prosperous future of Gibraltar in Europe, including a more clear and distinct status for those who live there.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that the Brussels process began in 1984 under the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and that sovereignty was one of the issues discussed in that process. We would very much welcome the full participation of the Government of Gibraltar in this process. We have sought their participation at every stage. I agree with the noble Lord that we all seek a prosperous future for Gibraltar within the European Union.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords. I trust that the new arrangement will lead to a happier approach from Spain, but will my noble friend confirm that the present democratic character of the governance of Gibraltar will continue while the people of Gibraltar want it? Should not their wishes count for rather more than the arrangements made in the Treaty of Utrecht which was signed almost 300 years ago in a pre-democratic Europe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that the views of the people of Gibraltar are taken into account in this process, but the Treaty of Utrecht remains important. We shall continue to look at the issues under discussion through the Brussels process in the context of the Treaty of Utrecht.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister recall the very wise observation of Gibraltar's Chief Minister, Mr Peter Caruana, that you cannot expect Spain to join in discussions of this topic without being,
"free … to raise the matter that is of most interest to them, and that is sovereignty".
In the light of the wisdom of that observation by the Chief Minister, would it not be appropriate for him to take full advantage of the opportunity to take part in the talks on behalf of the people of Gibraltar?
Finally, can the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will continue to press the Government of Spain to abandon absolutely any form of coercion, intimidation or obstruction if the matter is to proceed as we would all wish it to do?
Baroness Amos: My Lord, we would greatly welcome Chief Minister Caruana's participation in the talks. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe have both, in discussions with the Chief

505
Minister, sought his participation in the talks under the "two flags, three voices" formula which was requested by them.
With respect to the noble and learned Lord's question about the harassment of the people of Gibraltar, he will know that we have raised our concerns about, for example, border delays with the European Commission. It has engaged in discussions with the Government of Spain. My noble friend Lady Symons reported to the House that, with respect to concerns about telephones, the Spanish Government have undertaken to ensure that 70,000 additional lines are made available to the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Radice: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the joint sovereignty idea is one worth pursuing? Is there not something in it for all the parties—the British retain a share in sovereignty; the Spanish get a share in the sovereignty for the first time; and the Gibraltarians retain a special status? Would not joint sovereignty remove an issue which has bedevilled British/Spanish relations for many years?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our intention is to work to resolve all the differences between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. We aim to do four things: preserve Gibraltar's way of life; establish greater self-government in Gibraltar; deliver practical benefits, including a stronger economy and an end to problems such as border delays; and end the dispute with Spain through lasting agreement on issues such as sovereignty.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Ofsted annual report. It is hoped that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and before the speech of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in the Second Reading debate on the Police Reform Bill.

Export Control Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave a short explanation about the matter. At Second Reading of the Export Control Bill a number of concerns were raised by noble Lords. They concerned the way that sustainable development criteria were dealt with in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, also raised some significant points concerning the drafting of the schedule to the Bill. To
506
meet these important points the Government yesterday tabled a number of amendments which I believe deal satisfactorily with those two concerns.
I have also placed in the Library of the House a briefing note explaining the effect of the key amendments to assist noble Lords further in their consideration of the amendments. As these amendments involve a significant re-ordering in the clauses and a redrafting of the schedule, I thought that it was important that all these amendments should be tabled together so that noble Lords can fully understand their impact. The amendments that we have tabled today have most impact on Clauses 5, 7 and 8 and the schedule to the Bill. My purpose in seeking agreement to this order of consideration is to give noble Lords a reasonable amount of time to consider the amendments.
The order of consideration, if accepted, will mean that on Thursday we shall consider Clauses 1 to 4, Clause 6 and Clause 9. These clauses contain the key order-making powers of the Bill. There will be many important issues to debate on them, but they are not greatly affected by the amendments. The order of consideration, if accepted, will also mean that we shall consider Clauses 5, 7 and 8 and the schedule to the Bill on the second day of Committee. Noble Lords will therefore have more time to consider them.
To aid in this consideration I shall be holding a meeting tomorrow afternoon to provide briefing on the proposals to all noble Lords who would find that helpful. I commend this Motion to the House.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Export Control Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4,
Clause 6,
Clause 9,
Clause 5,
Clauses 7 and 8,
Clauses 10 to 15,
Schedule.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turrille.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Police Reform Bill must be seen in a wider context than just the Bill itself. Last December, the Government set out a wide-ranging programme of reform in the White Paper Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform, which was the subject of a Statement in your Lordships' House.
The single most important measure of success of the reform programme is whether the changes that we are taking forward with the police service will make a real and visible difference to the quality of life of

507
individuals and communities. It is important to continue the reduction in crime and improve detection and conviction rates, but this must be matched by a reduction in the fear of crime. We need to tackle not just serious crime but also the antisocial behaviour and incivility which is most people's experience of crime and disorder.
It is clear from the responses to the White Paper that the police service accepts that challenge. There is widespread recognition from the police staff associations and the Association of Police Authorities that policing cannot stand still and we must put aside the mentality that nothing can be done. Much has already been done. The British Crime Survey of 2001 recorded an overall reduction in crime of 12 per cent—the largest annual fall in the 20 years of the survey. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the overwhelming majority of dedicated and professional police officers and support staff for that success. It is an example of all that is best in public service.
However, crime is still far too high and the recent fall in crime has not been matched by a commensurate fall in the fear of crime, so there is much still to do. To succeed, we need a more professional service, better led, better trained, better equipped and working in partnership with others. I repeat that the Police Reform Bill is not the only vehicle to move forward the reform agenda. Other measures are being taken through administrative and other means, many of which were set out in the White Paper.
This spring, we have a record number of police officers in post. By spring next year, we expect to have 130,000 officers in post. Funding for the police is up by 20 per cent over the current three-year spending period. The Police Standards Unit has been established and its first director appointed. There is a new Police Leadership Development Board. We have already established the Police Skills and Standards Organisation, and the Central Police Training and Development Authority is to be launched in April.
We have also secured agreement in principle—I watch my words carefully here—with all sides on the Police Negotiating Board to a package of reforms on police pay and conditions. That is all that I propose to say today on that matter, which is not covered by the Bill but which will be the subject of a ballot tomorrow. We have worked closely with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities and others in developing the proposals in the White Paper and the Bill. We continue to work in partnership as we move towards implementation.
Briefly, I shall go through the parts of the Bill. I understand that some parts are probably more contentious and will be subject to more debate than others during our subsequent proceedings. Part I refers to,
"Powers of the Secretary of State".
We want all police forces to operate to the same high standards. Much good practice is in evidence, including real, positive areas of excellence. But good practice is not consistent within all forces, nor is it consistently applied across the country. The Home
508
Secretary has a duty to ensure that effective mechanisms are in place to support the identification and dissemination of good practice and to intervene where performance falls below an acceptable level.
We also need to address the frustrations faced by officers doing their best in difficult circumstances—frustrations caused by excessive bureaucracy, poor information technology, having to cover for colleagues on sick leave and poor support from other local agencies. The new framework that we are setting up will help to deliver user-friendly, compatible IT systems, a common, rigorous approach to management of sickness and effective local partnerships. We want the focus to be on improving performance and delivering a police service of the highest quality, not on centralising or politicising the police service.
The provisions in Part 1 build on, not replace, the framework of the Police Act 1996. We value the tripartite structure and respective roles of the Home Secretary, the chief officers and the police authorities. Those will remain essentially as now. There will continue to be 43 police forces, operating under the direction and control of 43 chief constables and accountable locally to 43 police authorities. But, at the end of the day, the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the service and, as such, must be able to make a difference in his office. We must focus on priorities that will deliver a better service to the public.
The Home Secretary plans to publish an annual national policing plan. The plan will set out the Government's strategic priorities for policing over a three-year period. It will include the Home Secretary's objectives for police authorities and plans for issuing guidance and codes of practice and for making regulations. The plan will also set out other priorities, such as in the area of science and technology. In drawing up the plan, the Government will work closely with our tripartite partners and other stakeholders. As suggested by the Association of Police Authorities, we propose to set up a non-statutory national policing forum as a focal point for discussion of th,:, national policing plan and thereafter to review its progress.
In addition to setting out the strategic priorities at national level, we shall also be strengthening police authorities' capacity to plan for the medium to long term. Many authorities already plan beyond the one year covered by existing police plans. The Bill will imbed good practice by requiring police authorities to produce three-year strategy plans that must be consistent with the national policing plan.
Part 1 also establishes all-important machinery for delivering high standards. The White Paper set out a three-tiered approach for identifying and promulgating good practice: regulations, codes of practice and guidance. Regulations are needed where it is essential for effective policing that all forces act in the same way, for example, for common information technology and communications systems. Codes of practice are appropriate where there' are important practices that should be in evidence in all forces, but with some scope for local variation to take account of

509
local circumstances. An example is the delegation of budgets and responsibility of basic command units. Guidance is appropriate where there is more general good practice that needs to be made widely available but flexibly applied to meet local needs. In most cases, guidance will continue to be issued on a non-statutory basis by the Home Office, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, ACPO and others.
The process will be overseen by the Police Standards Unit, which has a key role in identifying good practice that delivers improvement in performance. The standards unit will commission the National Centre for Policing Excellence, which will be part of the Central Police Training and Development Authority, to advise on policy to be enshrined in regulations and draft codes of practice. ACPO will be centrally involved in that work, as will others with relevant experience of issues under consideration.
The onus will continue to be on individual chief constables to manage their force efficiently and effectively and on the local police authority to ensure that that happens. But where there is clear evidence from the inspectorate of constabulary, the standards unit or elsewhere that that is not the case, the Home Secretary cannot stand idly by and do nothing. In the last resort, it must be open to the Home Secretary to ensure that remedial measures are taken to raise performance to an acceptable level. That will be especially important where there is consensus about best practice and the force's failure to implement it has led to adverse performance in a given area.
The Bill does not provide for the taking over of the management of a force, or of a basic command unit, or for sending in "hit squads". I draw your Lordships' attention to proposed new subsection (8) in Clause 5, which is worth having continually uppermost in our minds. It states:
"Nothing in this section shall authorise the Secretary of State to direct the inclusion in an action plan of any requirement to do or not to do anything in a particular case identified for the purposes of the requirement, or in relation to a particular person so identified".
It is not a question of the Home Secretary taking over policing and police authorities. The chief constable will be required to draw up and implement an action plan approved by the Home Secretary, after consultation with the police authority, to address the serious weaknesses that have been identified. Where necessary, the Home Secretary may give directions about the content of the action plan, but as I said, any direction may not be in relation to a particular individual or case. Decisions in respect of such matters will remain exclusively with the chief officers.
Part 2 of the Bill deals with complaints and misconduct. It establishes the independent police complaints commission and a new system for the investigation of complaints against the police and police support staff. Arrangements will also provide for the investigation of serious conduct matters where no complaint is made. That is nothing new; it follows
510
extensive consultation in recent years. There has been strong support from all the key stakeholders in the police service.
I shall be brief about this matter. The new system will deliver greater openness and certainly better accessibility for complainants and greater independence. Greater openness will be achieved by the presumption in favour of the maximum disclosure of information to the complainant, subject to a sensitivity test. There will be improved access, facilitated by allowing a representative of an aggrieved person or an independent group to make a complaint on his or her behalf.
The position of complainants will also be strengthened by new rights of appeal at three levels. The complainant will be able to appeal to the commission against the refusal of a force to record his or her complaint. Where a complainant has agreed to follow the local resolution process. he may appeal if that process has not been properly used. At the end of the investigation, a complainant may appeal on the outcome, on the question of disclosure of sufficient information and on the proposed disciplinary action, if any, against the officer concerned.
The complaints commission will be the guardian of the new system. It will ensure greater independence by having oversight of all serious cases or cases with the potential for high public interest. In the case of the more serious complaints, including allegations of serious corruption or racist conduct or involving the death or serious injury of a member of the public, the commission will take over either management or supervision of the police investigation. In the most serious cases, the commission itself will take on the investigation, particularly where there is a high degree of public interest.
The commission will have its own body of independent investigators with all necessary police powers. It will be entitled to employ whomsoever it chooses; there will be no bar, save for the degree of competence. It will be in control of its own body of independent investigators. At the end of an investigation, if the commission is not satisfied with the action taken by the force, it can intervene in disciplinary proceedings by presenting or instructing counsel on the case against an officer. Taken together, those reforms should result in a complaints system in which the police and those who have a grievance against the police can have full confidence.
I accept that I have been extremely brief in explaining the new system and how it differs from the present system. We imply no criticism of individual members of the Police Complaints Authority—far from it. We wish to give them a greater role.
Part 3 relates to the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. It must be read in the context of our wider proposals for building strong and effective leadership in the police force. The White Paper set out measures for nurturing top quality leadership at all levels, through better selection procedures, better training and improved arrangements for professional performance appraisals, including at the highest levels. It is likely to be only very exceptional circumstances

511
that will warrant the early departure of a chief officer. Where such circumstances arise, it is right and proper that there be effective and transparent arrangements in place to enable appropriate action to be taken, in the interests of the force and all the individuals concerned.
The existing procedures, provided for in the 1996 Act, are cumbersome and unduly restrictive. They provide only for the retirement of a chief officer in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. There may be occasions on which retirement is not the appropriate course. Part 3 provides for the alternative of resignation. Whichever route is taken—resignation or retirement—the process can necessarily take a long time to complete. By its nature, such action is initiated only in very grave circumstances. Allowing such a situation to continue for any time could significantly impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Accordingly, Part 3 provides for the suspension of a chief officer by the police authority, pending its consideration of an appropriate course of action and, thereafter, pending completion of the removal process. As under the existing legislation, the Home Secretary would, as a last resort, be able to call upon a police authority to exercise its powers of removal and suspension.
Chapter 1 of Part 4 deals with the exercise of police powers by civilians. It is generally accepted that the police cannot fight crime and the fear of crime alone. To face down anti-social, loutish behaviour and reduce the fear of crime that such behaviour instils, we must provide more visible policing in town centres and housing estates. Many public, voluntary and private bodies already employ a variety of personnel, including neighbourhood, street and park wardens and shopping centre security staff, who contribute to community safety. Part 4 builds on the work of such groups.
We must also make the most effective use of police officers' time. Last year, we published the findings of a study of how 400 officers spent their time on duty. I think that it was called The Diary of a Police Officer. The study found that officers spent almost as much time in the police station as on the street. The figure was 43 per cent. Of the remaining 57 per cent of their time, when they were out on the street, only 17 per cent was spent on what was colloquially called by the consultants "reassurance patrolling". Most of that was in cars. There is a big gap to fill in reassurance patrolling. Much of the time in the police station is spent on preparing prosecution files and paperwork. Like many Members of this House and the other House, I have done my full night shift with the police—nine hours, it was—and I saw the amount of time that was spent on paperwork back in the station after we had picked people up in the middle of the night.
One way of ensuring that a higher proportion of a police officer's time is spent on the front line is by making greater use of police support staff. That is nothing new. Already, there are 55,000 support staff in the police service, many performing functions previously undertaken by police officers. Greater civilianisation will have the desired effect only if support staff can exercise appropriate police powers.
512
I shall be careful in choosing my language, because some of the officers and personnel envisaged in the Rill have been described in different ways in the media. The Bill enables chief police officers to designate police authority-employed support staff in one or more of four functional categories. They will be employed by the police at the discretion of the chief constable; they are not required or forced to do it. The four functional categories are: community support officers; investigation officers; detention officers; and escort officers. Staff so designated could then exercise limited police powers appropriate to their role. I repeat that they would be employed by the police and would be part of the police service, at the discretion and choice of the chief constable.
Community support officers will support the work of police officers by providing an enhanced visible policing presence. Their role is focused on deterring and, where appropriate, tackling low-level anti-social behaviour and nuisance. Community support officers will receive full training and be equipped with limited powers, including powers to issue fixed penalty notices and to require a person's name and address in certain clearly defined circumstances. We do not expect community support officers to get themselves into positions of conflict when discharging their functions, but there must be some way of enforcing their powers. Accordingly, the Bill provides that if a person has failed to supply their name and address or has provided false details, the community support officer may detain that person for up to 30 minutes, pending the arrival of a constable. If necessary, the community support officer could exercise reasonable force to effect the detention.
Part 4 provides for chief officers, in conjunction with the local police authority and other local partners, to establish community safety accreditation schemes. Chief officers may—not will—accredit individual community safety officers employed by local authorities and other agencies.
Accredited persons would also be able to exercise a range of powers, albeit more limited than those of community support officers. They would be able to address community safety issues in co-operation with the local police. Before any powers were conferred on accredited persons, the chief police officer and employer of that person would need to agree, the employer being, for instance a local authority or perhaps the management of a shopping centre.
There would be direct linkage with the police and that would enhance the credibility and effectiveness of accredited organisations. It is not policing on the cheap. It is putting a more visible policing reassurance presence on the streets of this country. Many of our police services could make good use of it. They are not required to do so. Some chief constables will not want to use the service, others will. Therefore in the near future we shall have the opportunity of seeing such work in action. People will be uniformed and trained for the functions and powers that they can exercise, which will be extremely limited in comparison with those of a police constable.

513
Part 4 also contains provisions for modifying and supplementing police powers. I was reminded by a Member of the other place earlier today, for example, that it confers the power on a police constable, in certain carefully defined circumstances, to obtain a blood sample from a driver without the driver's consent. Normally consent is required. But there have been a number of instances where a person has been killed or seriously injured in an accident, but it has not been possible to take a specimen from the driver because the driver has either been unconscious or so injured as to be unable to give consent. That has meant that there has been no evidence available to support an appropriate drink-driving prosecution and it cannot be right that people can evade being accountable for their actions in that way.
The Bill will allow a blood sample to be taken from such a driver. Subsequently he would be asked if he consented to its analysis—obviously two samples would be taken. I stress that clinical care of the driver in those circumstances would be paramount. By definition the driver is unconscious or severely injured, whether or not there has been another death.
That part of the Bill also tackles the issue of alarm and distress caused to local residents as a result of having their roads and open spaces turned into unofficial racetracks. When I read the supplement to the Bill in that regard it reminded me of a quarry site in my former constituency which, every Saturday and Sunday afternoon, became a wonderful track with its ups and downs for motorcycles. It was nice for the cyclists. It kept them off the roads. They were safe. But it was murder and mayhem for people locally and, what is more, nobody could do anything about it. The owner of the land was hundreds of miles away and the police said it was nothing to do with them: they could do nothing. The Bill attempts to deal with such situations by giving the police more effective powers to put an immediate stop to anti-social use of vehicles. It will enable vehicles to be seized quickly by the police and the owner to be charged the appropriate removal and storage fee.
The Bill contains some technical adjustments to the role of the Ministry of Defence Police, which we debated in a recent Bill, and puts the inspection of M DP officers on a statutory footing. The miscellaneous part of the Bill contains some important measures, and I do not denigrate them in any way by saying they are contained in that section. It removes the anachronistic bar on the recruitment of foreign nationals into the police service. As a consequence there is a change in the oath such people would swear, whether or not they be Commonwealth citizens. It simply replaces the words in the oath of allegiance from,
"to our Sovereign Lady the Queen",
with, "the Queen". In those circumstances everyone will swear allegiance to the Queen. It would not be appropriate for foreign nationals, or indeed some members of the Commonwealth, to swear the original oath when Her Majesty is not their head of state.
514
The Bill introduces changes in the way the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad recruit staff. It also opens up the post of the director general of NCIS to non-police officers in recognition of its multi-agency status.
Finally—I regret this but it is a necessary part of police legislation—we intend to bring forward at the appropriate time government amendments to strengthen the effectiveness of the anti-social behaviour orders. That is a vital part of the Bill for Members both of this House and the other place. We want to extend the use of such orders to registered social landlords and the British Transport Police. We want to introduce a system of interim ASBOs so that communities can be protected pending the outcome of a full hearing. We want to enable anti-social behaviour orders to travel with the people on whom they have been served. That will ensure that people cannot escape the consequences of such an order by moving from one area to another. We also propose to explore whether or not, to save time, there is a role for county courts in making orders when they are already dealing with an eviction notice or other civil proceedings against an individual.
The police reform agenda focuses on giving individuals and communities the police service they expect: a service that is of the highest quality, responsive to their needs and fully accountable. It is not a Bill for centralising the police force. It is not a Bill enabling the Home Secretary to take over the powers of the police, nor to allow the Home Secretary to interfere in the operational structure of the police service. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (Lord Rooker.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. Like him I echo a number of sentiments.
The first, and perhaps the most important one, is an expression of thanks to all existing members of the police force, be they active policemen or civilians working for the police. While as politicians we are wont occasionally to criticise their deeds, the fact is that they have served and no doubt will continue to serve the community well.
I echo the Minister's desire for a more professional and effective service, although I found that sentiment just slightly at variance with Part 4 of the Bill, which seems to reduce to a considerable degree some aspects of the professionalism of policing. Of course, anything in the Bill which will help to improve data processing throughout all branches of the police force, and communications not merely within the police force but between the police force and other emergency services, is welcome. It is a preposterous situation when the police are called to an accident, have to call for a fire engine, and the fire engine may be only two miles away but the police cannot talk to it to tell the fire officers where they are. Provisions to improve that situation must be good, and if such outcomes arise from the Bill they are wholly to be welcomed.

515
But the Bill contains other aspects. The Minister rightly drew attention to the way in which the Bill will be operated. I know and respect the Minister; and I know of, and respect, his right honourable friend in another place. So I do not concern myself too much with the possibility that they will run amok with the powers in the Bill. But the duties of this House are different. We must consider not merely the way in which the Bill will be used by the present incumbent of the office, but also the way in which its powers could be used by someone else who may not be so honourable or straightforward. In that regard we see some problems.
It is worth noting the background to the Bill. The Government published their White Paper on 5th December last year. On the third page of the document they stated:
"Comments are invited on the White Paper and should he sent by 21st January, 2002".
One might have thought that they wished to receive comments and to consider them seriously before taking further action. However, this Bill was published on 25th January—four days after the consultation period closed. I have immense respect for the Civil Service, for those who draft government Bills and for Ministers. But I find it difficult to believe that on that time-scale those comments could have been received, taken note of and. if they contained anything worth while, incorporated into the Bill. The Government, sadly, have further damaged an already tarnished image in regard to their way of handling consultation and their consideration of the views of others.
We need to face the fact that public aspirations for the police are somewhat ambivalent and to some degree contradictory. On the one hand, communities wish to have community policing—policemen on the beat. To the extent that the Bill does anything to improve that, it must he welcome. It gives people a much enhanced sense of security and well-being; it helps to prevent many lesser crimes—muggings, vandalism and so on; and it increases the number of arrests. We all feel better when we see a policeman on the street.
On the other hand, we also expect the police to deal with more serious crimes. In a sense, there is a war between the criminals and normal, honest society, for which we all pay. It is immensely expensive. For instance, the global value of containers and their contents stolen each year is greater than the cost of the total value of the damage done on 11th September. That relates only to stolen containers. The cost of heroin to this country is about £4 billion per annum. That money financed very nicely a long criminal chain all the way back to Afghanistan and represented a considerable proportion of government income in that country.
We need to recognise that the police have an immensely difficult task and that those two aspects of their work are, to some degree, in conflict with each other.
Let us consider the average basic police command unit, on which the Audit Commission has carried out one of its statistical operations. I do not suppose that
516
the basic command unit exists, just as the average family with 2.3 children does not exist. On the basis of a population of 160,000 people in an area with 1,400 miles of pavement, if there are 160 policemen to cover the area for 24 hours a day, after all the duties they have to undertake—dealing with crime, civic duties, arrests, station formalities and all the other matters which have to be taken proper care of—there wiill be about 10 men left to work on the beat on those 1,400 miles of pavement. I pity and respect the men on the beat who bear that burden and their commanders who have to send them out into the community in that way. That is the context which lies behind the Bill. We have to hope that it will improve the situation.
When I look at Part 1 of the Bill, I think back over the constitutional arrangements in the police force that I grew up with when I was in local government. The old tripartite arrangements were clearly understood by everyone. All police authorities were responsible to the Home Secretary, who looked after them in many ways. As the representative of government. he provided most of the money to the force. We need to recognise that. I have always believed strongly that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Within that framework, each police authority was properly the representative of the community police. That is a very important function. It is the key which makes British policing acceptable. It saves us from some of the problems experienced by other countries with much more national police forces, which can lead to occasional outbreaks of tension of the worst kind. The local community, of course, supplied the balance of the funding, and that was critical.
The third person in the tripartite arrangement was the chief constable, who had operational and administrative control. All of those parts have worked well together and, with the help of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, have developed and changed very well with the times.
There was some erosion of that position under the terms of the 1996 Act, which gave the Secretary of State, after consultation with police authorities and chief constables, power to set objectives; power to set performance targets; power to issue codes of practice for the discharge of functions by police authorities; power to require inspections of specific actions by a police authority in the light of an adverse report; power to direct minimum budget; power to require dismissal of chief constables; power to require reports and statistics. One might think that that was a fairly long list by way of recompense for paying the piper. It began a trend towards a greater central possibility.
That list is fairly comprehensive, and one could argue that the Home Office no longer feels any need to pay regard to the Government's lip-service to devolution because the Bill adds to the list of interventions—not greatly, but in critical ways. It adds to the Secretary of State's power to prepare a national plan and to require all local plans to conform with it.
As far as I can see, there is no requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult anyone in the preparation of that plan. It is inconceivable to me that

517
the Home Secretary would attempt such an action on his own. However, it would have been as well to recognise that there are wider interests involved than a Whitehall office. I should have preferred to see some kind of consultation which recognised the old arrangements in the preparation of that plan.
The Home Secretary will have power to prepare codes of practice with chief officers, after consultation with the Central Police Training and Development Authority, which, as the Minister has just explained, is a new body established under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, but which is not yet in being. We hope—hope is the only word that we can use—that that body will be effective, that it will work well and that it will do a great deal to improve standards in the police force, but we do not know. It seems odd not to involve HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, which is closely linked with the Home Office and the Home Secretary and, in a different way, with the local police authorities and chief constables.
The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to require an inspection of a part of the force and, if a report is adverse, he can direct the authority on specific action. The Home Secretary can even bypass the police authority and direct the chief constable on a plan of action, thereby breaking the conventional lines of communication. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there will be direct exclusion from operational interference. It is important that that exclusion is maintained. However, if the plans are too detailed and lead to inconsistency, these additional powers could damage policing in certain areas.
Micro-managing from the centre—and the idea that Whitehall knows best—does not work. One need only consider matters such as education, health and transport to see that the one-size-fits-all approach that a national plan produces does not recognise the reality of what happens on the ground. Can one really compare the Metropolitan Police or Manchester police with forces in Cumbria or in Devon and Cornwall, or perhaps in the smallest authority, Warwickshire? At the basic police command unit level, can one equate Westminster with Merton, or, in my own authority, a BCU in south Essex with a BCU in north Essex, where manning and equipment levels and procedures are different? A national plan cannot take that into account.
Part 4 of the Bill gives certain police powers to individuals who are otherwise civilians. Aspects of that make good sense. No one could object to a chief constable appointing civilian employees as investigation officers, detention officers or escort officers. That is straightforward and, to the extent that it will relieve constables who have administrative duties, it is excellent. But granting police powers to civilians leads us into a more difficult area. There are one or two worrying aspects to these provisions. I refer to Clause 33(5), which states:
"A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of the applicable Part of Schedule 4 that are to apply to the designated person".
518
Clause 33(6)(b) states that a person,
"shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation".
That means that different people can have different powers. For example, community support officers in the same police force can operate different powers in different parts of an authority or they can act side by side. The public will never understand that. Why have the Government introduced such complexity to their proposals? Police on the beat who have to face the public do the most difficult job in the police force. Detection, criminal investigation, and so on, are highly important, but making snap judgments about human behaviour and how to handle it is the critical job that the police have to do. Importantly, that job gives the police their reputation in the eyes of the public.
Clause 35 deals with community safety accreditation schemes. Then there is an additional complication, apart from the variability to which I referred. Clause 36(5) states:
"For the purposes of determining liability for the unlawful conduct of … employees of a police authority, or … employees of a person with whom a chief officer of police has entered into any arrangements for the purposes of a community safety accreditation scheme, conduct by such an employee … shall he taken to be conduct in the course of his employment by … that employer … and, in the case of a tort, that authority or employer shall fall to be treated as a joint tortfeasor accordingly".
In other words, someone who is out on the street with police powers will be put into the difficult position whereby he is not responsible to the police for his actions when he is acting in a police capacity. He will be responsible to his original employer, which puts the original employer in a wholly invidious position.
There is perhaps much in the Bill that will be good, but there are risks in it that it needs to be examined critically and to be limited. There are aspects that will need to be changed considerably. Much heavy work is before us. However, I am sure that at the end of the process, the Bill will leave the House in a better state than when it arrived.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have been a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority on and off since 1993, and for the past three years, I have been vice chairman and deputy chairman thereof. I am also a member of the Association of Police Authorities. I was a member of that organisation when we were told by the then Home Secretary to lose 200 police officers and was still a member when we were told by another Home Secretary to recruit an extra 200 officers. It is difficult to retain the people who are recruited.
I remember that in 1993 police pensions were a problem. They still are—only more so. The Home Secretary who is keen to interfere in our affairs has done nothing about that problem. We have brought the boundaries of our area into line with local authority boundaries, and we have done much to improve our methods of consultation and our recruitment of ethnic minorities. But do not let us believe that we are as out of touch with what people

519
want as I sometimes believe our Home Office officials and Ministers are. For example, we know that people want the protection of speed cameras, because we are told at every town and parish meeting about speeding vehicles, yet the Home Office makes it ever more difficult for us by raising the criteria, not by upholding what we do.
The Bill seeks to centralise control in the hands of the Home Secretary and to allow him to set objectives and plans and to remove senior officers from their posts. What does the Home Office think is the point of having police authorities with good quality membership, strengthened by the independent members, of whom the Home Secretary approves?
The authority's annual policing plan—a requirement of the Police Act 1996—together with the Home Secretary's overarching objectives, breaks down into four priorities. Those drive our efforts. We had previously tried to have seven priorities, but we decided that four was as many as rank and file police officers could readily absorb. To have more tends to lead to more bureaucracy.
Under the Local Government Act 1999, we have a five-year rolling programme to review all our activities under the best value performance plan, so that services are provided efficiently, effectively and to a good standard. That work is overseen by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the district auditor. Central government require us to make a 2 per cent year-on-year saving. Our meagre central government grant is dependent on our achieving that. This year we are drawing on our reserves to stay within the Government's suggested council tax limit. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 we are required to furnish plans, in conjunction with local authorities and other agencies, to reduce crime and disorder in our area. If your Lordships think that I am beginning to give the impression that we already have enough directives from above, which we are trying sincerely to fulfil, you are correct, yet we face even more centralisation and directives.
This week I had breakfast with two recently retired head teachers who say that they left the profession because head teachers no longer have time to teach due to administrative overload. The number of applications for such jobs declined. One local school has advertised three times for a head teacher. People want to go into teaching in order to teach, not to be administrators. Similarly, most police men and women want to police, not to sit in offices filling out forms.
Your Lordships will have gathered that we think that the proposals to put more power in the hands of the Home Secretary are wrong. He has enough authority now. The whole tripartite structure of the policing part of our constitution depends on each party playing its part.
Along with Magna Carta, policing by consent is one of the touchstones of our unwritten constitution. It is a bulwark against a police state. Policing by consent has many facets. One aspect, which we proudly describe as unique, is the tripartite system of police governance. As your Lordships know, control of the police is
520
shared between the Home Secretary, the local police authority and the chief constable. It is a system of carefully constructed checks and balances that ensures that policing is not subject to partisan political control. The system gives local people a substantive voice in how they are policed and means that policing is tailored to local needs and expectations. It is a credit to this House that the arrangements put in place in 1993 have worked extraordinarily well. If the Bill seeks to reorder the current balance within the tripartite relationship, we should satisfy ourselves that there is strong justification for doing so.
In our view, the Bill contains proposals that would radically shift the balance away from local people and local accountability towards greater central direction and control by the Home Secretary. Many saw the 1994 Act as a centralising measure. The Bill goes considerably further, but does so in a more opaque way. In our view it is a retrograde step, taking us away from a policing service that should seek to be more sensitive to the views of local communities.
Those who have read the Explanatory Notes will have found no overt statement that the legislation would fundamentally alter the existing balance of the tripartite relationship, but a closer look at what is involved shows that that is what it will mean in practice. The cumulative effect of the Bill will be to transfer power away from local communities and their police authorities to the Home Secretary at the centre. In my view, it will unbalance the tripartite relationship.
First, there are proposals for a national policing plan. At first sight, that is a welcome means of pulling together coherently the Government's priorities for and expectations of the police service. However, as the Bill is drafted the national plan could easily become a vehicle for national diktat on policing, whether under this Home Secretary—who may have good motives—or a future one.
Then there is to be a new duty on police authorities to submit their three-year strategies to the Home Secretary. Again, it seems eminently sensible to provide for three-year local policing strategies—no major business could be managed without a medium-term strategy—but why should the Home Secretary need to call in such a plan? Does he not trust local police authorities? If not, why not? Where is the evidence to support that contention?
There are to be new powers for the Home Secretary to decide what equipment and operational practices the police should deploy. Perhaps the Home Secretary should be the ultimate arbiter on such overarching issues as Airwave, but before making such decisions, should he not have to consult the tripartite partners—the police authorities and the chief constables—as well as ACPO and the APA? Should not the Bill require that? Are the civil servants in the Home Office better judges of what works than those on the ground?
There are to be powers for the Home Secretary to direct chief constables. Your Lordships will know that the Home Secretary recently set up a Police Standards Unit, with a remit to intervene in so-called failing

521
forces or basic command units, although I think that the Minister told us that that would not happen. If things go wrong, steps must be taken to put them right, but we do not want hit squads from Queen Anne's Gate coming to tell us what to do. Experience elsewhere in local authority areas suggests that they are not very successful.
No one would question that some communities are not receiving the policing services that they deserve. If we value the tripartite system, should not remedial action be taken in conjunction and co-operation with the police authority, whose job is to monitor and manage local police performance? Should the Home Secretary bypass those people and intervene directly in the chief constable's affairs? How does that impact on the long-established doctrine of operational independence?
There are to be new powers for the Home Secretary to suspend a chief constable. The Minister said that they would be used only exceptionally, but the power is there and can be used, if not by this Home Secretary then by a future one. No Home Secretary is in a position to second-guess the judgment of the local people who sit on police authorities about whether the communities retain the confidence of the chief constable. Peremptory action might make a bad situation worse.
Evidence from many studies of local government suggests that self-improvement aided by peers is far more effective than external intervention. The Government ought to support the APA's improvement programme for police authorities, which seeks to generate self-improvement at local level.
We shall wish to explore all those issues in considerable depth in Committee. At present we feel that the measures in Part 1 do not deserve support. We are not heartened by the proposals in the consultative paper, which the Government have recently published on the British Transport Police, to note that the Home Secretary proposes to appoint the independent members of the proposed police authority, the chairman and the vice-chairman and to set the objectives for the authority. We believe that the present arrangements for appointing members and officers of police authorities are satisfactory and can see no need for change.
There are other radical proposals in this Bill which will equally be the focus of your Lordships' attention. Mention was made of policing on the cheap, two tier policing and all sorts of things. I doubt whether I am alone in finding it difficult to translate the stark clause in the Bill into practical terms. But there are two different limbs to the operation. First, there is the concept of giving police powers to support staff under the direction and control of the chief constable, which is favoured in London by the Metropolitan Police and may be applicable there.
I am sure that we all welcome measures to relieve police officers of routine paperwork and other administrative tasks and get them back on the streets.
522
But I confess to being dismayed at the prospect of non-police staff being given powers, for example, to undertake intimate searches. Again, we shall want to pursue that at the Committee stage.
The second limb is the Government's response to the cry for more "bobbies on the beat". The Government's solution set out in Part 4 of the Bill for non-police community support officers and accredited staff to exercise certain police powers, raises fundamental questions which go to the heart of our policing system.
The proposals will allow both police support staff and non-police staff, including employees of private security firms, exercising considerable police powers over the community. Among other things, they will have the power to detain individuals for up to 30 minutes pending the arrival of a constable, and in the case of CSOs, some stop-and-search powers.
I shall not go into detail about all our concerns here: that is for the Committee stage. But the question I ask the Government is this: what evidence do they have that this is what the communities want? As the Bill is currently drafted, we will never know. Local people or indeed local police authorities will have no say in the matter. The Bill makes it a simple deployment decision for the chief constable. Is that right? Should such a fundamental change be allowed to go to the heart of our policing?
Unless there is community support, how will these community support officers or accredited staff use their powers effectively? Does it not bring us back to the fundamental issues of policing by consent?
I suggest that the legislation should provide for local communities to agree to non-police officers exercising these powers over them and for police authorities to consult local communities about such changes and determine the way forward in the light of their views. Should not the Bill require such a critical issue to be agreed by a police authority as the community's representatives? In addition, community support officers now undertake many duties connected with local authorities, and if any of them are to come under police direction, these other duties will have to be overtaken.
These proposals also raise all kinds of other questions which will need to be explored in depth. I shall signal a few of them now. How do we recruit people if we pay them a good deal less than police officers? How do we pay for them beyond the short-term funding which is now agreed for community wardens? This is a significant problem.
How can we be satisfied about their training; that they exercise their powers in a fair way among ethnic minorities? What equipment will they carry? How is their health and safety to be covered? Will they be accountable for their actions? Will they be subject to an equally rigorous complaints and disciplinary procedure as police officers and crucially—I make no apology for returning to this matter—how are they going to be funded because most of the funding is only for three years? At the end of it, local authorities and, I presume police authorities, will have to pay for them.

523
I reiterate my disappointment that the subject of pensions is not mentioned because that is very important. At the moment police authorities are spending a great proportion of their budget on pensions and a quarter of their budget will go on them by 2013. Some of them have already reached that figure. The Government have been promising since time immemorial to resolve this issue. Reports have been in the pipeline for years, but they have never been delivered.
We recognise that there are no easy solutions and that any new approach will involve significant costs. But if the Government do not take steps urgently, police authorities and local communities will face, to put it bluntly, a policing crisis.
Accountability to local people for the police services which they receive is the responsibility of police authorities. Day in and day out, it is the local police authority members who are there on the ground to consult local people, listen and respond to their grievances, identify their policing needs and expectations and ensure that the chief constable and the force delivers that agenda within resource constraints. That is not something that Ministers or civil servants in Whitehall can do.
That is why there has to be a partnership approach and why neither Parliament nor Ministers should seek to exercise detailed control over police from the centre. Yes, Parliament and Ministers should set the strategic direction arid help to disseminate good practice. If the disturbances last summer, for example, have taught us anything, it has been to reinforce the crucial importance of policing which is sensitive to local needs.
We recognise and support the Government's desire to ensure that our police service is for the 21st century. We need modern, flexible policing services which value their staff and make the best use of available technology and good practice in fighting crime. But the policing outcomes that we all wish to see cart be achieved only if all the tripartite partners work together in true partnership without domination or control by one partner over the others.
All this leaves out of account the future of the Special Constabulary. We know that the number of specials is falling. We know that that is partly because of the new rules on health and safety and training, but we suspect it is because changes in the nature of society mean that volunteering for that role is no longer attractive. We believe that special constables should be paid and be available on a regular basis to assist particularly at times of peak demand. I say to the Minister, take no notice of what the present specials think. It is new people we want to join and it is they we should ask.
With the present structure of inspections I believe that we have sufficient direction and that police authorities are well structured to take action against chief officers. At present we judge the performance of BC'U commanders. For example, we put good people into Slough although we know that it is our toughest
524
area with the highest number of probationer constables. Would we do so if we thought it was a target area for the Home Secretary?
We see no need for codes of practice; neither do we need the direction of a report to show us we are efficient. I would go so far as to say that prompt act ion is taken if we believe that we are on the slide. There is no need to give direction about operational procedures and practices. Both ACPO officers and police authorities meet regularly and good procedures become evident and are adopted and will probably be taught by central police training, although that may vary from one place to another as to what might be appropriate.
Finally, we welcome the emergence of the independent police complaints commission and the provision of independent lay visitors to police stations. We hope that traffic wardens will have properly defined and substantially increased duties.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Condon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a life member of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Many members of the police service past and present have argued for reform and this Bill provides some of the long overdue building blocks in this change process. I believe that the Bill is to be broadly welcomed, but it also raises concerns which I hope will be addressed in your Lordships' House and another place. I shall raise some of these anxieties in a moment.
I believe that the most important provision in the Bill is the proposed creation of the independent police complaints commission. Many of us have campaigned for such a body for more than a decade. Police officers can intervene in people's lives in a way that alters those lives for ever—for good or for evil. It is vital that the investigation process against police officers enjoys maximum public support and confidence. Nothing short of a completely independent complaints commission will assuage public concern about the integrity and thoroughness of the complaints process.
It is interesting that the proposed commission will also provide better protection for serving police officers themselves, who sometimes become the victims of malicious complaints or even of tactical complaints by career criminals who can exploit the current arrangements. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the creation of the independent complaints commission.
The noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Bradshaw, have mentioned the tripartite structure for the governance of policing. That structure has not only stood the test of time; it has provided the checks and balances that underpin our policing system. Local police authorities, chief constables and the Secretary of State have been very effective partners in policing. I agree that the cumulative impact of the clauses in the Bill which give the Secretary of State new powers to direct and control policing will dramatically alter that balance of power in favour of the Secretary of State. Although that may be considered necessary to kick-start some of the proposed reforms, there may well be

525
an unwelcome price to pay if chief constables and police authorities feel marginalised and local needs, local circumstances and the voice of local communities are no longer relevant or heard. I hope that as the Bill is debated in your Lordships' House and in another place those fundamental issues will be aired and reviewed, as today's debate has indicated they will be.
We do not have a national police force. The Bill, while necessarily seeking to ensure an overall policing plan and strategy and the spread of best practice, should also recognise and celebrate local needs and variations. Her Majesty's Government explained recently in your Lordships' House, in relation to reform of the health service, that they were not seeking to run an organisation, but rather seeking to oversee a values-driven devolved system. Surely similar principles should apply to police reform.
I come now to community support officers and community safety accreditation schemes. Other noble Lords have already mentioned the Bill's enabling provisions to allow chief officers of police to employ or designate suitably skilled and trained civilians as community support officers and to perform other specified functions. I think that those proposals should be given a fair chance and not dismissed out of hand. The key issue is that the relevant clauses are enabling. No chief officer or police authority will be required to make such deployments or designations.
I believe that some forces—particularly my old force, the Met—will utilise the provisions, if they are enacted, with enthusiasm and relish in dealing with particular problems and particular needs. I am sure that, with the current, post-11th September stretch of resources and the need for additional security patrols and premises guarding, the Met will seek to use the new provisions. Similarly, they will wish to use the provisions to establish an important new entry point for colleagues from ethnic minority backgrounds who currently cannot manage to make the leap into the police service itself, but who could well use the new community support roles as a bridging mechanism to policing.
Other forces will rightly be more cautious. Rural communities are more likely to relish, for example, the appointment of 50 additional rural bobbies, with all their skills, powers and influence on community life, rather than 80 or 100 community support officers, accredited wardens or guards. Seen as an innovative extension of the police family, the flexibility offered by the provisions is to be welcomed. If, however, the provisions are used to enable a cheaper substitute for traditional policing, they will do immense harm to the reservoir of good will which, although strained, still exists between the police and the public. If the only significant contact between the public and policing is in street encounters with under-trained community support officers, over time, confidence in the police service will be seriously eroded.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, we already have a well-established special constabulary of unpaid volunteers. We should revisit the scheme to see
526
whether it can be extended by new initiatives and payments to play a greater role in the extended police family.
I think that the Bill enhances police reform in the round and plays an important part in the overall reform programme. The police service wants reform to succeed. Communities desperately need police reforms to succeed. As the Bill passes through your Lordships' House and another place, I hope that it will be influenced by a number of key principles. First, we have not chosen to have, nor have we evolved, a national police force. The Bill's provisions move us closer to a national police force, which may or may not be a good thing. However, in changing the balance of power between the Secretary of State, police authorities and chief constables, we must not lose the potential for good and for innovation that comes from variety and from the strongest possible links between local communities and local police.
Secondly, in extending the police family and in establishing these challenging new performance targets, there must be a real and tangible link between the strategies set for the police service and the resources made available to it to carry out these reforms. Of course there must be emphasis on value for money, raising standards to the level of the best and constantly demanding greater efficiency. However, experience elsewhere has shown that resourcing is vital to reform.
The improvements in New York are often cited as a model to be followed here, and I agree. The improvements in crime reduction, public safety and public confidence in New York are real and startling, and they are attributed to strong political and police leadership, tough performance standards and review, and, importantly, a dramatic increase in resources. Metropolitan Police numbers peaked in about 1991–92 at just under 29,000 police officers. As of today, there are about 26,450 police officers for London. At one stage, the New York Police Department manning level dropped to about 25,000 police officers, for a city with approximately the same population size as London's. However, under a new mayor and a new commissioner and with new resources, New York police numbers increased to 42,000. As I said, as of today, there are 26,450 police officers in London, but 42,000 in New York. Resources will make a difference.
Thirdly, the police service, which seeks to embrace reform, encourages similar reform in other spheres that can impact on the criminal justice system, crime prevention and public confidence. The Auld report has stimulated overdue discussion about the courts system and reform. Police are not the only stakeholders in criminal justice, crime prevention and community safety who are in need of reform. Joined-up government should surely lead to joined-up reform.
We have the opportunity for comprehensive reform of policing. This important Bill lays the foundation for much of that reform. I hope that, in passing through your Lordships' House and another place, the Bill will be improved to take account of the concerns and expectations that have been expressed today.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and as a member of the executive of the Association of Police Authorities. I should also say, to reassure my colleagues on those bodies, that I do not necessarily reflect the detailed policies of those respective organisations.
I believe that there is consensus in what has been said in your Lordships' House on the need for reform and the need to address some of the serious issues that currently face the police service in tackling crime. There is clearly agreement on the importance of the need to promote high standards and to encourage good practice. Therefore, the Government's proposals and arrangements for a new police standards unit, working no doubt in close collaboration with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, are clearly welcome.
The Bill is an important part of that reform process. It is an important part of demonstrating that we want to see policing by consent in this country. The proposals in the Bill should constitute an important part of building public support and reassurance as regards the vital work that the police service does.
In that context I was extremely interested to hear the description of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, of an old-style tripartite arrangement. I was worried that his defence of police authorities might be a trifle lacklustre but I am sure that he will make up for that in the course of the weeks to follow. The tripartite system has great importance and its purpose should not be forgotten. As I understand it—I am a relative newcomer to this field—the tripartite system comprises having operational decision-making resting with the chief constable; local accountability and local direction resting with the police authority; and national accountability and overall standards resting with the Home Secretary. That is a system of balance which blends the local, the national and the operational requirements.
In that context I believe that it is entirely logical to have a national policing plan. There is certainly nothing sinister in that. Indeed, I suspect that it would constitute an enormous convenience to many people to be able to codify the existing multiplicity of guidance and guidelines that emanate from the Home Office. It is also not at all sinister—indeed, it is entirely helpful—that it should be informed by local three-year plans. That is certainly not the sinister sign of central control that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested. I should be far more concerned if the national policing plan were drawn up in the absence of knowledge of the three-year policing plans of local police authorities. What is more, it is proposed that the national policing plan he brought before Parliament, which gives a degree of parliamentary scrutiny. Again, that is something that I am sure your Lordships will welcome. However, in the spirit of the tripartite principle it is no doubt an omission which will be rectified in the amendments that my noble friend the Minister indicated he would bring forward on behalf
528
of the Home Office. It will be made clear that the national policing plan will be subject to consultation with the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers. As I say, I am sure that that is a minor omission which will be rectified at a later stage. Similarly, I am sure that it will be possible to state on the face of the Bill that there is consultation with APA and with ACPO on the codes of practice suggested in the Bill.
The Bill suggests that the national policing plan should be brought forward before the start of each financial year. Perhaps when my noble friend the Minister replies to the debate he will clarify how long before the start of the financial year he considers sufficient. The national policing plan should feed into local policing plans and into budget making. That clearly requires that the national objectives that the Home Office may wish to set are known at an early stage.
I wish to say a few words about Clause 5 on directions to chief officers. That measure strengthens the Home Secretary's role, although it is not clear to me in the discussions that I have heard so far why that could not be exercised through the police authority mechanism. That would, of course, preserve the tripartite structure and would ensure local accountability. Certainly, there is a danger—again, my noble friend may be able to clarify how that danger can be avoided—of blurring responsibility lines where directions from the Home Office appear to be set against police authority priorities. Certainly, there should be consultation with the local police authority on the issuing of any directions. I should hope that action plans from chief officers could be delivered to the Home Office via police authorities following their consideration by the police authority concerned.
Clause 7 enables the Home Secretary to make regulations on operational practices and procedures. I have no problem with that. It may be necessary to promote good practice and certainly would involve the Home Office and the national government in the preparation, on a tripartite principle, of the existing guidelines which are produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers. But if the tripartite principle is to be strengthened by the Home Office being involved in that process, I hope that it could also be strengthened as far as the third leg of the stool is concerned by requiring the involvement of police authorities in the process. Regulations, operational practices and procedures would be issued following meaningful consultation with APA and with ACPO. I believe that that is in the spirit of what is intended. No doubt my noble friend will clarify that that will be the case.
I turn briefly to Part 2 of the Bill, complaints. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, indicated, there has been enormous dissatisfaction with the existing complaints arrangements which are not seen as independent by most of those who make complaints. They are seen as the police investigating themselves. What is more, the processes are painfully slow and they are certainly completely opaque to the complainant and, indeed, to most other people. Therefore, the proposals in Part 2 are to be welcomed. They are an enormous

529
improvement on the current arrangements. The new IPCC will have to work hard to demonstrate that it is indeed properly independent, but the mechanics are there to enable it to be so. The IPCC must have a clear duty to act speedily but thoroughly and, of course, it must keep complainants fully informed.
The only omission that I can see is what appears to be an exclusion of complaints about the direction and control of a force. I do not see why that cannot be included within the terms of reference of the IPCC. Certainly, however, those proposals will be widely welcomed and I believe that many people will look forward to their implementation and will work to ensure that they are a strong and effective arrangement for improving public confidence in the police service.
I turn to the proposals in Clause 33 for community support officers. I strongly support the principle that is contained in those proposals. I certainly believe—again I say this in the spirit of the tripartite arrangements that we all support—that chief officers should prepare a plan in this regard which should be agreed by the local police authority. That measure should be stated on the face of the Bill before individuals are designated as community support officers. I am also pleased that the Bill recognises that there are different needs in different areas. That is not a solution that will necessarily find favour everywhere in the country. As chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I have to say that in London it is certainly seen as an important development in the context of substantially increasing police numbers. After a decade in which, year on year, police numbers in London have declined, in the current year there is a net increase of over 1,000 police officers in the London area. On the basis of the budget that is likely to be approved in the next few weeks, we shall see an increase of between 1,000 and 1,500 officers in the course of the coming year. That will bring police numbers in London to around 28,000—close to the maximum that has ever been achieved to which the noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred.
It is important that those proposals are seen in the context of increasing police numbers rather than decreasing police numbers. Community support officers should be concerned explicitly with adding value to what is being done by the police service locally. They are certainly not substitutes for police officers.
As to the escalating problem of street crime in virtually every London borough, we hear from the public that there is a need for reassurance but also for more to be done about its perpetrators. Visible patrols—perhaps by community support officers—are vital to providing reassurance and may deter street crime. However, such patrols might not be the solution or make the best use of fully trained police officers in achieving a better rate of judicial disposal.
There is a balance to be struck between using community support officers to improve reassurance and provide the eyes and ears of the Metropolitan Police and using fully trained officers in intelligence-led, specialised and targeted operations that focus on
530
likely perpetrators—the sort of activities undertaken in various parts of London in Operation Strongbox. The new proposals will enormously add value to policing and tackling community safety in London.
The new category of officer will provide an alternative route into the police service for many. At present, 40 per cent of special constables recruited for the metropolitan area are from black and ethnic minority communities. The figure for those entering the Metropolitan Police is only 11 per cent. It is possible, therefore, that using such intermediate steps might attract more recruits from black and ethnic minority communities, which is an important priority in London. The issue is reassurance with consent, which is why the proposals are so important.
Similarly, the provisions for community safety accreditation in Clause 34 recognise the burgeoning number of schemes. I spend time visiting London boroughs, to talk with local authorities, police commanders and partnerships. Many boroughs have already implemented local schemes for neighbourhood wardens, estate wardens, estate officers, parks officers, enforcement officers and so on. The accreditation proposals can be used as part of the wider police family as the eyes and ears of the police service—and to impose quality standards to offer the public reassurance about the quality of work that is done.
Clause 34(3) requires that police authorities be consulted on proposals to introduce an accreditation. No doubt "consult" should have read "approve" but at least that provision exists. Perhaps it could be replicated in Clause 33.
I welcome the extension in Clause 60 regarding nationality—an issue raised at many of the meetings that I have attended throughout London in respect of recruitment and retention problems in the past. Of course applicants must meet rigorous standards but they should not be barred because of their nationality.
If I may be permitted to nit-pick an excellent Bill, Clause 68 on crime and disorder reduction partnerships contains a sensible proposal to bring them together with drug action teams. There is a plethora of partnerships, so simplifying the structure must make sense—but I question whether the Bill's solution of having primary care trusts serve as the responsible authorities is a sensible way forward. Under the previous arrangements, the local police commander and local authority chief executive had joint responsibility for producing crime and disorder reduction plans for the area. That enabled the existing partnership to be built on, and made it happen.
Resting responsibility for such plans on two individuals can be difficult enough, so I wonder whether it is sensible to place that responsibility on three individuals. Perhaps some new status that recognises the importance of health, particularly in the context of drug and alcohol abuse, could be incorporated into the Bill. At the same time, perhaps it might be possible to remedy the failure of earlier legislation to recognise the important role of police authorities. In my visits to London boroughs, I have seen how valuable it would be for a police authority to

531
play a role in overseeing quality control of crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Perhaps that can be remedied when we come to consider Clause 68, as we need to do
The Bill is an excellent part of the police reform programme and has many excellent aspects. I have cited the issues relating to complaints, community safety and accreditation. Building on the tripartite principle, as is clearly the Bill's intention, is the way forward for effective policing.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the White Paper Policing a New Century boasts that crime is falling. Until the noble Lord, Lord Harris, mentioned street crime in London, I was beginning to think that there was a real risk that this debate would proceed, if not in a mood of complacency, then at least without anyone talking about what is really going on in the streets of our cities.
The uncomfortable truth is that the crime that concerns and frightens people most is growing at an appalling rate. In the past three years, assaults and muggings in London have risen by no less than 28 per cent. People in London are now six times more likely to be assaulted or robbed than are residents of New York. Percentages do not bring out the true horror. One can get that day after day by reading of the muggings, knifings and carjackings that go on in this, our capital city. It is shaming and disgraceful.
The White Paper states that fear of crime is high. It would be astonishing if it were not. Fear of crime—and, common sense tells us, some crime actually committed—is increasing not least because of what The Times referred to the other day as the retreat of the police from the streets; a retreat that has deprived citizens, frightened of what is going on in their neighbourhoods, of the comfort and deterrent effect of a police presence.
The question we must address is why that retreat from the streets has taken place. Are the new bureaucratic burdens that have been placed on the police to blame—the form-filling that accompanies every arrest and the new tasks that the police have been given? Yes, up to a point, I say; but is it not also clear that another factor has been the view of many senior officers that if patrolling is not actually a bit of a waste of time, there are better ways of using scarce manpower that are also less demanding and more popular with the rank and file?
The other day, The Times reported Sir David Phillips, Chief Constable of Kent and president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, as criticising calls for more visible police patrolling. He expressed the view that there is no prospect of the police ever having enough manpower to do enough patrolling to satisfy public expectations. That may be right or wrong, but Sir David's words certainly seem to justify the claim by, among others, the Police Federation that not just a shortage of police officers but the lack of priority given to beat patrols by chief constables has led to the present state of affairs. The research into the diaries of
532
police officers to which the Minister referred showed that the foot patrol is a rarity. That is the truth of it; and I believe—today I speak very much as a layman—that the public are suffering as a result.
We are told that there are considerable discrepancies in performance between different forces, which is why the Home Secretary is determined to take steps to ensure that policing everywhere is brought up to the standards of the best. I should like to know whether the discrepancies in performance between different forces, about which we have heard, include a discrepancy in the amount of actual patrolling that takes place. If so, the addressing of those discrepancies, and the redeployment of existing police resources, may be thought more of a priority than the recruitment of community support officers. I should like to be assured that all forces now recognise that although every street cannot be patrolled, officers on the beat do provide reassurance to the public and are an important part of policing; and that incident response, sometimes delayed for an absurd time and rarely leading to an arrest, is no substitute for the foot patrol.
I should like to say a few words about community support officers. Although I can see great merit in the proposal that police authority employees may be designated as investigating officers, detention officers and escort officers—all that is excellent—the idea of having quasi police officers with only limited police powers patrolling the streets has, to my mind, few attractions. I gather that some in the Metropolitan Police are happy to go along with the idea because they see it as a way of heading off pressure from certain London boroughs, worried about the lack of police presence on the streets, to set up their own auxiliary forces.
But if we go in for this two-tier policing, have we not every reason to fear that in a few years' time the Treasury will be insisting that forces should save money by steadily altering the balance between police officers and auxiliaries, recruiting fewer police officers who are so costly to train and more community support officers who cost so much less? That is a real fear. If it is realised, the end result will be a steady decline in quality, a fall in both standards and performance, and less—not more—public protection.
Then there is the very important point made by Mr Lawrence Roach, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in his letter to The Times last Wednesday—a letter that I commend to all noble Lords who have not already read it. It is all very well talking of police support staff going out on patrol to reassure the public, ready to deal with antisocial behaviour and minor disorder, but is not peacekeeping indivisible? Does it really make sense to give a patrolling officer power to deal with a lout who drops litter, but leave him impotent to deal with the same lout when, moments later, he seriously assaults a passer-by? It is very difficult to see the sense of that proposal. Is it really sensible to require such an officer to check the motorist who has improperly parked his car but studiously to ignore the knife fight or carjacking going on at his elbow?

533
Where are the people who will carry out such challenging tasks to come from? I suppose that there may be people who are prepared to do, at very much less than a policeman's salary, the pretty unpleasant job about which we are talking. But if such people exist, are they likely to be of the standard that the public are entitled to expect? Is the Home Office thinking of those now employed as traffic wardens? If so, I believe that we are entitled to be worried.
Before going down this road, surely the Home Secretary should try a far more obvious way of meeting the need that he has identified. He should do everything possible, including the use of substantial financial incentives, to expand the Special Constabulary. Some speakers have already mentioned the Specials in today's debate, and have commended their role. If there is a need for more support for the police to ensure greater police visibility on the streets, surely the Specials are the obvious people to carry out that function. After all, the Specials have been on the scene for years. They are well accepted; they have the confidence of the public; and, above all, they have full police powers. The White Paper, to which I referred earlier, tells us that the number of Specials has seriously declined in recent years from a peak of 20,573 in December 1993 to 12,738 in March 2001.
We are told that among the reasons given for that decline is the feeling among Specials that they are under-valued and are not given worthwhile and interesting duties. But those are all matters that can be put right. Strengthening the Specials seems to me to be so much easier for the police to accept than what is proposed. The Specials are not seen as a threat to their standing, as the gateway to two-tier policing.
I have concentrated on community support officers, but that is not because I believe them to be the most important part of the Home Secretary's proposals. Of course they are not; and there is much to digest in a very comprehensive package. Some people are worried that, through the new powers sought in Part 1, the Home Secretary is at risk of upsetting the present delicate constitutional framework—the partnership between chief officers, police authorities and government—and that, in the words of the Association of Police Authorities, the voice of local communities will be sidelined. During the progress of the Bill through this House, we must look very closely at those powers to ensure than they are not wider than necessary.
The Association of Police Authorities sees the sense of annual, national policing plan, but it wants to be consulted. It seems to me that here, and in many other areas, a commitment to consultation with the police authorities would meet most of the association's concerns. But we shall surely have to consider with great care the powers that the Home Secretary seeks to intervene if a force is not efficient or effective, as well as the proposals with regard to the suspension and removal of senior officers.
However, I am sure that the Bill is on the right lines where it makes it possible for forces not only to recruit expert investigating officers to deal with financial and
534
information-technology crime but also to equip those people with all the necessary powers to enable them to carry out their job effectively.
The police undertake a very difficult job for us. We all owe them an enormous debt. They often do not receive the public support that they deserve. When this Bill has completed its passage through this House, I hope that the police—all ranks—will see it as designed not to hinder them in their work but to help them. That is what they deserve from us.

Ofsted Annual Report
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the annual report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr Speaker, I am delighted to lay this 2000–01 report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools before Parliament. First, perhaps I may begin by both thanking and paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson, whose last annual report this is. Mike Tomlinson has made a huge contribution to education both as a teacher and inspector. I know that he will continue to do so after he steps down as chief inspector in April. I also thank the inspectors and those who work for Ofsted for their professionalism and dedication. Ofsted has shown the value of an independent inspectorate, identifying the strengths and weaknesses in our education system and ensuring that they 'tell it as it is'.
"Today's report shows,
'that the quality of education is getting better'.
Our education system was recently acknowledged as a 'star performer' by the PISA study. We can now be sure that we have a good and an improving education system. We know that further improvements need to be made. There are big challenges ahead, and they need to be addressed.
"Quality of teaching and school leadership is key to raising standards. The report describes teaching over the past year as the best ever. The proportion of lessons found to be unsatisfactory is at its lowest level ever recorded and the proportion of teaching found to be good or better has never been higher.
"Schools are reported as being increasingly well led and well managed. This is a tremendous achievement and I thank and applaud the hard work of teachers, heads and all those who work in our schools.
"The chief inspector's report acknowledges the enormous gains that have been made in recent years through reforms to primary education. Between 1997 and 2000, the proportion of children attaining level 4 by the end of key stage 2 increased by more than 10 per cent for both literacy and numeracy. This year saw continuing improvements in science,

535
but results for literacy and numeracy levelled off. Although this was disappointing, the chief inspector acknowledged that,
'we cannot expect progress to be even, year on year',
and that:
'We should, however, remind ourselves of how far we have come'.
"As levels of achievement rise, it is more difficult to maintain the rates of improvement that we have seen to date. As we move towards our goals the challenge will be greater, but we are determined to meet it.
"At secondary level, too, management and leadership continues to improve, with the proportion of schools where Ofsted judges this to be unsatisfactory now down to just one in 20. Achievement has also risen, with the Government's target of 50 per cent of children achieving five grade A to Cs at GCSE achieved one year ahead of schedule.
"The chief inspector reports that in most special schools pupils are achieving well and that improvement has been particularly marked in schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. In the mainstream, too, the achievements of pupils with special educational needs are showing welcome improvement.
"As a result of the further improvements in teaching and leadership, the number of schools in special measures has fallen again and those who do fall into special measures are also recovering more quickly. This year, 137 schools were placed in special measures compared to 230 the previous year, and 194 schools had improved sufficiently to remove them altogether from special measures.
"This report contains some encouraging findings, but we should not be complacent about the scale of the challenge still ahead of us. We have much more to do, and what we have to do is also set out in this report today.
"The chief inspector commented on,
'the variation in performance between schools'.
He says that,
'the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large'.
Ofsted goes on to report that while the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing at primary level, at secondary level it has widened. Closing this achievement gap is one of the main aims of the Government's policies and we are determined to make further progress. As the report notes, our literacy and numeracy strategies have closed the gap in primary schools and we will further address the secondary school gap as part of our secondary school reform.
"While standards of achievement rise for the majority of our pupils, there are some children who Ofsted believes continue to be failed by the system. It has been a national disgrace that children in care leave school with so few academic qualifications. Our 'children in care' programme shows that there
536
are early signs of improvement. The latest figures show that 37 per cent of young people leaving care in 2000–01 obtained one or more GCSEs or GNVQs, up from 30 per cent the previous year. But so much more needs to be done and the report is right to draw our attention to this.
"There also remains significant underachievement in certain ethnic groups. Although there is still some way to go, again improvements have been made. The 'Youth Cohort' study published in January 2001 reveals a significant improvement in the achievement of many ethnic groups at GCSE level. Although there is yet no similar national data source for the primary sector, the latest key stage 2 test results show that inner city LEAs with high ethnic minority populations are among the most improved in the country.
"This year we are introducing new national data collection arrangements, which will enable the performance of minority ethnic pupils to be monitored nationally and locally. This will help ensure that resources are better targeted at need.
"I am pleased that HMCI draws attention to the value of the 'Excellence in Cities' programme for pupils in our more deprived areas. The programme is already making an impact. Standards in schools benefiting from 'Excellence in Cities' are rising faster than elsewhere. The latest key stage 3 English tests showed an improvement in inner city schools that was four times the improvement elsewhere. I am progressively extending the programme to more schools in clusters of deprivation beyond the inner cities. Twelve new excellence clusters are now operating, and I intend 12 more to start in September. They will be in Barnet, Bishop Auckland, Crewe, Derby, High Wycombe, Hillingdon, Lancaster, Milton Keynes, Norwich, Peterborough, Stockport and Wigan.
"The fundamental challenge. of course. is to improve the quality of education for all our children. The Government set out in their White Paper, Schools Achieving Success, an agenda which aims for nothing short of the transformation of secondary education. It is a programme of work that is given added weight by the report we have received today.
"At the very core of secondary transformation is the 'Key Stage 3 strategy'. Too much time and previous gain are lost in the transition from primary to secondary school and we know that at this stage disaffection with schooling can set in. We need to turn this around and use the early years of secondary education to build upon achievements at primary level and to provide a solid platform for attainment in the 14-to- l 9 phase.
"The Government are investing £489 million in the key stage 3 strategy between now and 2003–04 and early feedback from both Ofsted and schools is very encouraging. From September this school year. the strategy began to impact on 1.8 million of our children, building upon the very best of the literacy

537
and numeracy strategies in primary schools, to bring about a similar step-change in performance at secondary level.
"Schools will also have to be structured more to meet the needs of the individual pupil. We have made progress with individual pupil targeting, learning mentors for individual pupils and encouraging secondary schools to have both their own distinctive mission and ethos and to accept their responsibility to other schools and the wider education community. This is where beacon and specialist schools have an important role to play. We want all schools to develop a sense of mission and, in doing so, to develop centres of excellence and networks that lead to innovation and higher standards for all children.
"Yesterday, I announced the biggest ever expansion of the specialist schools programme. By September 2002, we shall have 1,000, each of them teaching a full and balanced curriculum and using their specialism as a catalyst for whole-school improvement and increasingly sharing that expertise with other schools.
"The best ideas on school improvement are so often developed in the schools themselves. We want our best schools to be the innovators of the next stage of educational reform. That is why we are giving our very best schools greater autonomy and supporting innovation so that it has an impact on the whole system.
"But none of this can happen without teachers. The report acknowledges, as we do, that teacher recruitment and retention continue to pose a challenge, but the chief inspector acknowledges that the measures we have introduced are beginning to bear fruit. Apart from rapidly increasing numbers of people starting training and joining the profession, the alternative routes are expanding fast, too.
"Retention is mentioned by the chief inspector as a particular concern. A great deal has been asked of teachers and we need to make sure that they are supported to do their jobs. I know that workload is a key issue. I see giving teachers the time they need to teach as critical to raising standards of achievement. The School Teachers' Review Body will be making recommendations on workload at the end of April.
"While behaviour in schools is reported by Ofsted as generally good, the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is also reported as being a significant factor in teachers' decisions to leave the profession. To help teachers tackle disruption effectively, we have expanded our programme of on-site learning support units and learning mentors. Around 3,000 learning mentors have now been recruited. We now have 323 pupil referral units providing more places with better quality teaching. The Connexions service will also offer advice to young people throughout the country when it is rolled out nationally later this year.
538
"As the TES survey reported last Friday, teaching is a profession on the up. The typical teacher is enjoying an improved standard of living and enjoying the job. The TES says that seven out of 10 teachers are satisfied with their jobs.
"This report is an important document. Its value is in its independence. It demonstrates the real gains that have been made and continue to be made in our schools. It also signposts for us continuing challenges—challenges that we intend to address in raising standards further still.
"Finally, this report states that one of the reasons teachers leave the profession is a lack of esteem. They have no reason to think that they are anything other than one of the most important professions in the land. I hope that Members of this House will join me in paying tribute to them for what they have achieved for our children. We have it on Ofsted's authority that the quality of their work has never been better".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for letting me have sight of it earlier this afternoon. She made a remark outside the Chamber which leads me to believe that this is the first Statement that she has dealt with. I hope that she will be comforted by the knowledge that this is my first response to an education Statement.
Naturally, the Statement highlights the successes referred to in the Ofsted report. That is understandable and, in any event, those successes are numerous. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, thank Mike Tomlinson, the other inspectors and all those who work in Ofsted for the quality of their work, which has resulted in the improvements that have been mentioned. Indeed, like the Minister, I applaud all the hard work done by teachers, heads and others in schools for the work that they have done and still do, often in very difficult circumstances.
Perhaps the Minister will understand if I now mention some of our concerns. Starting with the primary sector, which certainly showed the best results, it seems that of the six main findings, one is positive, three are neutral and two are negative. Improvement trends in maths have fallen by 1 per cent to 71 per cent at level 4 achievement. I wonder whether that can possibly have anything to do with the shortage of maths teachers. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on that later. I understand that one in eight schools is now short of maths teachers.
Another matter of concern is that boys lag behind girls in standards for English. Ofsted says that the under-performance of boys is worsening year on year. Standards of reading have also fallen for 11 year-olds. Maths, English and reading are certainly basic skills by any standard; therefore, I imagine that the noble Baroness will consider those findings to be worrying, too.

539
Equally worrying is the finding in the Ofsted report that, in order to achieve what is obviously very necessary—that is, essential literacy and numeracy targets—primary head teachers are finding it more difficult to make the curriculum wider and balanced, with other matters included. Indeed, the report states that four out of five primary schools fall into that category. That means that only one in five is achieving a wider expansion of the curriculum. I am certain that the Minister will be as concerned as I am about this, as it may have significant effects later, when pupils come to make curriculum choices.
At secondary level, the problems are worse. The gap between high-performing and low-performing schools is widening. In particular, Ofsted has identified the weakening of foreign language teaching, and has also commented that 25 per cent of all secondary schools have unsatisfactory attendance levels—or, to put it another way, the truancy levels are too high. That figure of 25 per cent rises to 37 per cent in relation to all the schools inspected.
Sadly, the report highlights the disproportionate number of children from ethnic backgrounds—Afro-Caribbean. Pakistani and Bangladeshi—who achieve poor GCSE results, which will hinder their employment prospects later. I wonder what suggestions the Government have to try to remedy that.
I am certain that all the problems that I have highlighted are connected with one main underlying cause; namely, the crisis in teacher retention, which we have discussed and which was mentioned in the Statement. Because of the gravity of the shortage of teachers, many are now having to teach subjects for which they are not qualified. The proportion of such teachers is much higher in the temporary or supply teacher category.
Later today, in the debate initiated by the noble Baroness. Lady Walt-Insley, the reason for the crisis in teacher retention and recruitment will be discussed in much more detail. But one of the main reasons for that crisis—among others, of course—is the difficulty faced by teachers in terms of indiscipline in the classroom. Teachers have a lack of options when dealing with the problem. The situation was certainly exacerbated by the previous Secretary of State in not allowing pupils to be excluded when it was obvious that that was the only solution. The present Secretary of State is to be congratulated on reversing that decision.
The other main problems—centralising, and the bureaucratic way in which the Government sometimes behave towards schools and, indeed, towards local government—often make the situation harder. Does the Minister agree that the message should be: trust the heads, the teachers and all those in education to do the job that they are trained for, and remove the obstacles to make it much more worth-while for those who enter the profession to stay there?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Minister on her first Statement to this
540
House. She did it admirably. I join her in paying tribute to the work of Mike Tomlinson at Ofsted and in congratulating our teachers on what I consider to be an excellent report from Ofsted. They have achieved a great deal in the course of these past few years. The pressures have been considerable but, at long last, the combination of extra resources put in by the present Government and the setting of high aspirational targets from Ofsted is beginning to pay off.
The Statement mentioned the PISA study of OECD countries. In that, the UK was one of the few countries to be picked out as an example where standards were increasing. As I said, it is a tribute to our teachers that that is the case. It is also very important that we are not complacent. The Minister herself said that. We must remember that one in five adults in this country is functionally illiterate. They cannot look up a plumber in the Yellow Pages because they do not know how to spell "plumber" properly.
That is an indictment of what we have not achieved in our education system in the past. It also raises a number of issues in relation to the report that I want to put to the Minister. First, rightly, we have been increasing standards at key stage 2—those who leave primary schools. If children do not leave primary schools able to read and write, the odds are that they will be illiterate for life. They are the ones who sit at the back of the class and muck around when they are II and 12 years old. Then they drop out of school when they are 13 years old and become truants.
I want to ask the Minister whether, in shifting the emphasis to key stage 3, which I believe is right and proper, enough liaison will take place between primary and secondary schools to ensure that secondary schools are aware when children have perhaps not achieved in the way that teachers consider they should. It is vitally important that the right information gets through to secondary schools.
Secondly, is there enough awareness in secondary teaching about special educational needs? Far too many children who do not achieve well and who are put at the back of the class and regarded as being disruptive are found, for example, to be dyslexic. It is vitally important that proper diagnosis is made as early as possible.
Thirdly, it is obviously extremely distressing for any school to be placed at the bottom of league tables. I believe that in this country we have too much of an ethos of performance indicators and league tables. They have been used in the Soviet Union and have proved to be disastrous. I am not someone who considers that there should never be league tables, but I believe that we should limit the number. Above all. are we moving forward fast enough with the value-added data so that schools are not always charted as being in bottom place? Many schools that come low in the Ofsted tables have extremely difficult intakes, and it is important that they are not always seen to be at the bottom.
The inspector's report highlights the gap between the highest and lowest achieving schools. I want to ask the Minister whether she considers the specialist

541
schools programme to be necessarily the right way in which to tackle that problem. She mentioned that yesterday her colleague the Secretary of State announced that 1,000 secondary schools are now specialist schools. There are 3,500 secondary schools; 2,500 schools are not specialist schools. Yet there is a case for making every school special. Are the Government confident that the specialist schools programme is the right way to move forward?
I do not know how many other noble Lords look at the Times Educational Supplement. It contained an interesting article about a school in Derby called the Valley School, which had been closed but where a group of teachers—seven of them full time; five, parttime—stayed on last year in order to teach the children in year 11 to do their GCSEs. As they say, the children changed. Previously they had behaved in a foul manner: swearing, lobbing things, running away and humiliating supply teachers.
The children have special needs, and they always have had, but with the ratios that there are now we should spend time with the children, helping them and taking into account their individual needs. In this example, by accident, students have just what they need: a small school with an experienced, committed group of staff, high staff/pupil ratios, stability and a degree of ownership of the institution. They are turning round the achievements of that little group.
How quickly does the Minister consider that her Excellence in Cities programme is rolling out? We need more of that and we need to make such schools and pupils feel special as well as the specialist schools. The specialist schools are doing well. They are at the top of the league tables. The increase in performance needs to take place at the bottom. We need to look at that.
On the issue of recruitment and retention, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned a number of the topics about which I wanted to speak. A significant fact is that 20 per cent of teachers drop out in their first three years of teaching. If one includes the training period, 50 per cent of those recruited drop out within five years. That is a worrying matter.
Last week the TES rightly said that teachers are relatively contented, but some questions were raised. Teachers said that they did not like the long hours for which they blamed too much bureaucracy. The Secretary of State has promised to try to limit the amount of bureaucracy. Does the Minister consider that she is succeeding in that? Under the Education Bill schools can earn autonomy, so why not allow every school to earn its own autonomy? As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked, is it a matter of trust? We should treat the teachers as professionals. We know that they do a super job, so let us treat them as professionals and trust them to get on well with the job.
I am concerned about the situation in relation to maths, a point that the inspector raises. Seventy-one per cent of children in secondary schools are taught by specialist teachers, but many children are not and the
542
inspector found a noticeable difference. That is a real problem. Not enough people are studying maths at university to provide the maths teachers of the future.
On truancy, does the Minister feel that enough is being done to create mentors? Are mentors being linked with youth clubs? What about children in care? Does she consider that 37 per cent of children achieving one GCSE, compared with the target of 50 per cent of children achieving five GCSE in grades A to C, is a low target? Should we look for higher levels of achievement?
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Sharp, for welcoming the report and for their kind words about Mike Tomlinson, which I am sure are shared by the whole House. I shall endeavour to address all the questions raised, and seek forgiveness if I fail.
I am conscious that there was a delay in copies of the report arriving in your Lordships' House. I can only apologise. That was not within my gift; it is not my report. I shall seek to refer specifically to what the report says and ensure that sufficient copies are available by tomorrow.
The report highlights the situation in regard to boys. It says that the attainment of boys in English, especially in writing, still lags behind that of girls and that there are wide differences in the levels of attainment. That is a real concern. However, not all boys under-achieve, so it is not a universal problem. We are considering different strategies. For example, research begins to suggest that positive ethos strategies counter macho and anti-school attitudes. Literacy strategies targeted at boys' preferred styles, performance data analysis, pupil monitoring, the use of mentors and role models and pupil grouping, including single-sex teaching, have been appropriate. We have commissioned a three-year longitudinal research project from Cambridge to identify successful strategies. That will be presented to us in March 2003.
When Mike Tomlinson refers to maths teachers and key stage 2, we should be careful not to link the two. He is pointing out that there will be difficulties in the future, which we accept. I look forward to the debate to be held later in your Lordships' House that will consider issues of recruitment and retention.
In regard to the literacy and numeracy strategies, we recognise that, this year, the targets at which we are aiming have been stalling—a term that has been used. We are also conscious that children's learning abilities are not in a straight line. We are proud of the achievements that we have made in terms of the literacy and numeracy strategies. We believe that the results from the year five groups demonstrate that we should expect to see standards improve. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about enriched curricula. We believe that good schools provide full curricula. The enriched curriculum is part of raising standards. There are not two separate curricula; there is one curriculum taught

543
in schools, which should be enriching and enhancing for children. It is through access to different subjects that children will enhance their literacy and numeracy skills.
On attendance and truancy levels, for me one of the most shocking facts was discovering how much truancy is parentally condoned. The truancy sweep shows that so many pupils out of school are out of school with their parents. We have to do more to insist that parents accept their responsibilities to ensure that students are in school.
In relation to ethnic minority pupils, we recognise that we have much to do. We know that for some ethnic groups there has been an improvement, but for others we need to do more work. I refer in particular to the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. We are considering how we can make sure that the matter is addressed. One factor is that we shall have information and data that we did not have before.
As to behaviour, I fully accept the need to ensure that schools are able to exclude children who cannot be taught in those schools and for whom school is not a positive experience. We also recognise that it is important to ensure that such children are not left without full-time education. I am delighted that, by September 2002, we shall have full-time education for all excluded children. I am sure that all noble Lords will accept that this is part of the continuum of education, and that we should not view exclusion in the way in which we used to view expulsion. We must view it as providing the right kind of education for children who simply cannot be taught in mainstream education as we define it.
I entirely agree with the statement about trusting headteachers. I hope that when we come to discuss the Bill that talks about innovation and autonomy, noble Lords will feel able to support us in doing that. I agree that we also need to seek autonomy in a broader spectrum. We want good schools to lead the way in what we should do next. Part of the purpose behind the Education Bill is to put the schools in the driving seat. That is a crucial part of what we want to achieve. As our schools develop, we hope to see many more of them being able to move towards that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, we recognise the issues about the transfer from primary school to secondary school. We must continue to examine that area carefully. Good secondary schools have been working with primary schools, seeing how the children develop and developing strategies themselves for key stage 3, but there is more to do. That transition is crucial. At that point, the achievement of too many of our children dips, and we need to work on that.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the issue of special educational needs and early diagnosis. My particular mantra, as the department knows only too well, is that a child should arrive at nursery school with his or her little rucksack containing an apple, a ruler and a special needs kit, already defined and worked out, so that the child arrives at school with the support that is necessary to enable him or her to achieve.
544
We are carefully considering the "value-added" point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and other noble Lords will know, we must ensure that we have the information from key stage 1 and key stages 2 and 3 and the differences between them, in order to do the value-added part of the equation. The pilot study has been successful. The schools that took part felt that it was a worthwhile experience. I believe that it will make a difference. However, we do not produce league tables; we produce performance tables.
I believe that the specialist school model is a positive one. The schools that participate in it have described it as a process of renewal for the school. That is something that we wish to support.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the contrast between basic skills education in primary schools that appears to work well, and the analogous level of education in the Prison Service? On pages 25 and 27 of the Ofsted report we see that English and maths primary school results, with the slight question marks that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has raised, are ahead of all other subjects and unsurprisingly, but pleasingly, they are the two subjects where the quality of teaching is perceived to be best. But on page 55 of the report, we see that in prisons the literacy and numeracy skills are far weaker than in the population at large. Such skills are absolutely essential if we are to get jobs for prisoners when they leave prison. The teaching in both maths and reading and writing are said to he deplorably weak.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the report says that,
"much of the teaching observed is of a high quality. However, the teaching of literacy and numeracy are too often unsatisfactory.'
We are very concerned about that. We plan to ensure by April that the majority of juveniles in custody have access to 30 hours of learning opportunities a week. That compares to the current 15 hours a week which most receive.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that many offenders have learning difficulties and/or disabilities. Yet we know that there is widespread lack of proper assessment for special needs. We are working in partnership with prisons and young offender institutions on that issue. The plan is to set up a mul ti-agency working group to develop an action plan. We are also working with the adult basic skills strategy unit to review basic skills targets so that they better reflect the needs of prisoners.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, this is a good and encouraging report. I ask the Minister how she proposes with the help of all of us—because we are all engaged in this—to convey the good news to the teachers. What we need now in our society is encouragement and appreciation for the teaching force. Somehow the Government must find a way—it is difficult because it is a very subtle thing—to change the culture of parents and others into appreciating what they are actually getting.

545
If these reported comments are fact—and I believe that they are—then somehow we must convey this matter and change the whole thrust from what I call, in Church terms, the half-empty to the half-full, or, in this case, the three-quarters full. That is the first point. Secondly, I want to pay tribute to Mike Tomlinson, but really through him to a kind of change that I detect as I go around schools. I visit many schools—community as well as church schools. It is about the approach of inspectors. There is a new culture of inspectors who are sympathetic as to what the teachers are about. In the early days inspectors went in with a kind of—as they saw it—public remit to change things, without really having a clue about what it was like to teach in a school. I think that that change is very important.
There are two or three other comments that I want to make. The first is to emphasise the business of trust. I am sure that the matter will come up in the later debate. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on the question of what one might call "stability". Good things are now happening but teachers are constantly in fear of new changes being placed upon them without being given time to assimilate them and work through what they are already trying to do. If things are improving, we need to help them and not to lose our sense of positive critical involvement and concern. Somehow the Government and the department, through the messages that they send out, must convey this.
I want to associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, about value added. It is very important that, if we publish tables—whether league or performance—somehow we indicate what goes in as well as judging what is the end product.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his comments about not only Tomlinson but the inspectors. The way that he has shaped the new inspection has made a difference. Many teachers would agree that this has created perhaps a more positive working relationship.
I also agree with the right reverend Prelate on the important issue of stability. We are very mindful of that. It gives me a chance to mention bureaucracy, which was raised earlier. It is crucial that we make sure that teachers are not inundated. We are rigorous in the department to ensure that we send as little as possible to them; although I have discovered that it is surprising how many times one wants to communicate.
In terms of how we make changes, one of the key parts of the key stage 3 strategy is concerned with continuing professional development. It is about developing our teachers and not telling them what they should be doing differently. That is a really important part of the way that we need to approach the issue.
Finally, on value added, we know that schools that are working well with children of all abilities in an individualised way are achieving fantastically well. That may not be reflected in the simplistic way that we
546
show how schools are doing. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we get rid of that system. Many people would say that there is now an opportunity to enhance it and make it of more value. That we want to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in what must be an encouraging report from what I have seen just glimpsing through it, there is one important criticism on page 87. It relates to the help that local education authorities give to new head teachers. The business of recruiting and retaining teachers depends so much on the satisfaction that the teacher can get from what is now a really very difficult job.
It is unfashionable to talk about leadership in a school. But in fact that is what a school and what teachers need. It is quite significant that Mr Tomlinson says on page 87:
"The support programme offered by local education authorities for new head teachers is characterised by inconsistency, with no local education authority having good practice in all aspects and one-quarter of LEAs providing unsatisfactory support".
If there is one place where pressure could be brought to help in the retention of teachers and in their job satisfaction, it is in helping new head teachers develop their leadership skills in the schools. We are not just talking about new teachers so it may or may not come into the debate today, in which I unfortunately cannot join. However, this issue interested me very much. Perhaps the Minister can say something about it. Further, do the Government feel that they can enable local education authorities to do more about the issue and, indeed, give help to other schools which are not their responsibility?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It may be unfashionable but it is crucial to talk about leadership. Indeed, in our department it is not unfashionable at all; it is considered to be at the forefront of new thinking.
Elsewhere in the report there is an interesting reference to the fact that leadership and management of our schools continue to improve, being good or better in some three-quarters of primary, special and secondary schools.
Noble Lords should be aware that we have established the National College for School Leadership and have brought in a professional qualification for headship. We want to see a constant move towards leadership within schools. We know that it is through that leadership that schools will improve, teachers will be supported by their head teachers and that the school will be able to innovate and move forward in its thinking.
We want to make sure that we have new and good systems of support. We have asked the National College for School Leadership, which runs the leadership and management programme for new heads, to review that programme in order to maximise the support given to heads as they take up their first headship post. It is of course important to work with

547
local education authorities. We would expect that within their education development plans they will take note of the need to support their head teachers.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly declare an interest as chairman of the General Teaching Council. I apologise to my noble friend for the fact that I listened to the Statement in another place.
I identify with just about everything said by the right reverend Prelate. But I want to amplify a little on the issue of Mike Tomlinson's extraordinary contribution, not just to this report, but to the change in ethos that has been achieved at Ofsted. It is quite remarkable.
Ofsted has returned to what teachers always wanted, which is a critical friend. Teachers were never ever nervous of criticism; it was the manner in which that criticism was sometimes couched. He has remarkably achieved in a very short time a movement from the "SS" to the "SAS", and that is no mean achievement.
From the teachers' perspective, I hope that the fact that that acknowledgement of their extraordinary work comes from a neutral source and at a time when public services have come in for something of a beating does not go unnoticed by members of the press. He actually said that teaching has never, ever been better. That is an extraordinary compliment to a large group of extraordinarily dedicated public servants.
I shall touch on two further points with which I think that the House will entirely agree. Truancy is a significant worry, but the House should remember that 80 per cent of all truancy in the UK is with parental compliance. That is a societal problem, not a schools problem. Recently, I visited a school where the deputy head spends most mornings of the week going out into the local housing estate, literally knocking on doors to try to encourage parents to send their child to school. That is a societal problem, not a departmental problem. I hope that Members on all sides of the House will help to correct that misperception.
Lastly, the report mentions the extraordinary work being done and the improvement being achieved in special needs education. The nicest single part of my job is visiting special needs schools. Special needs education is the really tough end of the job. The fact that it is successful against the odds—that although more children probably need special education than ever before, we are pulling that off—is a great national achievement.
The reason that teachers will welcome the report is that it offers trust back to them and tells them that they are doing a good job and deserve our respect. I, for one, have been enormously encouraged by all the comments—even the criticisms—that have been made in the House this afternoon.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend and with Mike Tomlinson: I think that the sentiment is shared across the House that teaching has never, ever been better. That is a tribute to all those in the profession.
548
I recognise the importance of the issue of truancy. As my noble friend said, it is parentally condoned truancy which is of such concern. We are providing more than £500 million to support local projects to tackle truancy and its underlying causes. We have launched a package of measures to help schools to set a clear, tougher policy on attendance and to stress to parents and the wider community that absences for any reason should not be tolerated.
The reference to special educational needs gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to special schools, which do a fantastic job on our behalf. They work with some children who have complex difficulties. I was fortunate to spend last Friday evening with the head teachers of many of our special schools, which was a fantastic experience for me—I am not sure that it was for them. We were able to talk about the issues that concern them. I know that they will be pleased to have recognition for their work.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I should like first to join the thanks to Mike Tomlinson. Perhaps the best contribution that the Government could make this month to the cause of good education would be to ensure that teachers know how much they have achieved and to say thank you to them. They need that.
Having said that—it may take a little longer than a month to deal with this point—the Government should address the chief inspector's comment that,
"Accommodation is unsatisfactory or poor in one quarter of schools inspected".
I know that that will take a little time to deal with, but to do so would be a good practical way to say thank you.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, arid others have said, good progress has been made for children with special educational needs. That is especially welcome, because they need the help most. The report comments on the continued overall improvement in the work of local authorities, but goes on to say:
"LEAs' performance in carrying out special needs education is improving but is still the weakest area of provision".
That should concern us all. I hope that the Government will encourage LEAs to consider how the best LEAs—which are identified by the chief inspector—go about that task and to engage in best practice.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree that we want to communicate to teachers the message of their success. I do not want to communicate in a way that adds to bureaucracy, so we must think creatively about that, but I will communicate the message. I hope that every noble Lord will take the opportunity on behalf of this House to spread that message. The point about accommodation is well made. That is not only an issue for teachers; we know that good design and good accommodation have a direct effect on standards, because they raise the self-esteem of

549
children and teachers. We are trying to address that matter with a huge investment programme, which noble Lords will have heard me describe before.
Special educational needs are also of real importance to us. It is important that local education authorities begin to develop appropriate strategies to support children with special educational needs who, in the vast majority of cases, can achieve at the same level as children without identified special educational needs.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the Minister spoke of how much we ask of our teachers. Pursuant to a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, but without seeking to preempt the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will initiate later, does the Minister feel that the demands imposed from the centre by the Government have anything to do with teacher retention rates?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, teachers have raised several issues with us, including the behaviour of a small minority of children and the need of teachers to feel supported in dealing with it. We have already discussed issues such as being able to exclude when that is appropriate, but we are also putting in place other support systems and mechanisms. Teachers talk about their workload. The department must carefully consider how we can help.
As noble Lords will be aware, we are making recommendations to ensure that we reduce teachers' workload. Those involve the more creative use of other adults in schools. Teachers, especially in primary education, should not be doing jobs that could be done by others. That will free them to teach. The recommendations also involve the use of IT—the ability to use computer technology. We must ensure that we are not using old-fashioned systems, if I may so describe them, when new systems could be quicker and easier for teachers. All those issues are at the forefront of our mind.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, may I ask a question about supply teachers—temporary teachers? I understand that there has been a great change and local authorities do not provide supply teachers as they used to. I was surprised to hear one of my noble friend's colleagues on television last night refer to the fact that supply teachers—temporary teachers—are employed by an agency, and that it is not the job of the school to check on the standard of the teachers concerned. Surely that is not the case. Someone must check.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am well aware of the case to which my noble friend refers. It is true that the majority of supply teachers are now covered through agencies, but the agencies are required to comply with the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and conduct regulations made under that
550
Act. Those require checks to be made on anyone supplied to work as a teacher. We provide further guidance in Circular 7/96.
As well as checking teachers against List 99, which is a requirement of the education regulations introduced in 2000, agencies are advised to check other aspects, including whether the teacher has permission to work in the country, whether the teacher has the relevant qualifications, whether the teacher has declared the right identity, the teacher's previous job or other relevant references and whether the teacher has a criminal record. Agencies should be absolutely clear that it is their responsibility that anyone whom they put in front of a class is an appropriate teacher.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Statement has encouraging things to say about children in care, but concedes that so much more needs to be done. The report itself also points up some improvements, but one major resisting factor is the problem of recruitment and retention of residential social care staff.
Is the Minister aware of the work of Professor Sonia Jackson, the acknowledged academic expert on education for looked-after children? It is her strongly held view that we must have a principally graduate-educated residential social care staff for children, both to model the excellence and success achieved in education and to put priority on education for looked-after children in care. That is what happens on the Continent, and that is why, as she says—and as we all know—children in care do so much better in school and education there than they do in this country.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am aware of the work of Professor Jackson, but not in detail. I understand that the noble Earl has raised some important points, and I will discuss with the Minister of State at the Department of Health issues relating to how education and social care can work together more effectively to ensure that we reach children in care, and to ensure that looked-after children have the best possible educational experience. It is important that such children get time to stay at school, to make friendships and, whatever care situation they are in, to develop the kind of support that one would expect in a family home.

Police Reform Bill [HU]
5.50 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill and to welcome the proposals contained in it. It is an important piece of legislation, and, like most other speakers, I think that the greater part of it is well worth supporting.
There are, however, some weaknesses and omissions in the Bill as drafted, and I hope that the Government will address them in Committee. I had intended to start

551
by commenting on the speed with which the Home Office produced the Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has done that effectively already. It is worth remembering that the Bill stems from a White Paper entitled Policing a New Century, which was published in December, with a closing date for consultation of 21st January. The Police Reform Bill was ordered to be printed on 24th January—not on 25th January, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said—which was just three days after the end of the consultation period. There were over a thousand responses to the consultation. I hope that the Government intend to consider those representations as the Bill proceeds through this House and in another place. I hope that they will amend the Bill, where appropriate, in the light of those representations.
I draw your Lordships' attention to one important omission from the White Paper and from the Bill; namely, the involvement of the police in the reduction of road crime. That point was made in response to the White Paper by both the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I have the honour to be president, and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, of which I am a member. In its response, PACTS pointed out that:
"The enforcement of road traffic law is not an optional extra for the police. It operates on two levels, sending out a clear signal to all road users that certain activities are not acceptable in a civilised society and punishing the extreme offender. These are important strands in establishing a culture of responsibility on our roads."
PACTS also highlighted research commissioned by the Home Office into the criminal histories of serious traffic offenders and published as Home Office Research Study 206. It concluded:
"The use of intelligence derived from road policing could impact on both I raffle and other crime reduction",
and that,
"traffic officers have a dual role in the detection of both traffic and mainstream criminal offences".
Put in context, that means that one is far more likely to die in a road crash than to be the victim of a homicide. For every one murder, over four people are killed on our roads. That is why, at the end of last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers published a manual on the investigation of road deaths that sought to place the road death investigation on a par with that of murder or homicide. Such an important publication is to be welcomed. Yet it would seem that the Home Office does not entirely share those priorities. Comments from the Home Secretary in response to the recent decision by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to reduce traffic policing in London seemed to suggest, first, that other forces would wish to follow suit and, secondly, that he would not object to their doing so.
Mr Blunkett was, for example, quoted in the Independent on 12th January as saying that the measures to re-deploy half of London's traffic police,
"would mean traffic policing taking a back seat in the short term".
I must say to my noble friend the Minister that there is great concern among road safety groups on those matters. I have received, among others, a submission from Mr Chris King, who is a spokesman for the
552
London Accident Prevention Council and the principal safety education officer in the London Borough of Richmond. He says that taking officers away from traffic duties will remove the visual deterrent for drivers to drive dangerously. He points out that the announcement of the measures in the national press had the effect of publicising the fact that drivers who drive irresponsibly in London in the coming months are now even less likely to be prosecuted than they were.
The Government and Transport for London have set challenging casualty reduction targets for local authorities which will require full implementation of the "three Es". For education and engineering to be effective as casualty reduction measures, they must be supported by the third "E"; namely, enforcement: of traffic laws. Will my noble friend tell the House whether traffic officers are seen as a long-term solution to the street crime problem? What if that does not work? Will the operation be extended until it does? We should realise that one consequence of the new approach will be significantly fewer police patrolling the streets of 24 London boroughs.
One way of addressing the issue in the Bill is to include road policing as a central element of the national policing plan, the production of which is a duty placed on the Secretary of State in the first clause. It is a challenging opportunity to build on the work undertaken by local crime and disorder partnerships and to identify national priorities for reducing crime and disorder. The Government are already committed to a reduction of 40 per cent in the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads by 2010. Tomorrow's Roads—safer for everyone, the road safety strategy published in March 2000, emphasised the importance of enforcement as part of casualty reduction. I hope, therefore, that we shall find some evidence of government departments working together and complementing each other in important areas of public policy, with the Home Office working with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to deliver lower road casualties.
There seems to be another omission in the clause proposing the national policing plan. So far as I can tell, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to consult about what should be included in the plan. Put at its most extreme, it appears that the Secretary of State could include in the plan whatever he or she wished—an outcome which, I am sure, was not the intention of the drafters. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will consider an amendment requiring consultation with such organisations as the Secretary of State sees fit.
Also missing from the Bill is any reference to the standards unit proposed in the White Paper. That was an interesting proposal and, no doubt, it would have become known as "OfCop". It offers an opportunity to monitor the effectiveness and consistency of police forces.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but, as I made clear, the standards unit is up and running. It has been appointed. It does not

553
require legislation. Most of the White Paper does not require legislation. The unit is up and running, with an expensively appointed head, which received a lot of publicity.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. That is reassuring, and I am delighted to be corrected in that way.
In evidence provided to the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions in the other place, Mr Richard Brunstrom, speaking on behalf of ACPO, pointed to the reduction in the number of dedicated traffic officers in individual constabularies. I am sure that the standards unit will have something to say about that, and I hope that reducing crime and disorder will be a suitable area for its involvement.
As I said, there is a great deal to commend in the Bill. My concern is to raise the profile of road traffic policing to ensure that it is not forgotten. Above all, safer roads are part of a safer community. I warmly welcome Clauses 48 to 51, to which my noble friend referred in his opening speech, relating to testing blood alcohol levels, and Clause 52, which relates to driving off-road in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Those are important measures, and I am sure that they will have wide support.
Finally, I shall say a brief word about another matter. Some of your Lordships will be aware that, on more than one occasion recently, I have spoken in the House about the role and responsibilities of the British Transport Police. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, which we passed in December, implemented the most important of the recommendations contained in the consultation paper entitled Modernising the British Transport Police, which was published last October. It concerned the jurisdiction of the BTP when operating in support of a civil force away from railway premises. I had hoped that this Bill would provide the opportunity to implement other recommendations contained in that consultation paper, especially the recommendations which received strong support from those who were consulted.
The inclusion in Clause 54 of new powers for the British Transport Police in relation to children and young people who play truant is most welcome, as is Clause 55, which gives the BTP the authorisation to deal with parts of the fixed penalty notice process. I support those provisions wholeheartedly. However, there is nothing relating to the intention to establish a new British Transport Police Authority, another important step towards the modernisation of the force. I hope my noble friend will consider that that may be an appropriate matter for amendment in Committee, when we shall have another opportunity to consider it.
The Bill goes a long way towards implementing the Government's objectives. I am pleased to give it support. I hope that the matters to which I referred in my short intervention, particularly those relating to road crime and traffic police, will be taken on board.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, it goes without saying that the police are an integral part of the life of a well-ordered society which is made up of sinful human beings. They are there not only to detect crime, but also for that much more difficult task when it comes to measuring their success; namely, the prevention or deterrence of crime.
We must not underestimate the demanding task laid upon the police at the beginning of this 21st century, living as we now do in a society in which, as we are frequently reminded, there is no longer one generally-accepted consensus for morality, for judging what is right and wrong as once there was, and with investigative media which trade on emphasising the shortcomings and failures of individuals and groups who carry responsibility for the well-being of society. For whatever reason, be it the lack of the proverbial bobby on the beat, the noted corruption of a few officers, or that general lack of respect for those in authority which besets today's questioning society, it is clear that the police do not enjoy the friendly, positive relationship with the public which some of us remember once to be the case.
So while I very much welcome the aims or key principles of the reform programme which the Government have set out for the police in paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Notes, it remains to be seen whether the Bill as drafted will have the desired effect or perhaps serve in some measure to undermine police morale at the local level, for reasons given this afternoon. For myself, I hope and pray that its good intentions are in fact fulfilled.
The task of Parliament is surely to frame laws which enable our police force to be ever more effective. It is pleasing to record that crime rates are falling in some respects. The British Crime Survey—not a police survey—for 1999–00 showed that domestic burglary declined by 17 per cent, vehicle thefts by 11 per cent and violence by 19 per cent. Those are statistics which cannot be questioned on the grounds of self-justification by our police forces. On the other hand, sadly, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us, street robbery and drug offences are increasing.
Again, the police are at the forefront of efforts to reduce racial tension in this country, though often their task is to stand between hostile groups when others who ought to have done better have failed and the flashpoint has been reached, as I know only too well from last summer's experience in Burnley. But I know also of the effective work undertaken, for example, by the Lancashire Constabulary, behind the scenes to prevent racial tension reaching that point—work in which my own diocese actively co-operates.
I want to express from these Benches the Church's support for police officers as they seek to prevent crime, increase rates of detection and establish public support for their efforts. We try to do that through our police chaplaincy service, which also reveals to us the pressures under which individual officers strive to do their work. The Bill must seek to help the police in all of that, and it contains creative proposals to do so.

555
In spite of the reservations raised, I believe that properly recruited, trained and organised, the proposed new civilian patrols are a way of enabling the police to respond to the difficult demands placed upon them by society to be, as it were, ever omnipresent. I do not see the patrols as a threat, but as a way to meet the demands of ordinary citizens to have a law-enforcing presence visible on our streets. Provided the patrols are properly authorised and given power by chief constables, they could prove an effective way to tackle what amounts to anti-social behaviour, checking the truancy mentioned in the previous debate and preventing its more sinister effects on our young people. They could provide public order support in dealing with crowds, support street wardens and victims of crime. But they have the merit of being optional; it is for individual police authorities to decide whether or not they want to use them. None of the activities I mentioned requires fully-trained police officers; but they require a recognised law-enforcing presence which will give the public confidence, not least in our towns and cities.
Others will speak of the more technical aspects of this Bill. I share the concerns of other noble Lords about the balance between the powers exercised by the Government nationally through the Home Secretary, and those rightly exercised by the local police authorities and the chief constables. These days we live in a country where the emphasis tends to be on a culture of scrutiny and accountability rather than trust and responsibility. We see successive governments supporting that approach. We see it in the education and the health services.
The Horne Secretary is correct in his reported assertion that he cannot be in every police station, any more than the Secretary of State for Education and Skills can be in every school or college, or indeed His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury can be in every church or diocese—in one sense I take some comfort from that.
We need to create a framework where chief constables are accountable yet trusted to know the job that they do, with sufficient authority for them and the police authority guiding them to be creative and innovative in their battle against crime. The result will be a measure of success which is almost bound to vary with local circumstances, but too much central direction may well affect the calibre of people prepared to take on this demanding job.
The definition of "good performance" is not at all clear to me, though it can lead to an intervention by the Home Secretary. Chief police officers need to know on what basis their performance is to be judged, and on what basis and by whom judgments are to be made about the nature and style of policing they are to provide. They need to know to whom they are accountable and to what extent they can direct and control policing at divisional level. Adherence to a police authority's annual policing plan should ensure that local needs are being met, and they may not be the same as the overall national needs. There is potential for real confusion if chief constables work to policing plans set by their police authority based on local
556
consultation, and are then taken to task for divisional "failure" against a different agenda directed from central government which can be enforced through directives from a Secretary of State, however well meaning that Secretary of State might be—I have no personal criticism to make of the present occupant of that office.
From these Benches we welcome the setting up of an independent police complaints commission. The lack of such a body, rightly or wrongly, has served to undermine the credibility of the police force and done nothing to enhance public support. Finally, I welcome the White Paper's emphasis on the need for partnership between the police and local communities. The 1998 Crime and Disorder Act set up crime reduction partnerships in every local authority between the police, the local authority and community groups. In the diocese of Blackburn we are in the process of setting up a community chaplaincy to help ex-offenders not to re-offend. That has a strong involvement with the police and Probation Service and financial backing from the local authority. It is through such schemes that there can be real cooperation between the police, the Churches, other faith communities, other local groups and local councils.
This Bill offers a new way forward for the police. It should help to rebuild public confidence.
Christians believe that policing should be by consent, and law and order can never be imposed or work without the support of those on whom the law rests. So, with the points that I have raised in mind. I offer the support of the Church of England—-and, I feel, of the other faith communities—in helping the Government as they seek better to police our urban and rural areas in the coming century.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate, whose speech will of course merit study hereafter, not least for what I might refer to as its worldly insights.
In the past few years there have been two other police Bills. There was the 1996 Bill, a substantial police measure, and in 2001 we had the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. Now we have the substantial Police Reform Bill. Taken alone, this bald fact might be taken to imply that there is something seriously wrong with our police service in England and Wales; that it is in a bad state. I, for one, do not believe that it is. It is perhaps no bad thing that those who think as I do on this should, from time to time, say so. I, too, subscribe to the tributes paid to the police service by my noble friend on the Front Bench and to those tributes which have come from so many of your Lordships today.
It is to the great credit of this country that ours is a citizen police service. It is drawn, in the main, from the communities it serves and its members do not have any privileges. They have only special duties, some of which, as we all know, are on occasion very dangerous. Above all, it is not, and never has been, the instrument

557
of some politician or his party. We are so used to that in this country that we tend to forget about it, and yet a glance around the world should remind us of what a very rare and significant achievement it is.
We are also rather accustomed to believe that our police are always fighting a losing battle against crime. They are not. Unfortunately in our society the springs of criminality are widespread; they never run dry; and in some quarters they positively gush. But protecting the public from them is not a lost cause. For example, in Kent, where I have the good luck to live, a combination on the part of the police of intelligence and technology has resulted in vehicle crime now running at a rate 31 per cent lower than three years ago and burglary running at a rate 26 per cent lower than three years ago—statistics which confirm what has already been said today about the British Crime Survey.
I do not forget, of course, that my noble friend Lord Waddington administered a timely corrective to any complacency on this score. He pointed to the areas of crime which people most fear; that is, robbery, violent crime and drugs crime. During the short interval for the debate on the Statement, I legged it to the telephone and got on to the Chief Constable in Kent. I discovered that there is a reduction—albeit a lesser one—in violent crime in Kent, which is down by 8.9 per cent on three years ago. If I am wrong about that, I shall correct it at the Committee stage. Be that as it may, there are successes, although there are many areas where much more needs to be done to protect the public.
In these days when reforming legislation seems to tumble from the Government's cornucopia with great generosity—looking very often as though it has first been given a good shake—one's first concern is to see whether a Bill will do any harm. The most important area in any police reform Bill to which to apply that test is, in my view, the question of operational independence from political control. It is right that we should look very closely at this Bill from that viewpoint. When police are exposed increasingly to public order situations, for example, which derive from political controversy or very rapidly become the subject of political controversy, that principle is more important than ever. If it were allowed to lapse, the great asset of their reputation for impartiality would be lost to the police.
When Sir Hugh Annesley, then the Chief Constable of the RUC, first came to see me in Belfast after my arrival as Secretary of State, I said that I wanted to make one thing clear to him at the outset: that I had spent many years of my life as a law officer upholding the doctrine and principle of the operational independence of the police and that I was not going to change now. That information produced a notable relaxation in Sir Hugh's stern features—and we never looked back.
At the same time, it has to be remembered that in our democracy it is the Home Secretary who is expected to stand up at the Dispatch Box in the other place and answer for any apparent failure of policing.
558
This is not simply no bad thing; it is a very good and essential thing. He, after all, is statutorily responsible for the efficient policing of England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described it as "efficiency and effectiveness"—I expect that that is right—but, at any rate, words to that effect. The Home Secretary cannot be expected to carry the can unless he is in a position ultimately to influence how policing is carried out by chief officers. So a balance has to be established.
Some interesting speeches have been made today about the effects of the Bill on that balance. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, said that it would have a "very drastic" effect on the balance and would shift it drastically in favour of the Home Secretary. For my part, I do not detect emergency alarm bells sounding among chief constables up and down the country on that score in relation to this Bill, but we shall certainly need to look at it with caution. The police authorities may prove a different matter; I do not know.
In particular, we shall need to look carefully at the power of the Home Secretary to give directions to chief officers—this is contained in Clause 3 of Part 1—either consequent upon a report of an inspection or otherwise. I am not happy about that "or otherwise", especially when the Home Secretary is given the power to order an inspection from one or other statutory inspection body. At present, it would be better to limit that power to cases where its exercise would be consequent only upon a report.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether there was any evidence to justify a lack of trust in police authorities. My mind goes back some years to what happened in Derbyshire. I believe that that provided a fairly good illustration of how things can go wrong in that regard.
It will of course be right also to look cautiously at the provisions in the Bill which expand on the present ability of the Home Secretary to bring about the involuntary departure of a chief constable. I should not be surprised if those provisions arose from the melancholy saga recently in Sussex. At first sight. I acknowledge that this seems to be a reasonable development of the balance established at present. It is true that there is no right of appeal, but, as has been recently remarked upon and held in the Judicial Committee of the House, there is a right to judicial review. In some ways that may be a better device.
The other part of the Bill on which I venture to detain your Lordships briefly is Part 4—this has already attracted much interest today—which deals with the exercise of police powers by civilians. It may in part be inspired—at any rate in London—by a fear of what one might call "borough Balkanisation". I am sure that this will receive detailed examination in Committee. It should do, because there is a sharp division of opinion about it within the police service and even, I suspect, although to a lesser degree, in ACPO.
There will be problems. There is not a significant problem with the provisions in Schedule 4 on designated officers being escort officers, detention officers, investigating officers and so on, but there is a

559
problem, technically although not primarily, with the provisions to empower employees of a police authority with certain functions of a police constable.
However, the real problem on which we should be focusing our attention is the provision in Schedule 5, which authorises people called "accredited persons" to carry out policing duties in the street. That is where the most easily discernible problems will arise. Those powers and responsibilities are fraught with the potential for trouble. Persons accredited may be employed by locally established businesses, whose character is undefined in the Bill, although the Minister has told us that they may include the managers of trade centres, for example. The terms of their accreditation may vary from area to area within a police authority and even from individual to individual within the same area. It is more than possible, therefore, that someone who is asked to stick around for half an hour until a police officer arrives will inquire by what authority such a request is being made. That is putting it politely.
What kind of document will the accreditation be that must be shown to the offender? Paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 5 shows that a "relevant offence" does not have to be -a fixed penalty offence", but it may be one that has caused,
"injury, alarm or distress to any other person; or … the loss of, or any damage to. any other person's property; but"—
here is the point—
"the accreditation … may provide that an offence is not to be treated as a relevant offence … unless it satisfies such other conditions as may be specified in the accreditation".
By the time all that is explained, it will not be surprising if the offender, to use the rather engaging words in the schedule, "makes off". I am not making this up. It is rather nice language. I only wish that every provision was so engagingly and clearly drafted.
I am afraid that I am not surprised that the Police Federation foresees frequent occasions when its members will he called upon to sort out the pieces of an unholy resulting mess. I raise a flag on behalf of employers of accredited persons. I am referring to Clause 36(5). I hope that this will not be thought to be too much of a Committee point. Let us suppose that an employer has specifically instructed his employee not to use force in doing his job—indeed that he is not empowered by law to use force. If the man, even though he has been properly supervised by his employer, as he has to be, uses force and injury results—perhaps a young woman has a miscarriage that she claims was in consequence—why should that be treated as being done in the course of his employment? The clause makes the employer fully liable as a joint tortfeasor. In ordinary justice his actions cannot be said to be in the course of his employment. That matter needs to be clarified.
Will the Minister say whether the help to the regular police force that this part of the Bill seeks to provide could not be more acceptably done, in some respects at least, by expanding the role of special constables? A number of noble Lords have asked that question, and I ask it again. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, spoke of
560
the current unpaid volunteers. They are very good. I met the parish constable seriously and solemnly pacing the streets in the country town of Cranbrook only the other day. He looked very splendid and conferred great reassurance all round. If full-time service is required, how will that be obtained without paying people the sort of money that the regular police receive? If not, why not spend the money on enlarging the regular service, or at least on putting far more money into paying back-up staff in police stations so that police officers who have made art arrest need not then spend, typically, five or six hours in the police station on the paperwork?
Lastly, I draw attention to a piece of drafting which, to me, is of stupefying obscurity. I refer to paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which I shall not read to your Lordships, but it can be found on page 123 of the Bill. After labouring over it, I think that I know what it seeks to achieve, but, as drafted, it is worthy of the excoriation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Could it be tried in the vernacular, please?
Meanwhile, I look forward to the Minister's reply and to an interesting Committee stage.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is a delight, as always, to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I agree with most of what he said.
I declare an interest as a former president of the Police Superintendents' Association. It was not for life, like the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Once I had gone that was it, and I represent no one other than myself today.
The history of the police service in this country throughout its relatively short life has been one of those roller coaster rides, with periods of success and acclaim followed by periods of crisis and threats of reform. I once wrote a brief history of the Police Superintendents' Association and was struck by the cyclical recurrence of crises, with morale and pay dropping from time to time and politicians setting up committees and inquiries to remedy the problems. These went from Desborough at the beginning of the last century, through the Oaksey committee and the Willink commission, to the much lauded Edmund-Davies inquiry that was set up by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, whom I see is in his place, in 1978, followed by the controversial Sheehy inquiry in the early 1990s. The police service has been examined exhaustively.
The police are different from other workers and play an important part in our democracy. What singles them out from other employees? First, there is the importance of the job itself. No civilised society can function without the enforcement of the law and the maintenance of order in a way that is acceptable to the populace. That point has been made by your Lordships. Secondly, there is the statutory prohibition of industrial action as a bargaining chip. It is extremely important, therefore, that all governments treat their police force honourably and do not lose sight of that point.

561
This is an important Bill and it contains many important provisions. In the short time that is available, I shall deal with two of its aspects: complaints and misconduct; and the exercise of police powers by civilians. On the issue of police complaints, I believe that investigations have always been carried out exhaustively and that they do not lead to the injustice that has sometimes been suggested. However, justice is not always seen to be done. The new independent police complaints commission will have powers in serious cases when no complaint has been made, which is to be applauded. Even more important is the fact that independent investigators will be at its disposal, which gives it crucial independence in serious and controversial cases.
The vast majority of complaints will, as now, be investigated perfectly thoroughly by police officers from other forces, in many cases—with residual power held by the commission to call in any case either to investigate or supervise. It is also right that inferences may be drawn from police officers' silence during questioning, as in the general criminal law. In my experience as an investigating officer of complaints against police officers, there is great advantage in having been at the sharp end oneself and knowing, as it were, the tricks of the trade.
It is also pleasing to see that those civilians serving with the police and under the direction and control of the chief constable will be brought within the remit of the complaints system under the Bill. That answers those critics who ask how such appointees will be accountable.
A matter that I wish to raise is the length of time of some complaint inquiries. While I appreciate that some inquiries by necessity will take longer than others, it cannot be right for an inquiry such as "Operation Lancet" in Cleveland into the conduct of Detective Superintendent Mallon and other officers to take almost five years.
During that time, Mr Mallon has remained on suspension in connection with discipline matters, with his life on hold, cleared of all criminal charges. Granted, he is on full pay. The inquiry is estimated to have cost £7 million. He is a prisoner of the police complaints system. What price human rights? That cannot be right for any of the parties.
Has my noble friend the Minister given any thought to putting a time limit on such inquiries into discipline matters on the basis that justice delayed is justice denied? When I was president of the Police Superintendents' Association, we recommended that the then chairman of the Police Complaints Authority should look into whether serious and long-running complaint inquiries should follow procedures used by the police in long-running and complex murder inquiries. That covered matters such as strict terms of reference, the maintenance of a policy book and, most importantly, a review after a set period of time by a totally independent officer to ensure that nothing had been missed. A fresh set of eyes can work wonders. Those suggestions were turned down at the time. Will
562
my noble friend consider revisiting them and perhaps including them in any guidance issued by the commission?
The subject of community support officers has rightly excited a lot of interest. It has been common thinking for some time that dealing with crime and disorder, anti-social behaviour and law enforcement have never been matters for the police alone. The ethos of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was the establishment of statutory partnerships between the police and other agencies. The public can be well pleased with the crime figures, which are going down, but they are not pleased with the lack of a police presence on the streets. I am certainly tired of complaints about a lack of police response, including for serious matters such as burglary in some cases.
It is not always the fault of the police. We ask a lot of them. The "thin blue line" is an apt description in many of our towns and cities throughout the land, particularly on a Friday or Saturday evening. We are talking not about serious crime, but about anti-social behaviour such swearing, urinating, begging or throwing down chip cartons. When I was a constable, such behaviour would be confronted, often quite effectively. That does not seem to happen now. Standards in the community have dropped and there is less respect for authority, as has been mentioned.
What is to be done? Leadership is important. Chief police officers should clearly lead by example and say what they want from their officers. They must practise what they preach. It can be done. Bill Bratton introduced zero tolerance policing to New York in the 1990s. Anyone who knew that city before he took over as commissioner will know what a difference he made. By making commanders accountable for their areas and ensuring that quality of life offences such as graffiti, litter, drunkenness and damage were confronted, he made a dramatic impact. There was an 80 per cent reduction in subway crime and a more than 50 per cent reduction in street crime as a result of his policies. That speaks for itself. Even the incidence of serious crimes such as murder dropped dramatically. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, rightly mentioned, there was another factor—he also recruited thousands more police officers to the NYPD.
In Britain, thankfully, recruitment is rising, but it is difficult to maintain because officers leave on a regular basis. The reform programme attempts to stem that by encouraging officers to stay on with what I consider to be a very attractive pension offer.
The public want reassurance—a uniformed presence on the streets. We used to have bus conductors, park keepers and the like who were visible figures of authority. In shopping malls and large stores we now have security officers—and what a difference that makes. Perhaps I should declare an interest as the director of a security firm providing such a service and as president of the Joint Security Industry Council. We hope that the cowboy firms will eventually go when the industry is fully regulated under the legislation passed last year. That will be good for the industry, for the police and for the public.

563
Other organisations patrolling in uniform are not new. In Secigefield and other places there are council-provided uniformed community patrols, without additional powers, who act as the eyes and ears of the police. I know that Durham police welcome them and work closely with them. The Bill will allow the police to recruit and train such community support officers themselves. That is welcome. They will be part of the police family and totally accountable through the police. There is a lot of fuss about giving them police-type powers. Let us be clear: there is little difference between citizens' powers of arrest and those of the police in serious matters. However, powers are necessary to deal with the quality of life matters to which I referred earlier, which do not carry a power of arrest. It is no earthly good asking an officer to report people acting anti-socially and sending him out naked on to the streets without additional powers. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, if two fingers are put up, he needs something to back him up.
I have been in that situation. Before 1984, there was no power to detain people who were acting antisocially. I hesitate to say that we used to use what we called the "Ways and Means Act". It would be made clear to the transgressor that, power of arrest or not, he was not going anywhere until he was properly identified. In this litigious society with its growing compensation culture, we cannot expect new community support officers to bend the law as I did. The Bill extends the same protections to designated support officers as are available to the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the use of reasonable force. That is perfectly right.
I also welcome the powers to be given to designated officers to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of a range of anti-social offences, coupled with the power to detain for up to 30 minutes. Legally, of course, that is an arrest—-let us have no argument about that. It is limited in time, but it is necessary when a name and address is required. If it is refused, an offence is committed.
We cannot ask uniformed officers to deal with antisocial behaviour without such minimal powers. They will be fully skilled and trained as to their responsibilities.
My only reservation is with regard to discretion, which is an important and valuable facet of policing in this country. Will community support officers be allowed some discretion, or will they have absolute duties without discretion, rather like traffic wardens? That is an important question, as the rigid enforcement of the law can, in some cases, lead to unnecessary aggravation and might even be counterproductive in suppressing disorder.
Generally I welcome all the provisions of the Bill.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would understand if the little time that all of us have was devoted more to criticism than to praise, but it would be wrong not to praise many aspects of the Bill. I am sure that those on
564
this side of the House will do just that. I should like briefly to mention some issues that have not been touched on, the first of which is whistleblowing. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 excluded the police from the scope of the whistleblowing provisions on somewhat technical grounds. The Police Complaints Authority and ACPO were in favour of including police officers within the scope of that legislation. We shall return to that during the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would want to associate himself with that, given his involvement with Public Concern at Work.
I shall also raise briefly the issue of whether it would be appropriate and helpful for police powers to be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, as Roger Williams MP has suggested. I shall be interested to know the Minister's response to that as a general principle. If my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford were here, I believe that he would have said much more about it.
The question of special constables has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. I, too, am a little perplexed. In seeking to uphold and further support the police in their difficult work, why has not more thought been given to that body of men and women? They comprise about 10 per cent of the total police force. Although they are part time, they have full police powers. Like my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, one wonders why there should not be a scheme to pay special constables. I was very impressed by the statistic given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris; namely, that 40 per cent of special constables in the Metropolitan area are from ethnic groups.
I turn briefly to the question of police strength. A number of noble Lords have touched on that. I am perplexed that, as in the case of prisons, we in this country seem to go on year after year failing to grasp the nettle of how to deal really effectively with crime and punishment. It is not enough for the Government, any more than for their predecessors, to say, "But we are not doing too badly. The figures have increased a little although they are lower than they were". The truth is that we need a great many more policemen. Everyone who has referred to the example of New York has commended it. I am particularly impressed by the two police Peers, if I may call them that, who did so.
Perhaps I may read a sentence from the Home Office research study which looked into the cost of crime to society in England and Wales for the year 1999–2000. It states:
"The total cost of crime to England and Wales in 1999/00 is estimated at £60 billion. This figure is by no means comprehensive—costs of precautionary behaviour, quality of life, drug crime, low-level disorder, undiscovered fraud, costs in terms of attitudes and social structures and other costs are not included in this figure".
If we were to increase the number of police in Greater London from 26,500 to 42,000, which would put us on par with New York, the total cost would be in the order of £500 million to £600 million a year. I am not

565
a great mathematician, but if its effect was to reduce crime not by the figures mentioned by the previous speaker, but by an infinitely more modest figure of 3 per cent, the provision would pay for itself. If one came anywhere near the figures quoted for New York in terms of the impact on crime across the board, we should be making the best investment in the history of policing law and order. Therefore, I put it to the Government: why on earth are we not doing something about what everyone knows is a profound lack of much-needed resources?
I turn to an issue which many noble Lords have touched on and about which everyone has been concerned; namely, the impact of the Bill on police authorities. It is worth contemplating the fact that the seven-page summary of the White Paper put out a couple of months ago by the Home Office contains only one reference to police authorities. There are endless references to the Government and the Home Secretary, but only one to police authorities. I do not understand why the Bill does not contain measures which, far from taking away powers from police authorities, add to and support those powers. Surely, we all know by now that the notion of removing powers from local government and local authorities to Westminster and Whitehall is not a recipe for solving deep-seated problems, but more, I fear, a recipe for compounding them.
We do not need to spend a great deal of time, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned, looking at health, education, transport and law and order, to realise that the relentless tendency of both this Government and their predecessors towards removing more and more power from the regions and the localities to the centre has failed abundantly. That is because there is endless change in the Ministers who preside over ministries with their swollen powers, in their policies and in legislation itself. It may simply be because we have not tasted the panoply of power for a long time that we on these Benches have a deep suspicion of government garnering powers to themselves. We have particular suspicion as regards the Home Office, which seems to be the greatest acquirer and hoarder of powers of all the ministries. We saw a magnificent example in the anti-terrorism Bill where, but for a few examples of deft footwork in this place, there would have been a grotesque addition to ministerial power.
We need to be satisfied here that any increase in central powers at the expense of local powers can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, root and branch, and on principle as well as in practice. As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have had no evidence at all for the assumptions underlying Part 1 of the Bill in particular. When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replies, I hope that he may be able to satisfy those of us who sit here like hungry sheep waiting to be fed with concrete examples of where and how the accretion of powers will help. We are always being told that justice should be of the people, by the people and for the people. What better example is there than the work of police authorities, the civilian powers of locally elected
566
people and independent local people close to the police for whom they are responsible? Many have referred to the tripartite arrangements. I believe that the provisions in Part I disturb that delicate balance in a wholly unwarranted way.
Many of us would say that the Police Act 1996 went too far in the direction of centralising powers. I hazard a guess that, were we to re-read the discussion of that legislation in Hansard, we should see that those who are now in government strongly opposed many of those centralising measures, and rightly so.
Clause 2 of the Bill entitles the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to the discharge of their functions by chief officers. That goes a lot further than Section 39 of the Police Act 1996, which gives that power only vis-a-vis police authorities themselves. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, the problem is that Clauses 2 and 5, which entitle the Home Secretary to give directions direct to chief police officers, cuts right through the balance of powers, bypasses the police authorities altogether and in the process—no doubt inadvertently—undermines their power, authority and esteem. Beyond that, the power to impose codes under Clause 2 is accompanied by the provision in subsection (5) that,
"a chief officer of police shall have regard to the code".
That is a provision which is not present in Section 39 of the 1996 Act vis-à-vis the imposition of codes on police authorities.
Clause 5 is much more serious to the autonomy and status of police authorities. Whereas under Section 40 of the 1996 Act the Secretary of State can give directions to police authorities after adverse inspection reports, under Clause 5 of this Bill there is no need for the Secretary of State to have received any adverse inspection report in order for him or her to impose directions. That will mean that the Secretary of state can meddle and compel, at any time and on any issue, if he is satisfied—that is the small word—that, in any respect, any part of any police force is not efficient or effective. Those two words provide an extremely feeble constraint on a misguided and forceful Home Office. I put it that way not because the Home Office or Home Secretaries are usually misguided and over-forceful, but sometimes they are, and certainly they can be. It is the job of this place not to hand to a Home Secretary those powers.
The Bill provides no control or system by which a Home Secretary's intervention can be challenged other than the extremely cumbersome, expensive and uncertain one of seeking judicial review in the High Court. The Secretary of State is not required even to consult with the relevant police authority before issuing any of these directions.
So for those reasons and others, like many noble Lords, I believe that that part of the Bill needs very careful reconsideration and fundamental reform. I hope that, in the debates to come, the Government will be open-minded in listening to these arguments. I look forward to those debates.
6.5I p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Bill's title is "Police Reform", and the Bill seems to produce a number of ideas that match its title. However, my concern is not so much reform as improvement. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that many improvements are happening even without the Bill. We need, above all, improvement in the number of police available and visible in local neighbourhoods. We all know the old expression "the bobby on the beat", and many of us look back to that as a happy time, but, nowadays, the bobby is more likely to be in a car. With numbers as they are, such deployment is often the only way of coping with the pressures and pace of the society in which we live.
I listened to the speech on London by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and I know his great personal experience of the subject. I was in New York for New Year's Eve. That night, 7,000 police were on crowd control and security duty in Times Square. It was awesome, most impressive and trouble-free. Adding CIA numbers to the New York Police Department figure, there are more than 44,000 police in New York.
Zero tolerance has been most effective. I remember the days when one was frightened to walk in New York. Now, there is a feeling of confidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, said, the dramatic change has been achieved as much by stopping vandalism and minor crime as by tackling more serious crime. The results have been better than anticipated. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, financial resources are essential. I would add, however, that the political will is also essential.
I speak as an ordinary person without police expertise; but London is the area of my local and regional government experience. London's greatest problem is its need for more police. In the days of Sir Kenneth Newman, the aim was to have 30,000 police officers in the Metropolitan Police. Today, we have about 26,000, although that number is supposed to increase soon to 27,000, with the aim of eventually reaching 28,000. As the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, in 1992, the Met had its highest ever figure of 29.000.
The statement is regularly made that the increase in violent crime on London's streets is all down to 11th September and the removal of police from routine duties to take up security positions. It is not easy to convince me that that is the total answer. Returning from a West End event with my husband, we were attacked in a supposedly safe street by three powerful young black men. I was mugged and left unconscious on the ground. That happened shortly before the Summer Recess and well before 11th September.
The Minister described the fear of crime as greater than the risk of crime. My noble friend Lord Waddington described street crime in a manner that I recognised better. My unfortunate experience had a shattering effect on my street confidence. Even many months later, I find that I am constantly aware of danger in the street and think twice about when and where I go out.
568
The pattern is all too familiar. Although the city of Westminster is still considered a very safe part of London, the aim of reducing street crime by 2 per cent between April and December 2001 became the reality of a 42.36 per cent increase in street crime across the borough in that period. Moreover, crime seems to be moving to more affluent areas of Westminster, such as St John's Wood. In the same period, street crime has increased by 62.4 per cent, vehicle crime by 44.97 per cent and burglary by 26.34 per cent. Is it surprising, therefore, that last night's Evening Standard reported that,
"thousands of Londoners are employing their own security guards to protect them from robbers and burglars"?
The report went on to say that no crimes were reported between July and October on six Kensington streets where residents had paid £1,000 per household to employ their own guards. Does London want to become like Miami, where people arrange their own protection, to the extent that Miami police claim not to have access to 19 per cent of properties? I think that it would be very wrong if our society became divided in a way in which only the rich who could afford extra personal security were safe whereas those without such funds would not be.
I was interested by the Minister's remark that he wanted to see more policing on housing estates. In the days when I was an area GLC housing chairman, covering one-quarter of London, we were always asking for more policing on council estates, but we were always told that police had no right of access because the estates were private property. Has the position changed? If so, I should be glad to have that confirmation. I remain concerned that some sink estates have become almost "no go" areas, certainly for GPs and even for police.
There is a difference between private police forces and other local police who are already employed by boroughs. I am thinking particularly of the park police in Hyde Park, under Kensington and Chelsea council, and those in Battersea park, employed by Wandsworth council. However, the park police as currently constituted would not be suitable for working in the streets.
Some London boroughs are, however, willing to meet the cost for police to work within the community in their own areas.
Kensington & Chelsea council wishes to have borough constables to work specifically in certain wards or areas and to become familiar figures there. However, the council is very concerned that if the constables are completely controlled by the police, the situation immediately following 11th September could be repeated: officers funded by council taxpayers may be moved from the borough to somewhere else where there might be a need. That would entirely defeat the security build-up—the "reassurance patrolling", as the Minister described it—and the objective of ensuring that there is again a familiar officer on the beat.

569
Joint control by the borough and the Metropolitan Police would ensure that those borough constables remained on local duty, as local identities. I ask the Minister seriously to consider providing for joint control.
I am also concerned for the safety of community support officers themselves, but I was not satisfied by the answers that I had from a senior police officer who met a group of Members in the House last week. Community support officers (CSOs) will not be entitled to carry a truncheon, a spray or any form of protection. Park police are allowed to carry a type of plastic handcuff to use when they need to restrain someone. Will CSOs be allowed to use such handcuffs? I asked the officer how CSOs themselves will be protected. He said,
"we would only put them in situations where there is no risk".
The officer went on to say that, when there is risk, trained police in full body armour would be used. However, how does anyone know where there is risk? Almost every week, I see a traffic warden being threatened when he is about to issue merely a parking ticket. Too often, fully trained police officers on foot patrol are severely injured in the course of performing seemingly normal duties. How can we with certainty accurately assess whether a situation is risk free?
It is essential that community service officers have some way of protecting themselves, even if it is only by use of reasonable force; otherwise they will be rapidly targeted as easy prey—particularly if, as we were told, their uniform is slightly different, making it clear that they are CSOs.
Another point that I raised in the discussion concerned identity cards. I think that it is high time that everyone had an identity card. They would be helpful under the provisions of Clause 44(2) where the person acting anti-socially is asked to provide his name and address. I see that it will be an offence to give a false name and address, but someone who has done that will be able to walk away and may not be traceable afterwards. It is clear that if someone refuses to give name and address, he can be restrained, but if he gives an address, how can the officers have any idea whether he really is the person he says he is? The police replied that they were neutral in terms of ID cards and that they saw both their advantages and disadvantages.
It surprises me that I am the only woman speaking in the debate as these issues are of great importance to everyone's life. Over 50 per cent of the population are women. In the older age group, which includes many widows, the proportion is much higher. This is a matter of great concern to women and to everyone else in the community. I support the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to win support for change, not least in the public services. Your Lordships' House and another place demonstrate that close to home. But change there needs to be, as the Bill proposes, if the police service is to be enabled and encouraged
570
consistently to deliver what the communities it serves expect of it. The job we ask our police officers to do is demanding and we have high expectations of them. They know that and they know that we entirely support them.
Although crime has fallen by about a fifth in the past four years there is still too much and detection rates are too low. Just 24 crimes in every 100 recorded in 1999–2000 were detected. Only nine in every 100 resulted in a conviction. I want to mention four reasons why I think that is so.
First, we have forgotten the foundation on which policing rests. It is not the detection of crime; rather it is the prevention of crime. Not enough is being done now to prevent crime and, when it is, it is inadequate. Secondly, this happens because links between local police officers and the communities they serve have weakened at a time when family links have also weakened and members of the family are more likely to live 100 miles up the road than across the road or round the corner.
Thirdly, just as family links have lengthened and loosened, so have links within communities. In many families both parents work. There is more to do and less time to do it. Fewer people volunteer to serve their communities as JPs, elected councillors, helping to run Scout and Guide groups or even local branches of political parties. I strongly believe that if we are to improve crime prevention we need to rediscover community and neighbourliness.
Fourthly, these weaker links make it harder for police to work with communities to restore the safety and security too many feel they have had stolen from them. In too many areas communities feel abandoned because police response is either too slow or simply does not happen. Effective crime prevention partnerships cannot be built in this way. I spent years as a Member or Parliament fielding complaints from the public about being told the police did not have enough manpower to respond to community concern. I refer to a case where, for example, an intruder was seen in a garden in the Kingstanding area of my former constituency for a second night running by a neighbour, who rang 999 to report it and said that there was a woman alone in the house with small children. Even then in a high burglary area there was no response. However, I have to tell your Lordships that the superintendent in charge of that area said at a public meeting, after complaints that people could get no response when they rang the police station, that neither could he when he tried to ring in on his day off.
That is why the proposals for community support officers, trained and paid for by the police, who can act as the eyes and ears of local communities, are such an important part of these reforms. Those police officers who oppose the measure cannot have it both ways. If they keep parroting to members of the public that there are not enough of them to respond even to calls which they classify as priority, they must not be surprised when the community turns to street wardens or local businesses to private security firms. The new support officers can provide a missing patrol presence

571
on the streets where we shop and live to do what I mentioned earlier—prevent crime by making it more certain that those thinking of carrying out offences are more likely to be caught, although the trained police officers will deal with the high-crime hot spots.
Sir Ted Crew, the widely respected chief constable of the West Midlands Police, argued in a letter to The Times on 4th January:
"Any strategy for defeating street crime and enhancing public confidence in policing must include the deployment of highly visible skilled police officers in the high crime areas … and … highly skilled detectives".
He is absolutely right, but under the proposals in the Bill it is up to chief constables whether to recruit community safety officers and, if they do so, where and when to deploy them. Sir Edward gives the impression that the community safety officers are a substitute for well trained and experienced police officers. They are not. They will supplement the work of police officers, not substitute for it.
Running alongside the reforms are proposals on pay and conditions which make the necessary point that reforms and rewards go hand in hand. The Police Federation leadership may shout, "No cash—no deal", but the public insist, "No reform—no rewards". The leadership of the Police Federation is asking its 125,000 members in England and Wales to take part on Wednesday in what it calls a consultation. The federation reached agreement within the Police Negotiating Board on the heads of the proposals on pay and conditions, although some of the details have since been changed to the advantage of officers. What a pity the leadership of the federation did not make that shared outcome of negotiations clear to its members in the consultation process. Rather, in the February issue of its magazine, Police, in an editorial misleadingly headlined, "The moment of truth", it describes the proposals in a one-sided way as those put forward by, "the official side". That could give an impression that they were unilaterally imposed.
After fairly setting out the pay and conditions proposals, the federation then attempts to steer the outcome in the direction it wants. There can be no other inference from what is said in the editorial on page five which states:
"This is a ballot that is clouded with other considerations that have nothing to do with police pay but everything to do with the current abysmal state of police morale".
So suddenly the leadership of the federation turns the consultation into a ballot and then imports other extraneous issues into that consultation. That seems to me to smack of an attempt to rig the outcome. It gets more loaded and biased as the editorial adds:
"Mr Blunkett himself is part of the problem, along with his Government colleagues".
Just in case there is a police officer left who does not get the point, it adds:
"They have created a climate of suspicion and distrust that lessens the chances of the ballot being a dispassionate judgernent … and more of an opportunity for police officers to answer back at the Government, politicians and pundits, who have spent more time burying the reputation of our service than praising it … They … have helped create a picture of a police service that is riddled with incompetence, corruption … and sexism".
572
That is the worst, old-hat kind of yesterday's rhetoric and will disappoint most serving officers with its lurid language and cry for a return to the bad old days of industrial relations in the public sector—when the other side was always to blame. lf the federation wanted a "No" vote in the consultation tomorrow, it should have had the courage to say so—rather than pretend that it is based only on the merits of the shared proposals from the Police Negotiating Board.
I want to put three concerns to my noble friend the Minister. First, why are police authorities not being given any new powers which are needed to ensure that the 43 separate police forces in England and Wales reach agreed national policing standards; in other words, powers to build a national policing plan from the bottom up to reflect community concerns, rather than top down from Whitehall?
Secondly, what can the Minister tell the House about the extra cash that will have to be made available to modernise and equip the police for the 21st century, in terms of training community support officers and the information technology that will enable each of the 43 forces to speak to any of the others? If existing budgets are to be raided for those purposes, other activities will suffer.
Thirdly, when will the Government reach a conclusion on the reorganisation of police pensions? The estimated liability stands at between £34 billion and £36 billion. My noble friend the Minister will understand that money going into pensions. as it must under the arrangements, cannot be spent a second time on reform and modernisation.
I particularly welcome the Bill's proposals for an independent police complaints commission, which follows a report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place when I had the privilege of being its chairman—especially since, in given circumstances, the IPCC will be able to appoint its own investigators.
I urge my noble friend to lose no time making it possible for registered social landlords and bodies such as the Castle Vale Action Housing Trust in my former constituency to apply to the courts for antisocial behaviour orders—the quicker to get them in place, to restore peace and tranquillity to many communities throughout the country.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—not least in his recent capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place. He will recall that almost one quarter of a century ago, when he was due to follow me in the other place to propose a Bill on animal welfare, paradoxically his own party Whip encouraged me to speak as long as I wished. In that spirit, I shall not long delay the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—who knows much more about these matters than I do.
Such significant exposure as I have had to policing outside Northern Ireland was at opposite ends of the constabulary spectrum. For 24 years I was as inner-city a Member of Parliament as it is possible to be, involving

573
the City of London Police as well as the Metropolitan Police, with New Scotland Yard at the heart of the seat. For an equal period, I have been a part-time resident in Wiltshire, where protection against terrorism brought me into prolonged and greater contact with the Wiltshire force than most part-time residents would enjoy.
A Home Office study in 1997 indicated that Wiltshire and Kent had the lowest proportion of officers retired with medical pensions in the country. I never served as a Minister or even as a Whip in the Home Office, although my late noble kinsman piloted the Police Act 1964 through the other place as Home Secretary. In the 1970s I employed one of Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors of Constabulary as director of administration in my old private sector firm—thus affording me a privileged leper's squint at police experience.
I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on the independent police complaints commission. Like most of your Lordships, I imagine, I can see where a significant part of the Bill is coming from—the mismatch between police responsibilities and police resources. Our post-September 11th experiences of shifting resources to anti-terrorism duties have had their immediate effects in increased consciousness of street crime. The dilemmas of a potential mismatch are with the police for ever and a day.
RoadPeace—the national charity for road traffic victims—recently drew the attention of parliamentarians to the steady reduction in traffic police available to respond to 50,000 personal injury crashes in London. There was always the irony in Northern Ireland during the Troubles that the understandable absence of marked police cars in Ulster sent the number of road deaths spiralling above the number killed by paramilitaries.
The fact that much street crime funds drug addiction adds insult to injury in the community. I pay tribute to the Met's efforts against the drugs trade in the West End.
We must hope that the Government's present response to mismatch through the promulgation of community safety officers, other dedicated officers and accredited community safety organisations is nearer the target than the Home Office was with antisocial behaviour orders—though I acknowledge the utility of crime and disorder reduction partnerships, which reappear in Clause 68.
I acknowledge also that accredited community safety organisations have a good pedigree. The river police were set up to protect the West India Docks in 1798—long before the Metropolitan Police were created. However, the Home Office uses up so much parliamentary time that it is unfortunate that it is simultaneously prone to U-turns—as currently, on asylum policy—and in such short order. The problem that the Home Office is seeking to cure is serious and alarming to many Londoners and others in urban centres—I speak particularly with London experience—so it is good that the Government are responding. If we give them the benefit of the doubt on the principle that they are addressing—which my noble
574
friend Lord Waddington does not—we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to fine tune the legislation so that it has the best possible opportunity of succeeding.
Without seeking to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Waddington on special constables—he has much more experience of these matters than me and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew was also a Home Office Minister—there is a different situation with special constables in London compared with the rest of the country. That is why community safety officers are so potentially important. In the same way as trained officers in the Met leave for leafier forces elsewhere, my former director of administration in the 1970s now lies under the sward. I hope that somewhere he is smiling, since what is otherwise an ill wind for the Met is giving young constables a year or two in London, where street experience will form them as policemen much faster than could ever happen in any other part of the country. My former director of administration believed that was to the national good.
In the envisaged duties that CSOs will perform is a touch of the St. Petersburg responsibilities being assigned to the European Defence Force, in contradistinction to the heavier responsibilities of NATO—although that analogy cannot be carried too far. I have read the account of neighbourhood wardens in Leeds and have myself seen the work of community policing in Holland where the Dutch, in part as an initiative to reduce unemployment, have been significantly more successful than ourselves in recruiting ethnic minorities into their subordinate force. The statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for ethnic minority recruitment of special constables can be matched by ethnic minority recruitment into the Territorial Army as against the Regular Army.
It was notably good to see the pride and morale that members of the subordinate Dutch force derived from serving in uniform, even if they did not carry the ability to issue fixed penalty notices or detain people in the way that the Bill envisages. Eyes and ears on the street are still important in the fight against crime—as the street-level beggar proved in the Admiral Duncan pub bombing in Soho—and even more so in imposing civic tidiness.
For success, it is critical that the CSOs earn public acceptance and recognition, which is why clarity in the legislation is so important. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith touched on the powers of CSOs. Differing powers at differing levels are capable of confusing the public. Common sense is not necessarily a guide. No. 10 pushed the Prime Minister into one initiative of on-the-spot fines in the previous Parliament, which the Home Secretary and the Home Office had instantly to disavow.
At a trivial level, I once sat the exam for the State of Connecticut Highway Code. It had a multiple choice of answers to each question: two broadly sane, and two patently insane. The test was to decide which of the two broadly sane answers was right. I failed to gain 100 per cent. In answer to the question, which I narrow down to

575
the two sane answers, "Is it your primary duty as a motorist in the State of Connecticut—(a) to avoid killing people; or, (b) to avoid making a noise?", I illadvisedly chose the former answer and failed to appreciate that fatalities were less important in Connecticut, provided that the accident was silent.
If differing powers at differing levels can confuse, so can differing powers in adjacent jurisdictions. A lack of clarity or of familiarity will rob this initiative of public respect. The London Borough of Camden suddenly extended its parking meters' "close of play" in theatreland some years back from 6.30 p.m. to the later hour of 8 p.m. while the City of Westminster stuck to 6.30 p.m. A fair amount of constituency and parliamentary ink had to be expended before common sense returned in common treatment across a boundary with which motorists were obviously unfamiliar.
Finally, on the issue of powers, clarity is required even to the extent of clairvoyance in relation to the powers of detention. In the current context of the Bill, it is possible to envisage episodes of an absurdity, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew mentioned, such as caused the disagreement between No. 10 and the Home Office about No. 10's suggested solutions a year or two ago. The powers of detention by CSOs, and their use of reasonable force, will need detailed dissection in Committee if they are to work; and their working well is important to public respect for this innovation.
I end as I began with the Home Office. Despite the sensible words of the Minister at the onset of his speech in this debate, we have a broadly centralising government. When the Arts Council can, with ministerial support, solemnly launch a statement about the dismantling of the regional arts organisations in England by saying that there are three reasons for doing so of which the first is to achieve greater decentralisation, I wonder whether it believes what it says or is simply fooling itself. The Home Secretary acquired a reputation for centralisation while serving as Secretary of State for Education, some of which centralisation is said to be responsible for too many teachers leaving the profession—the subject of another debate this evening. We cannot afford to lose policemen in the same way.
In my youth I worked indirectly for, and directly with, the Nestle company, both in Switzerland and in this country. The subsidiaries were then ruled on a Roman consular basis by two men: one an Italian/ Swiss and the other a French/Swiss. The former, who had made his reputation as a general sales manager of the Milano Secundo sales district of Milan ran continental Europe for Nestle as if it were the Milano Secundo district. His colleague ran the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom—it was the days of EFTA, before we joined the EU—with a much lighter rein. An Irishman, who later ran the UK operations in this country, was sent to run the Australian unit with a personal send-off from the French/Swiss joint managing director, who said to him:
"I guarantee I shall not interfere. I hope I am not obliged to intervene".
576
There are powers of intervention for the Home Secretary in this Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew presaged, we should scrutinise the Bill in Committee with that French/Swiss distinction between interference and intervention ringing in our ears.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, Robert Carvel was the political correspondent of the Evening Standard in the 1960s and 1970s, and I believe for many years before that worked for the Star. He was a real political correspondent, not like so many today. One morning at about 10 o'clock when the Evening Standard came out, Robert Carve] had written, "Westminster is agog", with interest in a certain Bill. I happened to be here, and there was not a soul about. At the annual dinner for the Lobby that day I learned that Harold Wilson had picked up the same story. It appears that Bob Carvel lived in Northwood and that he wrote the article when he was shaving on the borders of Rickmansworth. I have told that story because the one thing that I am certain about is the fact that I shall be brief. The House of Lords is not agog with great interest in our activities at this time of night.
I can tell the noble Lord that I entered the House of Commons 40 years ago and within a few days I was involved in the discussions on a police Bill, following the Willink report. The noble Lord's father was in charge of the Bill. I learned a good deal from him that day: I learned that the briefer the Minister is, the briefer the discussion on the Bill will be. I am not the Minister, but I shall be brief.
I declare an interest that, since 1972. my wife and I, together with our family, had police protection to different degrees. We know the West Yorkshire Police, we know the Metropolitan Police and we know the RUC. I am on the side of the police. Nothing I say will ever alter that position. However, that is not to say that there is no need for reform.
The Bill before us is complicated, though the principles are simple. I congratulate the Home Office, the Library of the House of Lords and the Audit Office on supplying many papers on these matters. I wish only that we had the facilities during the following stages of the Bill whereby we could take evidence from ACPO, from the Police Federation and from the superintendents, so that we could study some of the arguments that have been put. For example, when I served in the Home Office, I heard that some policemen were in favour of increasing the number of officers on the beat, while others thought that the increase should be in officers in patrol cars.
Here, too, there are two schools of thought, arid it might help to resolve the matter if we had those concerned giving evidence. However, I am not sure that we have procedures to cover that sort of hearing. We need to look at the role of the inspectorate and at the powers of the police, which are on I he increase. The House of Lords is a place where we can do that. I hope that we shall have a productive Committee stage on the Bill.

577
The one subject that I should like to talk about is the proposal for community support officers. When I first went to Northern Ireland I had been shadow spokesman for a long time. Much of Belfast was not under the control of the police—it is not so even now. I had a bright idea that came to me while working in the office; namely, to have auxiliary policemen circulating in these areas. I announced it to the House. The Chief Constable came to see me and said, "It won't work Secretary of State; it won't work at all. The IRA will take over those Republican areas and the Prostestant paramilitaries will take over the ones in the other areas. You must be careful with this idea".
In principle, the introduction of CSOs is a very good idea. But are they to be accredited? What sort of uniform will they wear? In my old constituency we devised a scheme for Saturday morning surgeries: two councillors would sit at desks in different corners of the room, together with the community constable. The people would queue up outside. In the event of one of them raising a police matter, I was able to consult the police directly. But what is to happen to community constables? Will they still be around. They carry out the sort of job that we expect these auxiliary policeman will have to do. The proposal needs to be carefully considered.
I should tell noble Lords that I have a sore throat. I have but one further point to make. We must use the Committee stage to investigate these matters carefully. Let us use the process properly. All too often during a Bill's passage through the House we have an ongoing Second Reading debate that continues for weeks. The Bill does not need a continuous Second Reading debate; it needs investigation. I wish the Bill well. I hope to be able to play my part in its progress.
7.29 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I should like to say something about the issue of community support officers. In doing so, I should declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police, in which I am a commander with responsibility for the force's training.
Writing in 1943, Charles Reith said that,
"the police are the public and the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare".
That sense of collective responsibility for policing is reflected today in the overwhelming emphasis on partnership approaches to crime reduction and community safety. One expression of that dominant philosophy is the network of crime reduction partnerships which throughout the country brings together the police, local authorities and a wide range of other bodies to promote joint activity at a local level. Another example is that of the partnership between regular officers and the Special Constabulary which other noble Lords have mentioned. That involves men and women who on average contribute
578
more hours per week for a longer period of service than those undertaking any other form of voluntary activity.
In developing the doctrine of policing, therefore, opportunities have always been taken to involve others and to allow active citizens to participate in creating safer societies. Both examples demonstrate that it is possible to contribute to more effective policing without joining the service itself.
Today, demands on the police are rising, and if our strategic aims of safety and reassurance are to be met, we need to develop a culture that seeks out new opportunities for engagement with partners, volunteers and the public. For those reasons, I believe that a properly accountable, trained and well-managed network of community support officers could contribute positively to making London the safest capital city in the world. How might they do that?
Over the past decade, driven at least in part by government performance indicators, some progress has been made in improving our response to serious crime, major incidents and calls for assistance. When the public demand more officers on the beat, as they do, police managers tend to respond by pointing to the improved detection rates for murder and other serious offences, to the declining levels of burglary and to quicker response times. However, none of that appears to have reassured the public that they are safer.
That paradox is nowhere more evident than in the findings of the most recent British Crime Survey, to which other noble Lords have referred. That showed that, although the chance of being victimised had fallen to its lowest level for 20 years, fear of crime remained high. More than half of the 2001 sample believed that crime rates had risen in the preceding year, while the survey itself showed a fall of 12 per cent.
The significance of that gap between falling levels of crime and rising degrees of fear has now been recognised as a phenomenon in itself. The clamour for reassurance is an intangible but fundamental dimension of modern policing. The public want to see the visible presence of authority in public spaces and yet the police officers who provide that are all too often taken off the streets to process arrests, give evidence in court and undergo training.
The evidence for that can be found in last year's Home Office report, The Diary of a Police Officer, to which the Minister referred. It revealed that officers were spending 43 per cent of each tour of duty inside the police station dealing with paperwork, preparing prosecution files and processing prisoners. Arresting someone, whether for a minor or serious offence, removed an officer from the streets for an average of three-and-a-half hours. When officers were out of the station, most of their time was spent dealing with incidents and making inquiries. Only 17 per cent of their time was spent on general patrol of the type likely to promote public reassurance.
Such reassurance is not just desirable in itself; it can stimulate a virtuous circle in which increased confidence generates additional information and

579
intelligence, from which more effective policing can emerge. In short, reassurance is fundamentally linked to the success of conventional policing priorities.
Community support officers could, it seems to me, contribute to that sense of reassurance not by replacing police officers but by assisting them and allowing regular officers to make more effective use of their skills and training. With their complementary and distinct role, community support officers could provide that additional visible presence through which confidence is improved and fear of crime diminished.
The principles of such an approach have already been established in the growing number of local authority warden schemes. Patrolling in the Borough of Islington recently, I saw the positive collaboration between those wardens and local officers. The Bill provides an opportunity to develop that principle of joint working, with the local beat officer co-ordinating directly a support officer's briefing, tasking and deployment.
I imagine that many noble Lords will know their own local community officers and will have seen how they are often working alone and relatively unsupported. Such local officers could for the first time have at their disposal a means of providing additional visible patrol in areas where anti-social behaviour or fear of crime were most acute. That extra tier of patrol, which is less likely to be called away, can of course he characterised as cut-price policing. But it can, more constructively, be seen as an attempt to respond creatively to the dynamic of changing public demand.
While the importance to us of the Special Constabulary will be undiminished, the service also needs people who are able to come into work at a prescribed time and carry out a specific task. It should not have to rely exclusively and unreasonably on the good will of volunteers. We should, I believe, take this opportunity to develop a mixed economy of police and support staff. just as nurses today undertake some of the jobs that doctors used to do and care assistants take on some nursing roles.
There is a second way in which community support officers could assist in the policing of London. In the latter part of 2001, between 500 and 1,500 officers were deployed daily, predominantly in central London, to provide protection, reassurance and a response to major incidents and security alerts. Given the scale of that demand, they were drawn from other boroughs of London, and the impact of that abstraction was significant and damaging. Some of their security duties, such as the management of cordons and the patrol of discrete areas, were labour intensive and could, I believe, have been undertaken by community support officers, properly briefed and properly supervised.
Visiting a central London police station just before Christmas, I found that 40 per cent of the duty time of probationer constables—that is to say, officers with less than two years' service—was being spent on security duties. For all its importance, that deployment was providing them with little
580
opportunity to develop the wider range of skills that are expected of police officers. It could not offer the breadth of challenge that attracted them to policing and which will retain them in the service.
In 1829, when presenting his first Bill for,
"Improving Police in and near the Metropolis",
Robert Peel told Parliament that he intended to,
"proceed slowly with the experiment with a cautious feeling of the way and deriving aid from experience, essential to the ultimate success of all reform".
Integrating community support officers into policing may require just such an approach. We will need to involve local communities in those discussions if the notion is to win public consent. If the issues of control, accountability and training are properly attended to, I believe that the case can be made.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Earl has given us an up-to-date review of policing from his own point of view. The House must take careful note of everything that he said. In a moment I shall pursue his question of what we should do about the special constables, how they should be paid and what allowances they should have.
I am rather worried by the idea that outside London we may find ourselves faced with a tiered police force. I am afraid that I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Waddington said about the community policeman. There is a danger of the Treasury leaning on chief constables to establish why some use cannot be made of them.
As a whole, we do not like wardens; we do not like people exercising police power as civilians. I refer not only to traffic wardens. We do riot like people displaying anti-social behaviour, causing damage to property and stopping cars. Last week I was very impressed when a very senior and well respected detective inspector in Leicester said to me, "You have no idea the amount of trouble we have to get them out of". I believe that that probably applies to many community police officers.
I believe that we are also in danger of moving, as the French and Italians have done, towards a form of tied police service. After all, the Republican Guard was incorporated into the main French force in 1849. But it has a very limited police power. I was lucky enough to have the Republican Guard at the Olympia horse show four years ago. Its members are very good horsemen, but their police powers are limited, unlike the English mounted police, who come every third year to Olympia. They are, first and foremost, policemen and women and then good horsemen afterwards. I am also concerned as to what might happen in Italy, where, I am advised, 10 different policemen can all have different powers.
I now turn to the question of special constables in Leicestershire and Rutland. There we have 2,000 full-time officers and exactly 200 special constables. They are not paid but they receive out-of-pocket expenses and—I may be corrected on this point—they complete 10 training sessions a year. We should approach the

581
specials in exactly the same way as we do the Territorial Army. Provided that they are available for a limited numbers of days and complete their training sessions, they should quality for a tax-free bounty. I believe that the new police negotiating body, which is now examining the matter of payment, should make a firm recommendation about a bounty for special constables. It should be based on the interruption to family life caused by their special duties and it should allow them to take their families on a good holiday as a result of that interruption.
If, at the age of l8/12 someone in a village decides to join the police force, that is reflected throughout the whole community. Everyone considers it to be excellent that the person in question has joined, and it also reflects on the school. The House will be aware that, when trainees first join, they have 15 weeks of virtually hard labour, followed by two years' probation and then a final six weeks. Therefore, they become fully-fledged police officers at the end of three years.
I believe that we must begin to consider police recruitment as a whole. Today, many people go to university and we must start to recruit there. I do not refer to the old-fashioned scheme of accelerated promotion for graduates. I do not believe that that was fair, and it never worked. However, I believe that we should look at the possibility of a person at university spending his long vacation holiday with the police service, for which he should be paid. If at the end of his three-year period at university he does not join the police force, he must pay back the money. That is what happens now in the armed services.
Therefore, if one spends part of a gap year gaining work experience with the police and then completes three years' police training during the long vacation, one should start in the police force on an equal footing with those who have just joined the force at the age of 18/12. I believe that we should now give serious consideration to recruiting from universities because that is where almost everyone seems to go. There are various degree subjects at university; none the less, that is where nearly everyone seems to end up.
Finally, because Mr Edmund-Davies lived in my constituency, I was conscious of what he did for the police service. We shall have to face the fact that all those who decided to join up or extend their service following Mr Edmund-Davies's reforms will all start to retire in 2006. I believe that a larger number of people are retiring than at present we probably realise.
I have nothing more to add, other than the fact that I believe that the Police Negotiating Board should do everything that was done in 1976. I also believe that a special review should take place of the terms relating to special constables, and we should consider once again a proper form of university recruitment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the preservation of public order and the protection of the public against crime is carried out in our country by community-based police
582
forces. It is a system which we have adopted for many, many years. Its successful continuance over that period of time has been due to the fact that the public have confidence in their police and the local police force knows that it has the trust of the people whom it serves. That is a vital aspect of our national life which we should always seek to preserve.
Although we have community-based police forces, we nevertheless control them through a statutory framework. Therefore, any police Bill is of singular importance and we should investigate its provisions to determine whether they will, at the very least, maintain the present level of confidence and, wherever possible, increase it. This Bill seeks to achieve that objective. I raise three issues concerning the Bill in order to seek to ensure, as we investigate it in detail, that the public confidence which we value so much will not be endangered.
My first comment is a query about the structure of Parts 1 and 3 of the Bill. If our 43 police areas each function under the command of a chief constable responsible to his police authority, with ultimate responsibility lying with the Secretary of State, how is that relationship to be maintained so that local policing is preserved?
In opening the debate, the Minister helpfully indicated the two strands of Parts 1 and 3 which the Government consider to be important in seeking, if they must, to direct the work of local police forces. The first will be the introduction of a national plan, which itself would have the consequence of local plans to implement it. Therefore, my first query is: what place is there in the national plan structure for the Secretary of State to determine and, if necessary, to direct chief constables of police to use support staff; and, if there is such use, what will be the amount? At present the Bill proposes that the power to use support staff will be in the hands of the chief constable. But how does that fit in with a national plan for policing that seeks to enforce efficiency and effectiveness? That is my first query.
The second is to reflect the concern which, with our historical dislike of the concept of a national police force, we all have that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State will have as a last resort—that was my noble friend's phrase in opening the debate—the power to dismiss a chief constable by enforcing retirement or resignation. In what circumstances can we envisage that measure of last resort being exercised, particularly if a chief constable honestly and genuinely disagrees with a particular feature of the national plan, and his police authority and the local community agree with him? Those are not critical queries. They are designed to give a shape to the Bill that will preserve, rather than damage, confidence in this first area of community-based policing.
My second comment is one of commendation in relation to police complaints. The stature of any public service is best tested by the way in which it allows the public remedies for misbehaviour by its servants. In my view, this Bill creates a police complaints commission of high quality. I suspect that it is a rare

583
occasion in this House when a noble Lord can congratulate the Government on spending three times more than in the past on a public service, but I understand that to be their intention. Some 14 million or £15 million will be spent on this commission. I applaud that expenditure, dictated as it is within the Bill through an efficient system of complaint investigation and resolution. As one of my noble friends said earlier, the reason for delays in the investigation of police complaints is because the fact of investigation has become the remedy for a complaint, when the complainant wishes to achieve resolution. That is an important feature of daily life. I commend this first aspect of the police complaints commission very warmly indeed.
I turn to the internal disciplining of police officers. For many years at the junior Bar I was retained by the Police Federation in my region to represent it in every aspect—civil and criminal—but particularly at internal private disciplinary hearings conducted by chief constables that did not involve members cif the public. It was difficult to understand the length of time that they took, the reason why suspension should be so lengthy and the reason why only the chief constable could conduct the tribunal. I am not sure what the present system is; I suspect that it is much the same. Important t hough it is to preserve force morale and the line of discipline, it is simply unacceptable for any chief constable to expect to chair every such inquiry.
In looking at the Bill, and in putting it into context for police officers, I hope that in due course chief constables will allow their deputies to conduct the tribunals, or even an independent lawyer, with the one target of achieving an early completion of the complaint. I stress that because within Part 2 of the Bill there is an interconnection between internal complaints and reference of them by the chief constable to the independent commission. One should not be out of sync with the other in terms of expedition.
My third comment is caution in relation to Part 4 of the Bill. It is a self-evident truth that a security guard is cheaper than a police officer who has had the benefit of long-term training and who has the benefit of sickness pay and pension entitlement. That economic truth should not dictate the future shape of our police. I invite a cautious inquiry to be made of some of the issues that will arise from the use of support staff as envisaged in the Bill.
First, I refer to consistency of use and training. The giving of a power to individual chief constables to determine in each of their forces who is acceptable and who is not is perfectly reasonable, provided that that power is exercised consistently and not, in certain circumstances, under the pressure of desperate need, when the less acceptable may be accepted rather than the acceptable. That is consistency of use and training.
Secondly, echoing the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, if a community service officer is entitled to use reasonable force—I understand that he faces that prospect unarmed—a drunken hooligan will be aware that the person who may seek to control him, under the powers given to
584
him under this Bill, will not be armed and will riot be able to defend himself, except with his own physical strength. In my view, that is likely to give rise to the real risk that such support officers, seeking to do their duty, will be the subject of serious violence. That area requires careful attention.
Thirdly, as yet no one has mentioned the important fact that the Bill allows support staff to act as investigating officers and detention officers. The Explanatory Notes state that the first of those categories covers people like scenes-of-crime officers. That is not so. A quick perusal of Schedule 4 indicates that such an investigating officer will be armed with the same powers of search and seizure as any ordinary police officer. Other than in cases of violent crime where armed police may be involved, will we see search warrants and search and seizure carried out by support staff and not by fully qualified police officers? If not, how will the code that allows them to he used be applied in a way that avoids that?
On detention officers, a number of individual powers are given to someone acting as a detention officer who is not a police officer. The Bill is silent on whether he or she will have the power to detain within a police station, by which I mean to exercise the authority of a custody sergeant, to inspect someone in a cell to ensure that one does not face—as one sometimes has to in this life—the terrible event of a cell death or unnecessary violence. What role will such a detention officer play in that scenario? The Bill does not explain.
The Association of Community Service Organisations enjoys, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said—if "enjoy" is the right word—the liability that the chief officer of police enjoys in respect of claims made against either one or both. Will a chief constable ensure that any ACSO that he uses will be properly insured and that the staff are properly trained, not to meet claims, but to ensure that claims can be avoided? In recent years a problem that has beset the Metropolitan force has been the scale and complexity of actions against the police. It would be unfortunate if the support staff provisions of this Bill served merely to extend that unhelpful area of litigation.
Lastly with regard to Part 4, we can look forward, I hope, to each chief constable employing such support staff issuing an annual report as to his experience of them—not just with regard to what they did, but on whether it was worth the money and whether their use should continue.
These comments of query, commendation and caution should not be thought to undermine what is a commendable Bill. However, I should like to make two points in conclusion. First, the Government are introducing a new system of policing. They are putting the powers of support staff policing into the hands of chief constables. That does not permit the Government to renege on a duty they owe: to determine from time to time by their own report to this House and the public whether this system is working; and, if it is not, to show a readiness, which I am sure they will, to adapt and change as necessary.

585
Secondly, this Bill is innovative. It will bring about a different form of policing. But I suggest that it should not be passed as if it is fixed for all time. We should not face the situation anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, of the budgetary allowances of policing hereafter being dictated by the existence of these two forms of policing. Of course I accept the public pressures on resources that might lead to that risk. But it is a risk that we must avoid because—closing as I opened—if we allow that state of affairs to arise, it is certain sure that the public will lose confidence in the policing system. They will feel that the police they were used to are a police apart, and that they are getting second best. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill and certainly not of the Government.
It is our duty as citizens, and the Government's as the conductors of state policy, to ensure that, in future, confidence in the police is maintained to the level which it has been in the past.
8.2 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing his Bill. I intend to cover four subjects: special constables; the provision of escorts for abnormal loads; the management of police recovery schemes for broken down vehicles; and the Ministry of Defence and British Transport Police.
Many noble Lords have raised the issue of special constables. I have no special knowledge of them. But it is interesting to compare the relationships between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army and the regular police and the Special Constabulary. As a TA officer I have no doubt that I have a healthy relationship with my regular counterparts and also that I have power of command over regular officers and subordinate officers. Equally, I would demur to a subordinate regular officer if I thought that he had greater knowledge of the matter in hand.
I accept that some special constables do not want to be paid because that is against their ethos. But I wonder whether it is the most efficient and effective way of going about the business. We may not reach a conclusion about special constables during the passage of the Bill, but I believe that it will be a fruitful area of study.
I remind the House that I am the president of the Heavy Transport Association. I also own and operate a very heavy transporter that lives at the REME museum at Bordon camp. Clearly, abnormal loads have to be escorted because of their very nature. Traditionally the police have provided this service, normally for no charge, but actually there is no statutory provision for so doing.
The problem is that escorting abnormal loads is not regarded as a core police activity. As a result, hauliers of heavy loads often have to wait several hours in order to get a police escort. When police constabularies change they have to wait another period of several hours. Police escorts are normally available only during main working hours. But, ideally, abnormal loads should be moved at unsocial hours, and even in
586
the small hours—one or two o'clock in the morning. This is a subject that is very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley.
Initial options for change centred on a policy of "contractorising" the police function. That caused major concerns in industry because there was the worry of having a monopoly supplier working for the police but being paid for by the hauliers. It was seen as very controversial. Many operators wanted to stay with the concept of a free service, even if it meant waiting a considerable length of time. Of course that was not a likely outcome. As a result there was not much government activity, but the police have been steadily relaxing the escorting criteria. Also the police are becoming fairly relaxed about allowing self-escorting. I have done it myself. It has also been carried out in North Wales.
These matters were covered in an Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, on 2nd May 2001. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, when talking about the 1998 consultation, said:
"One can draw from that [the consultation] the implication that there was not absolute consensus on the way forward".—[Official Report, 2/5/01; col. 1940.]
I think that he was quite right at the time. The Road Haulage Association, for instance, shared my concern about the dangers of "contractorising a police function". It raised difficult issues of accountability and responsibility and also the expense to the operator.
However, now there is consensus along the lines of the chief constable authorising the movement but telling the haulier that he will have to provide his own escort, but in accordance with ACPO guidelines. The ACPO guidelines might cover the experience of the escort driver, say, three years of having a Class 1 Heavy Goods Vehicle licence, the lights, the signs and equipment carried within the escort vehicle. Detailed studies have already been undertaken. Moving in this direction does not require any legislation, either primary or secondary. The chief constable already has the power to go in this direction. I have mentioned the situation in North Wales and there are other informal arrangements.
Noble Lords may not be aware, but the Metropolitan Police, who have serious pressing policing priorities which have been touched on today, will now escort only abnormal loads over 13 feet 6 inches wide and 100 tonnes gross train weight. If I were to move an abnormal load of that size on a single carriageway without some form of escort—not necessarily a police escort—I would regard myself as being grossly negligent.
I do not take issue with what the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has done with regard to his priorities. But it indicates that urgent action is required in this area. At the present time, the Metropolitan Police are moving very fast, but the hauliers do not have their own escort facilities. So right now, hauliers are trying to move very heavy loads across central London without any escorts. There is a real risk there.

587
I intend to meet the Minister's right honourable friend Mr Denham to confirm consensus on the way forward. I hope that the Minister will facilitate that so that it can take place before we get to the Committee stage. It may possibly save time in Committee.
I believe that private escorting is in line with the Minister's policy on police reform. It will reduce inconvenience to the public and save considerable sums of money to the industry and of course make better use of police resources.
Charging for escorts is a related issue. It will be appropriate for the police to charge in certain circumstances, but it is not clear whether the charges are legal or are set at the appropriate level. I will address that issue in Committee. In Committee, I shall also raise the issue of police recovery schemes for broken-down vehicles and accidents. There have been several court cases involving the chief constable and the new recovery schemes, some of which have questionable integrity. On the back of those schemes, the police force gets free recovery. We have had serious problems with one of those schemes in south Wales. On the other hand, we also have a serious safety problem. The hard shoulder is the most dangerous part of the motorway, and we cannot afford to have vehicles parked on it, waiting any length of time for recovery. Action is needed.
Breakdowns on highly congested roads must be cleared extremely quickly. Perhaps, the Highways Agency ought to consider having some sort of free recovery system, rather like the contraflow systems, in order to remove the congestion at the earliest possible moment. There is no consensus about recovery schemes, unlike private escorting. They are difficult problems, and we should explore them in Committee. However, I do not expect to see much progress in the short term.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and others raised the issue of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police. Several provisions have slipped out of the Bill, but we can, of course, correct that in Committee. I look forward to subsequent stages and, in particular, listening to the suggestions of other noble Lords for the improvement of the Bill.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes—the only noble Baroness who has spoken in the debate—was one of several speakers who pointed out that the apparent disappearance of the uniformed policeman from our streets is one of the major concerns of the public and that it has existed for some time.
I do not believe any more than other noble Lords that the police car with sirens wailing is any substitute in terms of giving comfort, providing deterrence and reassuring the general public. Nor, however, do I think that the clock can be put back. Possibly—I may do him an injustice—-the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, may think that it is possible. He certainly placed emphasis on special constables. Assuming that they are unpaid,
588
reliance on them—in London, at any rate—would not seem to be feasible. Therefore, I am attracted, in principle at least, to Part 4 of the Bill. which refers to people, whether they are street wardens. security officers or whoever—all uniformed, as I understand it—who would provide that measure of reassurance to the public that, to the regret of noble Lords, has disappeared. Their powers to deal with so-called low-level crime and anti-social behaviour would be a valuable supplement—I emphasise "supplement"—to the powers of the police.
My only concerns about Part 4 are Committee matters which can be examined at another time. What does "accreditation" mean? Will it mean something different in 43 different police areas? I follow the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who picked on particular clauses—I think that they were Clauses 33, 34 and 35—and talked of the anxieties about who would be responsible in the event of an injury being caused in some kind of tussle between the support staff—the auxiliaries, as I may conveniently call them—and a member of the public. It seemed to me, before I heard the noble and learned Lord's more detailed points, that Clause 35 relied greatly on the auxiliary's employer to ensure that the auxiliary would be someone of the kind of character, behaviour and personality that would make him suitable to be a member of that force. Much attention must be paid to the accreditation of individuals, especially at the beginning of the new system. The public will be watching, and the police force proper will be watching. Relations between the auxiliaries and the police on one hand and the public on the other are of tremendous importance if Part 4, which I agree with in principle, is to be a success in practice.
I also welcome the creation of the new independent complaints commission. I welcomed the comments about the new system by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in his excellent speech. Tested against criteria of accessibility, effectiveness and independence, the new commission scores high marks. It is certainly a far cry from the days when the police investigated complaints against the police, with the risk of coverup—or certainly with the perception of cover-up on the part of the public—with regard to the outcome. I remind your Lordships that, to meet legitimate public concern, those in many other professions— lawyers, accountants and others—have felt that they should introduce complaints systems with at least a lay element that would have greater public acceptance than the systems that they replaced. So there is nothing embarrassing for the police; there is no thing special to single out in relation to the police. Other professions are properly doing similar things.
It has not been mentioned in the debate, but I am glad that bodies such as citizens advice bureaux, representative bodies and others will be able to pursue complaints apart from individual victims. Of course, there must be safeguards against complaints that are produced for some kind of political or other reason that is not justified, but I like that idea, and I like the innovation that the commission will be able to conduct

589
an investigation. It is described in the Explanatory Notes as a "totally new concept" for serious complaints, those that are likely to concern the public interest.
On the provisions for the new commission, I should welcome an explanation as to how the new concept of the commission conducting investigations directly will work. Do we envisage having permanent staff? Do we envisage sufficient work to require permanent staff to conduct investigations throughout the year? Sadly, perhaps we do. Where shall we get qualified people? Do we envisage that people will be seconded from the police force in some temporary or permanent way? It will make a lot of difference to the perception of the new commission and of the independence that is enshrined in its title if we know where the investigators will come from.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising the matter of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. I had the privilege of piloting it through the House. It was a Private Member's Bill in the other place, initiated by Mr Richard Shepherd, Member of Parliament for Aldridge-Brownhills. It gave useful protection—as it still does—to employees in all kinds of enterprises who blow the whistle on wrongdoing in the place of work and are then dismissed or victimised in some other way.
The Government said that police officers must be excluded from the Act because technically they are not employees. That is perfectly true. But the relevant Minister—Mr Ian McCartney at that time—said that it was clear the police should be covered by whistle-blowing protection and, as recorded in Commons Hansard on 24th April 1998 at col. 1143, he gave an "absolute commitment" that police officers would be afforded equivalent protection to that in the Act.
There are some whistle-blowing provisions in the police regulations. But they do not provide equivalent protection to that in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The officer is not given any right of redress. He is merely entitled to bring a so-called "grievance"; a procedure in which, according to no less a body than Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, the police have little confidence. According to the Government's White Paper, Policing a New Century, which the Minister has had in front of him during most of the debate, a modern police service requires modern employment terms and conditions. That suggests that the old technical reason for excluding the police from the Public Interest Disclosure Act no longer applies.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, this has been an interesting Second Reading debate, notably because of the contributions of three noble Lords with direct policing experience, further supplemented by the Minister who I understand spent a night shift with the police in London. I had a similar experience, spending a night shift with the police force in Chicago. The most frightening thing was that every arrest was made when guns were produced. It was on that day that I realised what a wonderful police force we have in this country.
590
I detected a common concern among most noble Lords, and shall certainly include it in my contribution. The police and policing methods have come under considerable scrutiny over the past few years. For example, no one would have imagined that the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence would result in such a fundamental appraisal of policing methods. To the credit of the police forces, they took on board many of the recommendations and to that extent the Home Office must take credit for the way that it pursued those recommendations.
Parliament has to date looked at issues affecting the police very much on a piecemeal basis, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. This Bill gives us an opportunity to examine present practices and the improvements that are necessary. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, some contentious issues arise and we shall debate those in Committee.
I echo the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the Bill may not reflect the consultation that has taken place. How can that be possible in the short time between the end of the consultation process and the publication of the Bill? Will it be possible for the Minister to make available in the Library the evidence submitted by the various organisations so that we can see their concerns in relation to the consultation process outcome.
In Part 1 the Home Secretary asks for new powers regarding police forces and police authorities, and I shall deal with that matter later. I note the Minister's assurance that he values the tripartite relationship. I do not question his intentions. But the effect of his proposals is precisely the opposite. It questions the sound relationship of the tripartite arrangement that has existed so far.
Part 2 concerns the overhaul of the police complaints system and the establishment of a new independent police complaints commission. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Condon. The police have powers which, if misused, can be oppressive and fundamentally affect the lives of ordinary citizens. It is right that such misuse can be dealt with and we welcome the additional powers.
It is important also that we scrutinise the powers for the removal, supervision and disciplining of police officers as contained in Part 3. I say that because no one can take comfort from the way in which the Secretary of State exercised his authority in a recent case. The removal of the Chief Constable of Sussex raised some important issues and we want to distinguish clearly the role of the police authority and the part the Secretary of State should play. I do not question the rights or wrongs of the case; but I question the method employed.
The Home Secretary has power also to reinstate police officers. But the way he exercised his authority in that case broke all the rules of natural justice. He cannot be the judge and the jury at the same time.

591
The most fundamental provision in the Bill relates to police powers, police support staff and the establishment of a community safety accreditation scheme. Again that is new and it is right that we should probe in detail the Government's thinking and the police response to it.
I have always said that we have the best police force in the world. But that does not mean that it could not be better. Equally, there is recognition that the public's expectations are far greater than the police's ability to meet them and deliver the appropriate service to them. We must not forget that 130,000 individuals—that thin blue dividing line—make the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. It is for that reason that we need to examine carefully the impact of the government proposals and their impact on the police generally.
The question we quite rightly need to pose that arose in the consultation document is whether the Police Reform Bill will actually assist in reducing crime. Will it help to tackle persistent offenders more effectively? What will be its impact on detection and conviction rates? Again, the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is right. The police are not the only agency. The joined-up approach should look at all parts of the justice system if we are to achieve some uniformity in the way that the system operates.
The question I have repeatedly posed in your Lordships' House is this. Why is it that when the crime rate is dropping as confirmed by the British Crime Survey, the prison population continues to rise? I welcome the announcement of the Home Secretary about the need to reduce over-crowding and the plans he has for weekend prisons. There is at least a recognition that sending people to prison does not work. I welcome that new thinking.
No one disputes that public safety and the protection of all our citizens must rank high on the Government's agenda. We need to be satisfied that the Bill before us has a balance between crime and its detection, and the need to deal with offenders in a more effective way. If that means tackling bureaucracy in the policing network and more effective use of police in tackling crime, then that is welcome.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his most important report on the Brixton disorders in 1981, identified independence and the consent of the community as an essential element in successful policing methods. A number of noble Lords mentioned those factors. We want to be satisfied that neither has been sacrificed in the Bill before us, nor that they have been diluted so that those factors are eroded.
We welcome the Home Secretary's duty to produce an annual national policing plan. The questions we must raise are these. Would local consultation in formulating the national plan be part of the Government's strategy? If not, why not? Is the national plan the forerunner for a national police force? That is the indication one gets despite the Government's assurances. Would the independence of the police be sacrificed? Are we slicing away or eroding
592
their independence in operational matters? How else can the Minister explain powers to issue directions? Why does the Secretary of State require powers to issue directions, particularly to chief officers and police authorities? Does this not compromise the independence of our local police forces?
It would have been helpful if the Minister had indicated why the present methods have not worked—if they have not worked. The Minister has demonstrated an insatiable appetite on the part of the Government to control police functions nationally. I hope that that is not the case. The powers that the Home Secretary is seeking, particularly the power to issue directions, could have serious implications if there is political interference in the performance of police duties. We want categoric assurances that this will not be the case and that the power will be restricted to directions for implementing an annual national policing plan which has been approved by Parliament.
We must avoid politicising our police service at all costs. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, rightly drew our attention to this matter. Perhaps I may draw an analogy with the miners' strike and the use of police operating nationally at that time which created wounds in our mining communities which have yet to heal.
I am concerned about the Secretary of State's relationship with police authorities. Prior to the reorganisation of the membership and function of' the authorities, much of the discussion at meetings related to point scoring, particularly political point scoring. I know because I was a member of such an authority at that time. The reorganisation and the appointment of independent members altered that situation. Why is it necessary to meddle in the fu:nction of such authorities?
Again, the action of the Secretary of State in bypassing the role of the authority and asking the Chief Constable of Sussex to resign has not helped. Why do we need such powers centrally? What is the justification? If we take away the remaining vestige of independence from police authorities it will make them fairly sterile and will be damaging to the accountability of the force.
Part 2 deals with complaints and misconduct. This is an area in which we will certainly offer the Minister our support. The current system of handling complaints has flaws. Let me declare my interest. Unlike many Members of your Lordships' House, I was a member of the Police Complaints Authority from 1994 to 1997. It was created in the early 1980s as a result of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the Brixton riots, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure and recommendations from the then Police Complaints Board.
The procedures were ground-breaking at that time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, himself proposed the arrangement whereby investigations into serious complaints would be supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. Police investigating police has never been accepted by a section of the populace, and public perceptions count as much as reality.

593
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was also ground-breaking but it needs updating. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, now part of the Police Act 1966, reformed the police discipline system but did not change the process of investigation. There are specific reasons why we need to reform the system now.
The current system does not allow for any appeal against a failure by a chief constable to record a complaint against police. If you cannot record a complaint, you cannot get an investigation. Many frustrated complainants write to the Police Complaints Authority, but, while the authority will intercede if appropriate, it has no locus in the case and cannot override the force's decision.
Special constables and civilians, such as custody gaolers, who have taken over posts formerly held by constables, are outside the current system. The Bill will bring them into the same complaints system.
The Police Complaints Authority cannot initiate an investigation of its own accord. It has to await a complaint or a voluntary referral by the force. The complaints of people who witness police misconduct also cannot be recorded, although on occasions the force will set up an investigation. Following incidents causing grave public concern, there is particular concern about police officers investigating, albeit under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority.
The PCA has had tiny resources to undertake a major job. For example, its £4.4 million budget to cover 51 police forces in England and Wales is only about half of that of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, where the total number of police officers is about 10 per cent of that in England and Wales.
There is no appeal against a misconduct decision taken by the Police Complaints Authority. Judicial reviews are expensive and are only the prerogative of people who are legally aided.
The restrictions on disclosure of information hindered the present Police Complaints Authority considerably in its first 10 years and damaged public confidence in the police complaints machinery. The name "Police Complaints Authority" leads the great majority of complainants to assume that the independent body is an arm of the police. The system under which the PCA finds itself writing to complainants to tell them the result of an investigation on behalf of the police fuels this misunderstanding.
It has been a difficult time for the PCA to operate but it has made some very significant progress since the 1980s. I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged the individual contribution of members of the authority. The PCA is much more flexible now. It has handled many cases of miscarriages of justice and around 40 convictions have been quashed as a result of its investigations. Despite receiving criticisms, investigations are much more robust and the complainants and their families are well briefed about their cases.
594
We need to commend the authority's work on guidance for pre-inquest disclosure as regards deaths in custody. It has played a significant part in reducing the number of deaths in care and custody from 65 in 1998 to 32 last year. We can add to that the guidance on the police use of batons and CS sprays and the way it has worked with a number of police forces to pioneer restorative justice techniques within the police complaints system. It is to be hoped that none of this will lose its impact when the authority is reorganised.
I welcome the proposed changes because they will take the system a lot further. The independent police complaints commission will have important new powers, its own investigators and a role in police inspections alongside Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. It will clearly be independent of the police service. The new system will also give every incentive to the police service to deal effectively with complaints and to satisfy complainants. If it fails, then the complainant will appeal to the IPCC. The number of appeals in each force will surely become a performance target.
But much will depend on the financial and administrative support available to the new authority. Can the Minister confirm that the figures which have been given will be available for undertaking complaints work? Can he assure us that adequate provision will be made, not only in terms of finances but in terms of staffing requirements, to undertake that task?
The final approach in terms of the complaints machinery must surely be that the Police Complaints Authority in the last financial year accepted 586 cases for supervised investigation and dealt with more than 4,000 cases for misconduct review, resulting in more than 1,000 disciplinary outcomes. That is a commendable record. It is the basis on which the new police complaints commission will he judged.
We have serious concerns about Part 3. Will the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers weaken the local accountability? It is a draconian measure to take a power to direct a police authority to suspend a chief constable of a force, notwithstanding that the police authority does not judge this necessary to maintain local confidence in the force. There is a serious issue in that the impression is given that the Secretary of State could ignore the voice of the local community and make police authorities the poodles of central government.
Where is local accountability? Where is the independence of police authorities? Where is community involvement? What would the Secretary of State do if the police authority refused to obey his diktat? The Bill smacks of central control, whichever way we look at it.
We shall challenge the Government with appropriate amendments at the Committee stage. We must never sacrifice the discretion that is available to meet local needs. The Government need to establish a clear distinction between broad operational policy and the operation and control of the chief officer.

595
I now turn to police powers. There is a need to tread carefully. It is right that functions that can usefully be undertaken by others would relieve officers to concentrate on fighting crime. I commend the initiative taken by Sir John Stevens and the Metropolitan Police Service. That force is well ahead in recognising the deployment of civilians who can be suitably skilled and trained. I make a plea to the Minister. Would it not be wise to monitor how this works in the Met before establishing similar provisions in other forces?
We need to exercise great care in case the logical outcome of such a scheme lends itself to a privatised police force. Would the public have the same confidence in private security firms as they have in our police? It is right to examine police and policing issues and their relevance at present. We shall certainly be constructive in our response to the Bill. The Home Office should take note that any attempt to impose central control will meet stiff resistance from these Benches.
8.41 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, it is pleasure, not for the first time, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. This has been a good debate and I associate myself with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in thanking the Minister for such a good start to it in his speech.
At this stage of the debate, I shall confine my remarks to Parts I and 4 of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred, and about which we have some reservations. There is, of course, universal agreement to augment numbers in the police forces. Many references have been made to the New York Police Department. Such policing would be a desirable, if unrealistic, option—certainly to that degree. The choice therefore lies between an increase in regular forces, special constables or auxiliaries.
We are aware of the considerable strain imposed on police forces, particularly in the Met, after 11th September and the upsurge in street crime that followed. We are aware of the large increase in protection duties and cordon duties, which are an inefficient way of employing highly trained police officers. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, gave us a particularly and an expectedly well informed background to the issue. His colleague, the deputy commissioner, Mr Ian Blair, in some helpful briefings to all parties, said that the one reaction of police officers to this sort of duty is boredom. Boredom is not good for morale.
We are aware that from the Met's point of view, there was a need to pre-empt the proliferation of local police forces which, with some sense of drama, has been compared to the state of London policing before the creation of the Metropolitan Police 170 years ago. The Government's proposal to recruit various grades of auxiliary is one way of solving the problem. My noble friend Lord Waddington referred to the thin end of the wedge, which was again referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. We are in new territory and we must be in no doubt about that.
596
Considerable work is required to improve a scheme that currently has many practical drawbacks. The power of detention for 30 minutes invites all sorts of comments. One is reminded of the fiasco of the cashpoint and asylum seekers 18 months ago. The security industry does not have a good public profile. There have been some well publicised cases of staff being involved in inside jobs. Extremely careful vetting will be required and much thought needs to he given to the presentation and to the uniform of auxiliaries. We welcome the Government's intention to employ a large number of directly employed staff. We need look no further than the Metropolitan Police security staff in the Palace of Westminster to see a very fine example.
Then there are the restricted powers that the auxiliaries will be given. Considerable attention will be given to what is termed human resource risk management. There will be many areas in which it will not be possible to put auxiliaries and where back-up will be required from the regular forces. Many of us are concerned about the aspect of dual responsibility of the accredited auxiliaries. That needs careful debate in Committee. However, the concept of accreditation in general is to be welcomed.
I am sure that your Lordships will be disappointed by the opposition to the scheme by the Police Federation. That was couched in a courteous and well argued letter, but we are particularly depressed by the account of the publicity put out by the federation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred. In the end, our strong preference on these Benches is for strengthening the effectiveness of the Special Constabulary. My noble friend Lord Waddington said that this will need to be accompanied by financial incentives. That was further fleshed out by my noble friend Lord Kimball, in terms of the bounty to which reference has already been made.
The advantages are obvious. Properly equipped, the Special Constabulary would be a visible and recognisable presence, with public respect borne of many years. Let us consider the Metropolitan area where recruiting is a problem and where there is a drain of Specials into the regular force. which should he welcomed in many ways. However, that does not address our present purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that Specials are a valuable source of ethnic recruitment.
Not for the first time in this debate, I draw your Lordships' attention to the disparity between the circumstances, both current and historic, between the Met and other forces in the country. In certain other forces, the recruitment of Specials is much moire healthy, and it may be that in those forces the reliance on auxiliaries will be less pressing. Our position is clear. Our preference is for special constables with the emphasis on auxiliaries as a second best option.
I turn to Part 1 about which many of your Lordships have expressed considerable concern. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred to the community policing of forces outside London and many of your Lordships have drawn attention to the precious concept of the

597
tripartite agreement which has stood the test of time so well. I am pleased that an enthusiast such as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is involved in the tripartite club.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made a particularly moving statement on the role of the chief constables. On the requirements of the local plan, I do not want to be frivolous, but requiring the police authority to show its essay to teacher sticks in the gullet, although I have to acknowledge the Minister's undertaking to amend the Bill so that the police will be involved. It is so important to avoid the charge that one size fits all, to which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith referred.
The character of policing is different in different forces outside London. The Bill is centralising and several noble Lords have said that it puts us half way towards a national police force.
We are assured that the powers for the dismissal of chief constables are little greater than those in the 1986 Act. We shall need to address that carefully at subsequent stages. It has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
From this side of the House, we welcome the general thrust of the Bill, but we shall press helpful but incisive amendments.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, like all Ministers in this situation, I arrived in the Chamber this afternoon with a prepared speech for Second Reading—because it is my responsibility to put the general thrust of the Bill on the table—and with about 12 pages of speaking notes for winding up, which is also par for the course. I have not read them. With all due respect to my excellent team in the Box, I have only skimmed over two or three of the notes that have been passed to me, but I have made my own notes on every speech, which I shall use to respond.
I am not going to make policy on the hoof and I shall be really brief. There have been 21 speeches and I do not propose to spend a minute on each, because there is other business to be dealt with.
Over the past few hours we have had a good look at the issues that your Lordships will want to raise in Committee. There have been some common themes, including centralisation and the role of the Specials, which will have to be addressed. The juxtaposition of the Specials and what we are planning is not dealt with on the face of the Bill. There is clearly some work to be done there. We shall need responses to the amendments that your Lordships will table.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, kicked off with a point—I shall not say that it was a cheap point—about the juxtaposition of the closing date for consultation on the White Paper and the publication of the Bill. At the risk of repeating myself—I have dealt with the issue in an intervention—the White Paper has to be looked at as a totality. The Bill is not specifically the result of the White Paper. Many of the ideas in the
598
White Paper on the reform of policing do not require legislation and are proceeding. I referred to the Police Standards Unit earlier.
The consultation on the White Paper closed in January and a few days later we published the Bill, but that does not mean that we have ignored or not taken account of the comments made on the White Paper. To the best of my knowledge, we have not placed the consultation responses in the Library. It is the norm these days to tell everyone who responds that their comments will be published unless they have a particular reason for not wanting them published. We would normally place those responses in the Library. I shall be quite upset if they are not there before we start the Committee stage, because your Lordships are entitled to see the comments of those who have responded to the White Paper, particularly on the issues that are relevant to the Bill. Obviously, there are other parts of the White Paper that are not relevant to the Bill. We are talking about policing in total, not about isolated parts. We have not pulled a fast one and ignored the results of the consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about too many powers being given to the Home Secretary. I made a note that basically he did not like Part 4. He asked for the evidence. In Committee we shall produce evidence to show why Part 4 is drawn as it is, based on what is going on in the country as a whole. I have a sheaf of notes giving examples of warden schemes throughout the country and community-based activities that have had excellent results. The noble Lord also mentioned the Specials, as did many other noble Lords.
At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Condon, if I had to show Members of the other place how to make a case in detail in 10 minutes flat, I should tell them to read his speech. I made an extensive list of points during the noble Lord's 10 minutes. I found his contribution extremely helpful and I know that the officials who are advising me on the Bill will also have taken account of his speech. He gave a broad welcome to the Bill, as he did to the White Paper last year. He pointed out, quite fairly, that the tripartite system has stood the test of time, but that the balance of power is now shifting towards the Home Secretary. I should be a fraud if I denied that. We have to make sure that it does not go too far and that Parliament is comfortable with that in the final Act.
The noble Lord also said that community support officers should be given a fair chance. I shall not repeat his points, which others also made, about the role being an entry point to the service. That point was also made by Mr Blair at the recent briefings given to Members of the House—Mr Blair of the Met, that is. He also spoke about what happened on the streets of London in the weeks before December in respect of anti-terrorism activities and about the effects on the outer boroughs. Trained, quality police officers were getting bored. There was a key job to be done, but did it necessarily need to be done by police officers? Clearly, there is another way of doing it.

599
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made an important point about the effects of the tripartite spirit, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. The noble Lord also pointed out that community support officers are important and do not represent policing on the cheap. I do not accept the criticism that some have made about that. They are not intended to be policing on the cheap. One or two noble Lords have cautioned the Government to make sure that we do not fall into that trap. That is not our intention. I was grateful for the noble Lord's support on that.
The noble Lord also referred to the considerable improvements in the complaints system. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, pointed out that there is a benefit to police officers in the new complaints system. That is very important. It is there for the public, but the proposed complaints system will also benefit police officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, gave a robust analysis of where we had got it all wrong. He was not supportive of Part 4. Given his extensive experience, no doubt we shall have some interesting debates in Committee. I am not complaining about that. It would he useful to have the figures that he requested for the various police authorities. If they can be produced, I shall make sure that they are made available to noble Lords before Committee stage.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester understandably concentrated on the policing of road traffic issues. He pointed out that people in this country are more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than murdered. However, we still have not got to grips with the fear of crime. All the surveys show that overall crime is coming down—although I realise that the situation varies according to area—but the fear of crime is still much too high. We have a problem there.
The noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a point about escorts of loads. I have extensive notes about escorts of people, but escorts of loads should certainly be looked at as well. I cannot speak for the diary of my colleague John Denham, but I shall do everything that I can to ensure that the noble Earl has a meeting with him before Committee stage, if only to avoid another speech and so that he can get the answers that will make him a happy Peer. He also made a point about the Specials that has been made by others. We shall return to it in some detail.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made some telling points about the partnership between the police and local communities and about the careful balance of power that we have to consider between the police authorities, local communities, the chief constables and the Home Secretary. He was supportive in the main of community support officers and thought that it was good use of a law-enforcing presence to give confidence to the public. That reassurance patrolling is very important.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, made a central point at the very beginning of his speech. He said that we have a citizens' police service in this country. We want to keep that. I believe he considered
600
that the balance of power was right. It is true that we need to look at it. He raised the question of the role of the Specials. I shall have some questions to answer at Committee stage about the accreditation aspect of the extended police family. He gave some examples. I have read paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. I believe that I understand it, but by Committee stage I guarantee that I shall have a really good explanation for it. If there is another way of drafting the matter, I am sure that we shall look at it. The noble and learned Lord picked up an interesting paragraph in the schedule. I believe that he was also broadly supportive of the role of community support officers as an extension of the police service, but not as a substitute.
My noble friend Lord Mackenzie referred to complaints inquiries and what has happened as regards Detective Superintendent Mallon. I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is frankly scandalous if inquiries relating to disciplinary and other matters, whether in the health service, local government or the police, take four years. When matters drag on in that fashion, that is below the accepted standards of conduct in public life and in public administration in this country. There is a fault in the system.
My noble friend was very supportive of the community support officers and uniformed officers on the streets. That is very important. It is also reassuring. It is true that powers are needed by the police family. We shall need to be very careful about the way in which these matters are dealt with. He also asked about community support officers having discretion in the same manner as police officers. They will have that discretion. They will be expected to use their powers and their common sense in the same way as police officers. We shall go into that in greater detail in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised an issue to which I shall have to return at a later date. My noble friend Lord Borrie made the same point about whistle-blowing. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, very kindly gave a copper-bottomed reference to a passage in Hansard and one of my ministerial colleagues. We shall have to make sure that we deliver on what was said because, as I have discovered, what is said by Ministers at the Dispatch Box is supposed to be carried into policy. It does work! I am the living proof. I know that one can change policy at the Dispatch Box, but one has to be careful how one goes about it. The subject of whistle-blowing is very important because of issues relating to the police, employment and human rights legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made the point that he did not like Part 1 of the Bill. He referred to the antiterrorism Bill. I have left that alone. We are trying to implement the Act. We still have things to do and we need to return to the matter. The legislation was not gutted. We believe that we achieved 98 per cent of what we wanted. But I do not want to start a row about that.
The noble Lord said that we need more police. I made the point that we have record numbers of policemen. By the spring of 2003, on the basis of

601
recruits now going through the system, we reckon that we shall have 130,000 officers. We are achieving that figure at the same time as having record numbers of police in order to provide a better uniformed presence on the streets. However, I accept that because of last year's effort, the Diary of a Police Officer, it is quite clear that, through bureaucracy and other factors, officers spend too much time in police stations. It is all very well having more and more police, but it is no good if more and more of their time is spent in police stations. This Bill tries to overcome some of those difficulties.
This is not a criticism of noble Baronesses in this House, but the only female Member of the House to participate in the debate was the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I was very sorry to learn of her and her husband's difficulties last summer in the streets of London. It is very distressing when such matters occur to oneself or to one's own family. Not many of us are untouched by such circumstances, but I do not want to set another debate going as I wind up.
The noble Baroness raised the question of ID cards. Although I have been sitting in the Chamber all day, I believe that I know what is happening in government. A White Paper is due, I hope, this week on the question of nationality, citizenship and asylum. It is a substantive document in which there are a few paragraphs relating to entitlement cards. The Home Secretary answered a question in the other place today on the subject. I repeat the point that, whatever happens, we are not in the business of even contemplating introducing any card the carrying of which is a requirement and where it is an offence not to have it in one's possession. I make that absolutely clear. That is exactly the same as the provision we have made as regards the asylum application registration card which began to be issued last week. It is rather like the driving licence. One is required to have it available and if it is not, the holder has a week in which to produce it at a police station. There will be no stopand-search power. Whatever the result of any consultation, I make that absolutely clear.
My noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, with his experience of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, was very supportive. He referred to a lack of response on some issues when he was a constituency Member of Parliament. I thought that that was very unkind of him because the place he referred to was for five years part of his responsibility, but for 20 years it was mine. That was in Kingstanding. Therefore, I know that what he said was true. The complaint was always that police officers were not available to deal with balls being kicked against the ends of houses and the bikes all over the place. These matters are serious to the individuals affected and almost threaten mental health. Although it is not like robbing a bank, such things are a serious problem.
My noble friend also referred to Sir Edward Crew, the Chief Constable of the West Midlands. I do not want to refer to his letter in The Times or the front page of the Birmingham Post of today's date. However, I shall share with the House a passage from an article in
602
the Birmingham News of 4th January. We have some warden schemes in the city of Birmingham. It is worth while putting on the record a quotation from that newspaper which states:
"'Community wardens are there to help with all aspects of security and quality of life', said PC Derek Smail from the Attwood Green scheme, which started in April last year. 'They are not a substitute for the police—they are the eyes and ears of the community. I understand where the chief constable is coming from, but the very presence of wardens in their uniforms does dissuade crime and wrongdoing—.
I hope that I am not causing that police constable any problems. However, that PC is on the front line.
I am not saying that Sir Edward is not on the front line—he is a quality chief constable—but I hope that the West Midlands will soon be able to take advantage of the provisions. Nevertheless, if the chief constable decides not to take advantage of them, we shall not force him to do so. It is his decision. We shall not interfere if chief constables decide not to take up community support officers or accreditation. It is entirely a matter for them.
My noble friend Lord Corbett also very eloquently put the boot into the Police Federation magazine editorial, a copy of which I happen to have in my little box for today's debate. I shall not get into any of those issues now—as I said, the polling stations open tomorrow—but I think that my noble friend was absolutely fair in the way in which he analysed that editorial, "The moment of truth". It is from an organisation that was party to the agreements made with the official side.
I confirm to my noble friend that, once the legislation is passed, we shall move with all speed to enable socially responsible housing associations and landlords to obtain anti-social behaviour orders. The orders will considerably assist those parties, as I hope I made clear in my opening remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned Home Office U-turns. Although I am not exactly sure what he was referring to, I do not want to encourage him to get up and explain. I am not saying that we have never reviewed or changed policies according to the circumstances—we have not set the position in concrete, but are trying to be realistic—but I was not sure whether the noble Lord was referring to police or other matters.
The noble Lord made a valuable point on the ethnicity make-up in the Specials and drew an analogy between them and the Regular Army. Although it is important to have eyes and ears on the street, as he said, we have to be clear about the powers that we provide. I very much hope that, in that part of the Bill, we shall be judged according to his analysis of interference and intervention. I shall take his analysis as a theme in trying to ensure that we properly analyse each of our proposals.
Early this morning, I noticed that my officials had kindly put beside the name of each speaker in this debate a note on what he or she had done previously or does now. In my ignorance of the House, I was unaware that the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, is a serving police officer. Although I have not yet been completely

603
bought over, I shall use that fact when defending this House. Unlike some noble Lords who spoke in our debate today, no one who will speak to the Bill in the other place has served as a police officer or as a chief officer of police or is a serving police officer. Some of our speakers have come from the front line and some will go back to it tomorrow. There is no question but that that benefits our deliberations. It is not for me to argue about: how people arrive in this place—we have the Parliament that we have—but the noble Earl's speech has been an absolute benefit and plus.
As I said, I welcome the noble Earl's comments, and I recognise that there is a Met perspective on community support officers. He also drew an analogy with nurses. who are now performing tasks formerly performed by doctors. Roles in society are changing and the police have to make the same types of changes. The mentality has to change. The noble Earl's final point, on the accountability, control and training of civilian police staff, was crucial. The proposals will not work without those elements. He also reiterated the point about facts being different from public perception, which takes us back to the point about the fear of crime. We have to tackle that fear. I think that the whole House is grateful to the noble Earl for his contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, strongly made the point on the Specials and the possibility of a bounty. As I said. we shall have seriously to examine that issue during our consideration of the Bill.
I cannot answer all the questions asked with some care by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. However, he asked about the Home Secretary's last-resort powers to dismiss by retirement or resignation. As I tried to explain—although only briefly as this is Second Reading—the Home Secretary already has certain powers in relation to chief officers. However, not only do those powers relate purely to retirement, they are cumbersome. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is not the first Minister to come up against those facts. Although the issue will have to be addressed, A cannot delineate all the relevant circumstances now. Although the powers would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, one noble Lord—I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—reminded us of events in Derbyshire. However, we can discuss that issue in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, also said that it takes far too long to deal with complaints, and I accept that point. As I can explain in Committee, investigating and detention officers will have search powers. However, they will be qualified and trained people who are employees of the chief constable. Investigating, detention, escort and community support officers will be employees of the chief constable of the relevant police service. They will be subject to the same complaints procedure and other procedures as other employees. It would be unusual for chief constables not to report on the operation of Part 4. I do not think that that is something we would have to require them to do. I should be astonished if those chief constables who think that it is a great
604
success did not laud it and if those who did riot welcome it in the first place and find that it does not work out did not fail to report that. 1. believe that we shall receive reports from chief constables.
I touched on the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, earlier and therefore I shall not repeat myself. My noble friend Lord Borrie also mentioned the important matter of the complaints procedure and the need for greater public acceptance of it. I have some figures on that. There are about 30,000 complaints a year divided into different categories. There will he time to discuss the details at a later stage. Far greater resources are being allocated to the complaints procedure. The new commission will be able to employ the people it chooses to carry out investigations. They could be serving officers, ex-officers or non-police officers. It will not be a case of the police investigating the police. That is the central point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, shared with us his experience as a member of the Police Complaints Authority. I am grateful that he accepted my earlier assurance that I did not seek to criticise that body. However, I do not accept his comments as regards what happened in the Sussex police force. That incident arose just after I arrived at the Home Office. It was a difficult situation which, frankly, given its history, had to be dealt with. It could not be allowed to fester.
We do not intend to behave as a dictatorship. We intend to work in partnership. As I said earlier, as far as the public are concerned the Home Secretary is the person who will have to stand at the Dispatch Box and be accountable for the police although he does not have operational powers over them. That is an interesting concept and one we support and applaud. However, the Home Secretary wants to have some levers to raise standards. That is not to say that all 43 forces will operate in exactly the same way, but the idea of having some plans and a road map, as it were, is a good one.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned Parts 1 and 4. I suspect that those parts will comprise much of our discussion. Part 2 is important but I believe that Parts 1, 3 and 4 will figure largely in our debates in Committee. That is not to say that noble Lords have ignored other parts of the Bill which are absolutely crucial. I am extremely grateful for the contributions that have been made. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Teacher Training
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to reduce wastage rates among students in initial teacher training and newly qualified teachers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when filling a bucket it is usually good practice to plug the holes in the bottom; otherwise, you will get very wet feet. That applies particularly when there is a water shortage. Unfortunately, for the past few years the Government have had very wet feet indeed and precious water has seeped away. Sadly, the Government have also had a large bill for the training of teachers from whom our schools have received very little or no service because trained teachers have been falling through the holes in the bucket.
In his last annual report for Ofsted published today the chief inspector Mike Tomlinson, while complimenting teachers on rising standards, raises concerns about the Government's failure to recruit and retain enough teachers, especially in specialist subjects. I am sure that the Minister will catalogue all the Government are doing, but from the evidence of their own chief inspector it is clearly not enough. The main reasons he gives are threefold: workload, discipline problems and the fact that teachers do not feel valued by society. I shall return to those three issues later.
It is difficult to quantify the wastage of teachers in training and in the early years of service, but let me try. The accepted wisdom is that we lose a third of teachers in their first three years and 40 per cent by the time they reach five years of service. However, that is probably an underestimate. The fact is that the Government do not conduct an exit survey so we do not really know where teachers go when they leave our schools.
Professor John Howson conducted some research on maths teacher trainees. He assumed the department's own figures for wastage during the course of training, which was 13 per cent at that time. He then found that 20 per cent did not go into teaching after completing the course. Another half had left teaching by the end of their fourth year of service. So, of the cohort that started training, half were lost by the end of year five.
Drop-out rates from PGCE secondary courses have been increasing, from 13 per cent in 1996–97 to 15 per cent in 1997–98 up to 16 per cent in 1998–99. My honourable friend the Member for Harrogate in another place has asked for more recent figures in a Written Question but has not yet received a reply.
Sadly, the Government are also failing to fill up the bucket as fast as they would like. The review body report shows that the secondary ITT recruitment target has been revised downwards since 1997–98; and the targets for the past four years have also been missed by between 2,000 and 5,000. Apart from the effect on schools of missing teachers, what is the cost to the country of training early dropouts
If one considers the £6,000 training grant, the golden hello that about half the candidates receive and the £4,000 paid to the university for training, they add up to an average of £12,000 per postgraduate student. In 1998–99, some 700 secondary teachers and 580
606
primary teachers left the profession within their first year. That group alone cost the state more than £1.5 million in wasted initial training.
Why are the Government so bad at tracking the figures? Even the STRB proposed last month that the Government should review how they collect figures for teachers leaving the profession.
Why do teachers leave? Many factors are at work and Mike Tomlinson's report lists some of them. But before they get that far, perhaps those who drop out during or on completion of their course realise that teaching is not for them. This suggests a need for better selection processes. Many institutions are so desperate for student teachers that they give only a cursory 20-minute interview. How can one decide whether someone is suitable for a challenging job such as teaching after just 20 minutes? Why is it that for fast-track courses, candidates are subject to a two-day assessment programme? Would it not be better to improve the selection of all students for ITT courses so that there is less initial wastage?
We on these Benches are pleased to see an increase in the range of routes into teaching, particularly those based in schools. Classroom assistants often take their jobs because they enjoy working with young people and, as long as they are not expected to replace qualified teachers, assistants provide a valuable resource. As they already work in classrooms, they have no illusions about the demands of the job. Those who go on to train do so with their eyes open and may be less likely to fall by the wayside than graduates who have not seen the inside of a classroom since they were at school.
The same applies to trainees on the school-based graduate teacher programme. It would be interesting to know whether they show a better retention rate than other candidates because their expectations are realistic.
Perhaps student debt is a reason for newly qualified teachers never entering the profession and going elsewhere for a job. The concerns felt by Members on these Benches about graduate debt are well known to the Minister. We welcome proposals to pay off student loans for recruits to specialist subjects, but the £6,000 training grant has not been increased even by inflation since its introduction two years ago—and is little enough. Even the golden hellos paid to teachers of shortage subjects do not match up to the training salaries offered by big banks and retail trainee management schemes. Even the Armed Forces manage to do better. University cadets are paid £10,000 a year as undergraduates.
All trainee teachers deserve a decent standard of living. We are seeing a more and more complex web of bonuses, golden hellos, training bursaries and so on. What is needed is a comprehensive review of recruitment and retention initiatives, together with an evaluation of their effectiveness.
As the Minister knows, the modest and affordable Liberal Democrat policy of providing a full training salary of just over £15,000 per year, plus national insurance and pension contributions, would help all

607
new graduates in ITT start to address their burden of debt and have enough on which to live. But the main pay gap does not occur at the beginning of a teacher's career. The average starting salary for a graduate with a 2.1 degree outside London is only about £400 per year less than the average graduate starting salary. The gap, however, soon widens between young teachers and other professionals. After 10 years, it is often very wide. Although the recent pay settlement recommended that the number of years after which a teacher can access the upper pay scale be reduced from seven to five years, the poor potential earnings of graduates in teaching will already have become apparent to a teacher three or four years into his or her career—and that is when they leave.
Many leaving teachers cite the workload and the amount of paperwork. The Government are currently conducting a review of workload and I look forward to the publication of those findings in April. In Scotland, the McCrone agreement has defined much more clearly the contract between teachers and their employers, and has led to a better understanding of what is expected. In conducting the review leading up to the agreement, the Scottish executive was able to identify many of the issues leading to the poor state of teacher morale in Scotland and to implement contractual changes to address them.
It is only six months since the implementation of McCrone, so one cannot say whether this new agreement will really improve teacher retention but initial soundings are good. I hope that the Government's review for England and Wales comes forward with a contract that allows adequate time for extra-curricular activities. These enrich teachers as well as students and give opportunities for developing positive relationships that can only assist with discipline and achievement in the classroom. In the meantime, perhaps I may urge the DfES to continue to monitor the effect on workload and paperwork every time that it brings forward a new initiative, however good.
Much of the crisis of morale in the profession stems from the large amount of reporting back that teachers have to undertake. It all adds up to an impression that teachers are constantly having to justify what they are doing and prove that it is of good quality. They are not trusted. Not only are our children the most measured and examined in the whole of the western developed world, but our teachers are the most scrutinised and inspected. But in the Education Bill passing through another place this very day, the Secretary of State is planning to give herself draconian powers, greater than any of her predecessors. Why will this Government not let go and allow the teaching profession to teach without this constant centralisation of control? No wonder teachers do not feel valued. Thanking them is not enough. They need to be trusted as professionals to get on with the job.
Of course, professionals are expected constantly to hone their skills and keep up to date with developments in their field. Most teachers welcome the opportunity to undertake continuous professional development, but the quality of courses is variable.
608
Schools differ in the way that they provide access to them, and there is no clear entitlement. We need a coherent structure of additional qualifications which will lead a young teacher up the ladder to higher status and the money that should go with it.
I hope that the implementation by the Government of a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy of having a general teaching council to represent the professional standards of teachers and access to the profession will lead in the medium term to a more structured approach to professional development that will be motivating, lead to better retention and better performance in the classroom and add to the status of teachers in society. In the meantime, today's Ofsted report has identified the fact that only a minority of schools establish clear targets for development activities and monitor whether these have been achieved. Perhaps the way in which schools support and develop new teachers should be one of the criteria on which a head teacher is judged.
Teachers enter the profession with a commitment to young people and a desire to do a good job. It is distressing, therefore, to see them ground down by the burden of the expectations of society. Sometimes they do not feel sufficiently supported, especially when it comes to discipline problems. It was not helpful for the Government just to set targets for reducing the number of pupils excluded from schools. It is very welcome that the number of learning support units and of learning mentors is to be increased. That is a very important factor in teacher retention. Graduates will continue to avoid the teaching profession if they do not feel that they will be well trained and supported when dealing with the most difficult discipline problems.
Perhaps we should not expect our schools to put right everything that is wrong with our society; or, if we do, we should be realistic about the support needed. Not only do we expect teachers to deliver their subjects and teach children how to think, make decisions and conduct research, but we also expect them to deliver citizenship, health education and leisure activities arid to deal with the results of deprivation and social exclusion. It is a tall order.
Teachers are a precious resource—too precious to waste. It costs a lot to recruit and train them, and much of that money is currently wasted. The Education Bill passing through another place today has no answers. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how she plans to plug the holes in the bucket. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I begin by thanking Members of this House for the warmth of the welcome that I have received since my introduction last November. I am delighted to be able to speak to this Unstarred Question, which appears in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Not only is education close to my heart and my experience, but it is a particular pleasure to he able to speak to a Question moved by a resident of the Diocese of Chester

609
Education, education, education. That half sums up my life. Apart from one year in my early 20s, I was in full-time education as a student from the age of five—or perhaps four-and-a-half—until I was 30. "No wonder they made him a bishop", you may think. The problem, actually, was a Damascus Road experience—it was in fact in Derbyshire just off the A6—following a degree in chemistry, that took me back to university to read theology, to study for a doctorate and then to theological college prior to ordination. Subsequently, I spent eight years experiencing higher education from the perspective of a teacher.
As my family has moved around the country with me, I estimate that as a governor or parent, I have had direct involvement in around a dozen schools in the maintained sector and nearly half a dozen in the private sector. For the past five years, I have chaired the governing body of Chester College of Higher Education—a church college of higher education that was originally founded in 1839 by William Gladstone, in conjunction with the Church of England. The original vision of the college was indeed to provide qualified teachers for the church-sponsored schools, which were in the vanguard of the provision of universal education in our country. The college has expanded and diversified to a full-time equivalent student body in excess of 5,000, but it has retained a firm commitment to its founder's vision of training teachers. That has not always been easy in recent years, as policies connected to the training and professional development of teachers have lurched and staggered from one initiative to another.
Throughout my years as a teacher and governor— and parent—I have witnessed the underlying problems in education in this country, which lie behind the unacceptable statistics for wastage of student qualified teachers. I will gladly acknowledge that there are now real signs of progress and emergence from the darkest days. But how are things to be taken forward in such a way as to reduce the figures for wastage rates among teachers both in training and in their first post? Let me briefly suggest three dimensions of the necessary strategy.
First, to echo some comments made by the noble Baroness, we need to establish a greater sense of stability throughout the educational world. Over the past 15 years—since the two education Acts of 1986—there has been a seemingly relentless series of changes, reviews and initiatives. I do not doubt the benefits that are flowing from, for example, parent governors, the local management of schools, Ofsted inspections and the national curriculum. But to those in the profession, it has often felt like a slow torture of endless bureaucratic demands and adjustments. The ink has only just dried on one questionnaire when the next one thuds on to the doormat—or so it has felt. So far as possible, in schools and higher education alike, we need to maintain an atmosphere of stability, which will breed confidence and a sense of community, which are so vital to any institution.
610
Sometimes in life a shake-up is required, but that should not become a constant merry-go-round, with all the attendant extra work that comes with it. Good gardeners learn to leave well alone and to let nature do its work, rather than constantly digging up the plant to see how well it is growing. Let the teachers teach!
Secondly, we need to provide the necessary resources for schools and teachers alike; and, if I may, I would add universities at this point. A good start has been made in that direction in recent years, and I believe that it is essential that we do not allow the teaching profession to fall back in the comparative league tables for remuneration. In the increasingly meritocratic world in which we live, there may yet be a further need selectively to reward the best, and perhaps also those teaching in areas of greatest need. The figures for people leaving the profession will partly reflect the greater rewards that are available elsewhere, especially for those who are qualified in certain subject areas.
Thirdly—I wish to lay particular emphasis on this as I believe that it undergirds everything that we should say—the educational provision for our children must be set in the wider framework of society. If poor material rewards in teaching have influenced wastage rates, perhaps a general undervaluing of teachers has played a greater part. Noble Lords would expect me to say something here about the contribution which church schools have made and can continue to make.
Why is it that church schools have consistently been rated so highly by parents, including those who have little or no religious affiliation themselves, by the inspectorate and also by the results that they achieve? I spend a good deal of my time in schools, especially, but not only, in the 120 or so church schools in the Diocese of Chester. In my view, they provide an effective educational environment by providing just that: an environment—an overall sense of purpose, belonging and community.
Education at all levels is essentially a community enterprise. That is why a degree of stability is so important as a background and basis for whatever changes need to come to pass. Happy pupils and happy staff achieve results, and happy schools will tend to retain their staff. Schools with a strong sense of community will, by their very ethos and atmosphere, tend to maintain good discipline and a certain restraint upon difficult and disruptive pupils. As someone who regularly takes school assemblies, which is a challenge—perhaps a little like spending the night shift with the police, as we heard in our previous debate; it is certainly a little like Daniel in the lion's den, except he only went in once—one quickly senses what a school is like. If kids are going to misbehave, they will do so when there is safety in numbers. The atmosphere in a school affects the discipline in many, many ways.
The Anglican church schools that I know—both those in my diocese and elsewhere—do not in any sense seek to indoctrinate or to be exclusive. Quite to the contrary, they serve the communities in which they are set, just as the church schools did when they set out in the 19th century. But they do so, above all, by

611
providing communities of teachers and children who are committed to learning, exploration and mutual support. They are communities in which wisdom and a certain philosophy for living are prized, alongside the transmission of information and knowledge. Indeed, the transmission of information and knowledge can take its proper place only if' it is set in that overarching sense of the whole purpose of life and the wisdom of living. I believe that that attention to the broader moral and spiritual context of education in all schools will play a crucial role in retaining teachers in the profession.
I believe that there are real signs of progress and hope in our schools, as indicated in the Statement earlier today from the noble Baroness the Minister. We now need to build upon the foundations which have been relaid amid the turmoil of recent years by keeping high on the agenda stability, adequate resources and, above all, the confidence of community life in our schools.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I cannot rival him in experience of education but I can understand and respect what he said. It is fitting that he should have chosen the subject of education when the Church of England has had such a distinctive, and distinguished, record in education. It is one in which the Church has recognised that its future in education depends upon the continuing availability and retention of teachers. Therefore, as I see it, teachers are central to the thinking and well-being of the Church. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will join in many future debates on education.
Perhaps I may respond to the specifics of the debate. In his report. Mike Tomlinson, after his recognition of achievement, sounded the low notes of concern about recruitment. To my knowledge, he has kept that concern very much in mind for the past year.
We shall be confused by the figures. I shall quote three, which I hope to get right. There are three elements to the wastage. The first is the 15 per cent who do not complete the course. I do not believe that we should be particularly concerned about that, because, I am reliably informed, the wastage rate in this area is below the average for other courses in higher education. However, of those who complete the course, 20 per cent do not appear in the classrooms. There is also wastage of about 8 per cent a year in the early years. I shall concentrate on the last two figures.
This morning I was passing a school in the East End of London arid, without any prior notice, I called in to speak to the head teacher. I said, "There is a debate in the House of Lords today. What shall I tell them?" My schoolmaster used to say that I have the cheek of 10. After persuading her not to lecture me on pay, she said, "Yes, at the top of my list I would put respect, recognition and appreciation". I thought: "You are so right".
In a sense, a teacher is a performer; like an actor, or a footballer on the field, he or she stands before a class. If one feels that one is appreciated, one performs well.
612
If one is booed, one does not play a good game. In that professional sense it matters. It is also relevant to retention.
The youngsters who are training as teachers and who have reached the end of their courses, during which they have gone into schools and into the staff room, will have heard the staff saying, "The work load is impossible, and the pay". That must be an important point. In relation to retention it is important that teachers feel valued.
A teacher who was on supply in a tough area of Kent once wrote to me saying, "At the end of the day I sit in my car and scream my frustration". One can imagine an exasperated teacher slapping a student, and that would finish his career. It would make the headlines. But the thousands of kindnesses beyond the call of duty that teachers offer every day go unnoticed and unrecognised. We must be much better at saying "Thank you" to teachers. That is my first point.
My second point relates to caring for them after they have passed out, as it were. I was talking to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who unfortunately and regretfully cannot be present because he has another engagement. He mentioned the possibility that, through the good offices of the teacher training agencies, and perhaps a few shillings, the colleges of higher education and the universities that engage in the development of teachers, may have a shepherding role, a reference back role, during the early years. I know how much new head teachers value coming together and discussing their experiences, learning from and receiving reassurance from each other.
Another point that was mentioned to me at the school I visited this morning was the flow of paper. The head teacher said, "Yes, the flow of paper has come down, but the e-mails haven't half gone up". Last week I spoke to another teacher who also raised the point about the flow of paper.
In part, that is a function of desirable change. When' I read individual proposals, usually I say, "Yes, why did they not do that last week?". On the other hand, I say this to the Government, and, if the Prime Minister reads House of Lords' Hansard, to him too. In top level management—the Prime Minister is in top level management, although a politician's trade is not essentially management—the hardest thing to learn in seeking to manage a large organisation such as education—as I say, this is the hardest thing to learn and, having learnt it, to discharge—one must riot continue to address and provide solutions to every problem. One must say, "I shall live with some of them. I must recognise that in this vast system, if I am going to get change, I must go for a few things and stay with them." Otherwise the troops get initiative fatigue and one does not get the benefits from it.
We must recognise too that we cannot be continually asking the Government, "Please do this. Please do that". We must moderate the demands so that teachers can get on with pursuing policies in a consistent way. Then one gets the benefits coming through.

613
The second point on workload relates to administration. Good teaching involves administration—for example, good marking, setting targets and keeping records. When I was invited to do a review for the then government in 1993 of what was going on in the national curriculum, I found that the teachers, especially in primary schools where they are immensely conscientious, were maintaining tick lists about performance against every attainment target, and half ticks and quarter ticks. They would go home at weekends with a briefcase to do their ticks. They were over-conscientious about it.
I ask the Government to bear in mind that in the primary or secondary schools in remote places or big cities with Ofsted hovering in one's mind, we must ease teachers' minds about over-responding to these things; we must moderate.
In managing issues one basically has two strategies. One is to tell people what to do, in detail, and make sure that they do it. The other technique is to give them clear objectives and hold them to account for achievements. If they are not achieving, then you weigh in. But what we tend to do is to do both. That is exhausting and it deprives people of motivation. I shall not come up with any nostrums because there are none. This is into the detail.
PricewaterhouseCoopers have given reports and then there is the review body which is due to report in April. Take heed and see if we can moderate our passion for control. John Harvey-Jones in his book Making Things Happen, which I was re-reading over Christmas, said that in every large organisation—no matter—there is a tendency to centralise and take control. We all do it. We must learn not to do it. Hands off.
Those are the two main points that I wanted to make on workload. Teachers are starting at 7.30 in the morning, leaving at 5.30 and then going home to do more work. A 60-hour week is too heavy. Teachers love teaching. The TES report said that last weekend. That is what I find all the time. But they do not enjoy this great burden of administration. We must find better ways of putting it together.
In conclusion, I want to quote—and I think it is fitting although rather daring in the presence of two Bishops—from Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, which came to my mind in the light of the praise that came from Mike Tomlinson. I shall see if I can get it right:
"To everything there is a season … A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, a time to dance".
Now that is a challenge. I shall not ask noble Lords to rise to it. But this is a time when, in the business of recognition we ought to be saying to our teachers, "Thank you". If I can presume to mar the symmetry of party recrimination, as a Cross-Bencher, it is also to say to each of the three political parties who have striven with administrators and teachers to lift performance throughout the land, "You have done your bit too. Thank you".
614
So, yes, we have a problem. We shall hear shortly from dear Liza about filling the hole in the bucket. But much has been done. Let us celebrate it for the sake of retaining our teachers.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to take part in this debate, especially in the light of the excellent maiden speech from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chester and the complementary wisdom from another educational guru. If we can observe the sense of teachers joining the dance, we shall definitely have raised their spirits. In a sense, that is what it is all about—recovering the reason why so many teachers went into teaching in the first place.
I have an interest to declare. Ten years ago I set up an educational charity to try to help schools to develop their extra-curricular activities and community links. In so doing, I discovered that that was the first time that anyone had publicly thanked teachers for the extra activities that they undertook. The small element of recognition that I thought was such a natural part of what we should be doing turned out to have a revolutionary quality and made it possible for our organisation to raise funds and support. That now means that we have 8,000 schools joined with us in a network that is developing those activities.
With the privilege of going into schools on a regular basis, I have discovered the extraordinary dedication that means that teachers not only give 100 per cent during the day but then find the extra energy to attend early, to start a breakfast club, stay on until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. just as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, go back at weekends to offer additional support and even run schemes during the holiday. They do it because they love the children and they love teaching. That is the absolutely fundamental foundation on which we build and from which we can take hope for the future.
It has been an extremely good day for education—not only because the Ofsted report is so positive and gives us some clear pointers for future action but because of the Times Educational Supplement survey last week. I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State ever expected to read a headline that basically said that the teachers lot is a happy one. She must have enjoyed her weekend enormously because of that.
The profound sense of vocation is really what Mike Tomlinson has been speaking about. He has been rightly praised today for reiterating what we have not said often enough, which is, as he put it,
"I cannot remember a time when there has been so much good teaching".
That is a wonderful and powerful phrase. It is gratifying to see the Government taking the advice that new teachers are given in the classroom, which is that we should always give three times more praise than blame. That is now happening because we have an exemplary Secretary of State, an ex-teacher who knows the value of praise and what it can achieve. By her language she is making a major difference to how teachers feel about what it is to be a teacher.

615
But this debate is about things that are not going quite right. We must ask why they are going wrong: why does such a high proportion of students in training never make it into the classroom? The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was quite right when he spoke about the infectious apathy or disaffection that many young teachers pick up by osmosis when they enter the classroom for their teaching practice. One of the problems is that even those, such as Alan Smithers, who have explored the reasons for the bad drop-out rates, are not absolutely certain what is happening or why. I agree 'with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we should have more intelligence to track those young people and find out why they do not make it into the classroom: what were their motivations in becoming teachers in the first place; what did they expect to get out of it; and where did it go wrong?
I should like to concentrate on why 20 per cent of young teachers leave teaching within three years: in what way is teaching proving to be such a disappointment for them? No matter how many extra students have been recruited—it is an impressive record, including in shortage subjects, such as CDT, science, modern foreign languages and religious education for which I am sure that the Minister will give us the figures—there are some incontrovertible realities that cannot be fudged. One is that the demand for teachers in the next few years is bound to increase, because pupil numbers in secondary schools will increase. Secondly, the profession is ageing; we will see a massive exodus in the next 10 years of people who are now in their 40s and 50s. Thirdly, the rate of resignation from the profession is also increasing, and we need to know why.
It may be that the overall national rate of 1 per cent vacancies is, in fact, a low and quite comforting figure, but it disguises huge regional variations and does not deal with the fact that in every classroom in which there is no mathematics teacher, there is a crisis. If there is a poorly qualified supply teacher, there is another sort of crisis, both for delivering the curriculum arid managing the children.
The Ofsted report today has confirmed what all the other researchers have already told us. The main issue relating to recruitment is not pay: it is workload, closely followed by pupil behaviour, professional autonomy and the value of teachers. It is not rocket science. Recently, a leading educator put it this way:
"Workload is rising not least because we are expecting our teachers to be clerical officers and administrators for too much of their time … We must ensure that every paper-based task required is absolutely necessary and related to standards".
Those are strong words, but, strangely, they come not from the former chief inspector, but from the present Secretary of State, who understands well what is going on in the classroom. That refutes any charge of complacency.
If the Government were complacent, they would not be cutting down so dramatically on what can be sent to schools. I know to my cost that even when one is trying to send good news, one cannot get it into the schools. It is not so much the paper or even the e-mail traffic—which, as we all know, has exploded—and it
616
is not the work of teaching for continuous improvement. It is the standardised and immensely detailed written account of what has been done, which seems, sometimes, to provide more evidence that the managers have managed, rather than that teachers have done their job. In that context, it is self-evident that urgent attempts must be made to free-up and enhance the teachers' role. That is where the new Education Bill has a contribution to make. We have seen an expansion in the number of classroom assistants, bursars and other supporting staff and in ICT, but the emphasis must be on supporting—not replacing—the teacher. Teaching is an interpersonal gift; it is not a technical transfer.
I also welcome the opportunity that the Bill will, in turn, provide to extend the autonomy of successful schools and the creativity of the classroom. Again, that is a major issue. What young teachers value is not the opportunity to turn out a thousand ticks a day; it is the opportunity to turn the classroom into a. place in which their imagination can run riot, alongside those of the children.
Recently, I had the privilege of being able to fund a small project that took classroom teachers out of the classroom and into performing arts organisations for a day at a time over a term. They went to dance organisations and theatre organisations. They learnt about what it was like to be an artist and how to borrow artists' techniques that they could go back and use in the classroom. They went back refreshed and enthused about their own creativity. Of course, the children had an enormously good time as a result, and it benefited the school in all sorts of ways. Those teachers will stay in teaching, I believe, because that has helped them to rediscover some sense of why they had gone into it in the first place. However, finding the time to take them out of the classroom caused problems. That is a problem: if we are to have structured professional development, that means, in the short term, that people will have to be taken out of the classroom and it might be difficult to provide cover.
There are many more things that, I hope, the Government will consider. The National College of School Leadership is definitely making a major difference to the way that head teachers perform and to the way that schools perform. However, we need more support for middle management. The induction year is an excellent idea, but we do not have the skilled managers to provide support to young teachers in their first year, which makes all the difference. How many young teachers have been turned off because their first encounter with a group of stroppy 13 year-olds dedicated to wrecking the lesson has not been supported? No one has been able to help them with the day-to-day realities.
The problems of recruitment and retention are not unique to Britain. It does not help to know that. But we have to rise to the challenge of creating a framework for the teaching profession which is about a buoyant economy and not a failing economy.

617
The Secretary of State referred to the remodelling of the profession. It is a radical term and could mean a radical solution. It may not be a McCrone solution for England, but it is certainly worth looking at some of the ideas put forward, for example, by the Institute of Public Policy Research in terms of what can be done about time in the classroom, including the time necessary for preparing lessons. It put forward many good ideas. I hope there will be lots of access courses for classroom assistants and all school staff. As the noble Baroness said, they know a great deal about schools and can make a great contribution.
Finally, I turn to the word "trust" about which we have heard so much today. Trust must be there for all our public servants, particularly the teachers. It is not only their task to care for children, but also to create that ability to think independently which goes on to make them critical and contributory servants in society. So let us build up that trust. I believe we are doing that now. For some years there was a lot to answer for, but we are now on our way.
10.1 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lady Walmsley for raising this important issue and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on an excellent maiden speech. I congratulate other participants on what has been a good debate.
This Question raises a difficult issue. In this country we have a teaching force of 450,000 full-timers and 50,000 part-timers, so we are looking at roughly 500,000 teachers. Each year we are seeking in the region of 30,000 recruits for the teaching profession. Of that 30,000, we now know that one in three will drop out during training, so that only 20,000 end up completing their teacher training course. One in 10 of those will drop out in the NQT year, so of the 30,000 who begin only 18,000 are left. Another one in 10 will drop out during the following two years. So at the end of the first five years we are looking at somewhere in the region of a 50 per cent drop-out rate. Of the 30,000 initially recruited only 15,000 or 16,000 are left.
That in itself poses a problem. As my noble friend Lady Walmsley indicated, a cost is involved here. If we reckon on it costing £12,500 to train each teacher, that is not a small amount. In the community we have around 300,000 people trained as teachers but not now practising as teachers. If we multiply that by £12,500, we reach a figure of around £6 billion. That is the waste of resources that has aggregated over the past 20 years. So it is an issue with which we should be concerned.
It is also important that we keep in the teaching profession those whom we have trained. The disturbing statistic is that if we reckoned that those who have been trained would stay in the profession for 35 years, we would be looking for 15,000 recruits every year and not 30,000. That extra 15,000 has to be recruited every year because that is the annual dropout rate.
618
That issue is particularly critical in the secondary schools. We have enough recruits to fill the primary school places and do not need to worry too much about that. But there is a real crisis of recruitment in the secondary schools, particularly in some of the shortage subjects. We had a good debate in this House not too long ago on the language subjects; shortages include also science, history and religious knowledge. It is amazing now how many subjects have become shortage subjects.
I am particularly concerned about mathematics—this was mentioned in the Tomlinson report and in the debate on the Statement today—where we have almost reached the point of no return. Fewer than 75 per cent of kids are now being taught maths in secondary schools by maths specialists. As the Tomlinson report indicates, one of the results of this is that the kids are not turned on. Not enough children are taking A-levels in order to go on and do maths at university and therefore to provide our teachers. It is a serious crisis that we need to address.
We need to worry also about the drop-out rate in headships. In the past year, more than 2,500 heads quit their posts. Twelve per cent of secondary schools and 11 per cent of primary schools had to advertise for new heads, and 19 per cent of the secondaries and 31 per cent of the primaries were unable to fill their posts the first time round. There are more than 400 vacancies for headships. These are the leaders of the profession and it is vital that we get good people to fill these posts. If they are missing, a link in the whole chain is missing.
Why are there such high rates of wastage in the profession? Again, we had some discussion of these issues today. It is notable that the survey in the Times Educational Supplement showed that the profession is relatively content. The long hours and the high workloads are the issues that teachers are really worried about.
Last year, Demos carried out a survey of the teaching profession and discovered that 79 per cent of people join it because they want to work with young children. This rings a bell. When you talk to teachers and ask them why they are there they say, "I love working with children. I love the children. If only it weren't for the awful hours". One hears that time and time again.
There is no doubt that teachers are worried about these issues. Although the comparatively low pay explains part of the problem, it does not explain the recruiting crisis or the drop-out rate. Teachers are concerned about the quality of their whole professional life, about poor pupil behaviour and the stress it causes and about the volume of paperwork, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred.
I should like to draw two points to your Lordship's attention. The first concerns the media's portrayal of teachers. There is an increasing tendency in the media to portray them as people who are constantly harassed in their work. This does not do them full justice. In some ways it would be nice to see a soap about teachers. Nevertheless, there are problems in that area.

619
The other point concerns the degree to which the reforms we have seen have been constant. The whole basis is that there are initiatives and initiatives and initiatives. I think it is called "initiativitis" or something like that. It is important that we recognise that within society things happen through influencing institutions. The teaching profession is an institution. Any institution in society can take so much change but not too much change. You cannot expect to change the parameters too frequently or in too many dimensions. If you do this—and we have seen it happen in this country in institutions such as local government, teaching and the health service—it destabilises that institution. Arguably, we have destabilised the teaching profession to some degree. We need to give it a chance to recover.
What do we need to do to achieve this? Mike Tomlinson's report gave us some ideas. It was pointed out in the Minister's Statement today that the Pisa study from the OECD indicates that in this country we have seen educational standards increase, whereas in most other European countries they have been standing still. The combination of the stick and the carrot—the high aspirational level set for teachers, on the one hand, and encouraging them to change their practices on the other—has been important. The problem is the degree to which these initiatives have been centralised. The pressure was too strong and the stress on teachers was too great. They were not given enough of a chance to do their own thing, or enough space in their lives to think for themselves. That alienated them. Constant carping criticisms came from the former chief inspector of schools which wore them down.
The summary chapter at the beginning of the Demos report states:
"Centralised change has failed to engage many, if not most, teachers and has resulted in suspicion of, if not hostility to reform. If both schools and the culture of educational practitioners are to be transformed then the creativity and energy of the professionals need to be drav, n on fully".
That point, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—the lord of the dance—is about the unleashing of creativity of professionals, which is desperately important. Part of that is trust. We have to reorient ourselves.
What would we Liberal Democrats do to change the centralised culture to one that allows more room, freedom and space for teachers to do their own thing? There is room to cut back on the national curriculum and to concentrate more on a core curriculum. 'We want to limit testing. There is no reason to test at seven or at 14, although we would keep key stage 2 testing and some kind of school certification. Phil Willis, our spokesman in the other place has made it clear that we have great reservations about the GCSE as a school-leaving certificate. We should like to see a wider form of certification at that point.
We feel strongly about the need to restore a sense of profession to the teacher. My noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned that we argued long ago for a general teaching council and we are delighted to see what the GTC is now doing. We urge it to become the
620
key area of registration for teachers and to be the teachers' regulator, independent of government. We also welcome the degree to which heads are now being put through leadership training, which is vital. We have always said that if there is a good head it is a good school. Such leadership training is necessary as it does not come naturally from teacher training. We should prefer to see fewer but perhaps more relevant targets. Above all, we want to move away from centralised control.
The chief inspector's report was an important turning point. For the first time we have heard the chief inspector saying how important it is to recognise what our teaching profession has achieved. We are praising our teachers, which is right because they have done so much and have worked so hard. From today's report, I hope that we can move forward to develop a new trust with our teachers and give them a little more space to get on with the creativity and joy of teaching because they really do enjoy it. I hope that this will he a new beginning and that we can develop a new culture, which is what the Demos report argued for.
10.14 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as most noble Lords have said, there is a crisis of teacher retention in our schools. The wastage in student teachers and newly qualified teachers is an enormous problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has done the House a great service by introducing the debate in an attempt to discover what the Government intend to do to remedy the matter. It has also given us the opportunity to hear the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester.
No doubt we shall hear from the Minister that recruitment to initial teacher training is at an all-time high, but that ignores the fact that many students do not complete the training, many others complete the training but do not go into teaching and many of those who enter teaching leave within the first three years.
Last year, the NUT commissioned Professor Alan Smithers of Liverpool University to examine the reasons underlying the problem. His report, Teachers Leaving, made depressing reading and confirmed that 12 per cent of trainees never finish their course, 33 per cent of graduates do not go into teaching and 18 per cent of those who graduate leave within the first three years. That represents a costly attrition of much-needed professionals from our classrooms. The initial teacher training budget is currently £245 million. Those trends represent an annual waste of £100 million.
By the Government's own admission, the number of unqualified teachers has almost doubled since 1997. When this Government came to office with the slogan that their first three priorities would be "Education, education, education", there were 2,940 teachers without qualified teacher status. By October 2001, the number had risen to 5,620.
An additional cause for concern is the ageing population of teachers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness. More than 61 per cent of teachers are over

621
40 and 42 per cent of teachers are between 40 and 50. Professor Smithers' report found that teachers were leaving the classroom because of a feeling of not being valued, because of the workload pressures, because of stress and pupil misbehaviour and because of a surfeit of new government initiatives, such as the review of the Curriculum 2000 initiative.
Then we had the fiasco of the Government losing the judicial review on the impractical performance-related pay scheme, which the judge rejected in such scathing terms that, except in the case of an arrogant Government, it ought to have resulted in the resignation of the Secretary of State, who never the less was promoted instead.
Only on Friday, the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, plaintively begged the public not to blame his successor as Secretary of State for Education for everything that goes wrong. I accept that she cannot be blamed for everything that goes wrong, but he has obviously not heard of President Truman's aphorism, "The buck stops here".
The most obvious example of a U-turn has been on the policy of exclusions, which is an issue directly related to classroom discipline. While he was Secretary of State for Education, Mr Blunkett made it almost impossible for schools to maintain serious discipline. He did this by creating rigid guidelines and arbitrary targets to cut exclusions by a third by this year-2002. Those targets bore no relationship to the problem of behaviour.
To her credit, the present Secretary of State has reversed that policy, saying
"Disruptive behaviour wears down teachers, interferes with the education of other pupils and condemns some children to failure at school and long-term problems".
The Conservative Opposition, the teaching unions and, most significantly, teachers themselves, as well as many parents, said the same at the time, but the Government chose to ignore them.
When questioned, 45 per cent of teachers leaving the profession cited poor pupil behaviour as the reason. It continues to be a very serious problem, particularly in the more urban areas.
The number of teachers injured by pupils is increasing and the sanctions available to teachers have been reduced. David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers has said:
"A rising tide of pupil misbehaviour has hit primary schools with the inevitable result that heads will exclude pupils who are damaging the education of the rest of the class".
More power to control indiscipline should be given to the heads and governors and more support should be forthcoming for parents whose children are totally out of control.
However, one factor that has taken the gloss off the U-turn by the Secretary of State is that when a school excludes a pupil, it suffers a financial penalty by means of a capitation loss.
In the real world it is usually the case that where exclusion is the answer, the school will have undoubtedly spent a huge and disproportionate
622
amount of funding and teacher resources in doing everything in its power to bring the situation under control. Exclusion is really the very last thing on its mind.
Excessive bureaucracy and a bewildering number of so-called "initiatives" are also high on the list of reasons why teachers leave the profession. Julia Grant, president of the ATL, said,
"Unless the Government offers some radical solutions to the teachers' workload, nothing will stem the growing haemorrhage of good teachers".
The ink is hardly on the School Standards and Framework Act and its plethora of regulations which impose endless bureaucratic tasks on teachers. Teachers are overwhelmed by the relentless preparation of plans, co-ordinating meetings, responding to initiatives, bidding processes, and Whitehall's insatiable appetite for information most of which, I suspect, gathers dust and which adds little to the well-being of a child in the classroom.
Initiative overload certainly takes its toll on teachers. Hardly a week goes by without another announcement of the launch of yet another initiative backed by X million pounds, sometimes even double-counted millions. Many of the initiatives absorb the funding and energies of bureaucrats and teachers only to be abandoned and allowed to wither on the vine. Worse still, even if the initiative does not work, the cost of rolling it out to all schools has to be absorbed by the schools themselves.
That leads me to the central issue of funding. Unprecedented sums of money are held back at national level to fund various Government schemes. That means that however much the Government boast about the additional money for education, the fact is that core funding at school level is not increasing proportionately.
In the time allowed to me I would like to just touch on the other issue of funding which will affect schools in the coming year. The Government have announced pay increases and accelerated pay scales which are substantially beyond the capacity of local authorities without substantially increasing their council tax or of cutting other services. For schools it could mean reducing staffing levels in order to meet the pay awards. I do not see how that will ameliorate the teacher shortages that have been highlighted by so many noble Lords during this debate.
As I have said, we might hear today that the problem is not so great and that more teachers than ever are now being employed. However, I still believe that will mask many problems that simply must be addressed. For example, there is the unprecedented number of supply teachers who are recruited regularly. According to a recent report, some pupils had 13 teachers in as many weeks.
There is also the problem of teachers required to teach subjects for which they are not trained, which is obviously bound to affect standards over time. As the Chief Inspector of Schools himself has said,
"You are more likely to have newly qualified, supply and unqualified teachers teaching at key stage 3".

623
Our teachers who remain in teaching despite the problems deserve our full support and appreciation. They are of course the key to our children's future. However, their life could be made more tolerable and more teachers would be attracted to stay in the profession if there were less interference from the centre, less bureaucracy, greater professional autonomy and if a greater proportion of the central government education budget could be transferred to our schools.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her Unstar red Question and noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a stimulating debate. It has indeed been a clay of education. I am especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for his fantastic speech on, for me, the ethos of schools and their atmosphere. which we all recognise when we walk in. I have no doubt that he will have much to say in our debates on the Education Bill and when we touch on the issue of safe schools, a matter which he also raised.
"The Lord of the Dance"—as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has now become—referred to me as Liza with her bucket. So I intend to adopt as my theme, "With what shall I mend it?" This debate has raised three issues that are of great importance to the future of the teaching profession, and I assure the House that the Government recognise the need for serious and sustained action on each of them. Failure to take action would place in jeopardy our commitment to continue to raise standards in schools, which remains as high on our agenda in this Parliament as it did in the last.
Many themes have come out of this debate. The need to recognise teachers is one that is shared by those on the Government Benches and especially by this Minister and the Secretary of State—to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, paid tribute in a manner that I felt was wholly appropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, heard said on his way to the debate, respect for teachers is crucial. I am sure that every noble Lord would agree with his comments on that point and with the teacher whom he met this morning. It must have been an extraordinary experience for her.
The issues are as follows. First, how can we encourage more of our most talented people to train as teachers, and give them the support that they need while training, to bring as many as possible to qualification? Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, we need teachers to qualify in subjects such as maths, science, modern foreign languages and technology. Secondly, how can we ensure that the enthusiasm that brought them into teacher training is not blunted by hard experience? Their enthusiasm must carry them from qualification into their first application for a teaching job and their early years in the classroom. Thirdly, how can we ensure that our new teachers are not lost to the profession after a few years but go on to develop long-term careers in teaching?
624
I shall start by saying a few words about those who are now coming into initial teacher training. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely right that I am going to say that teacher numbers are increasing. I do so, however, not from a sense of complacency but from the belief that some of the things we are trying to do are beginning to work.
Noble Lords are aware of the impact of the teacher training bursaries that the Government introduced from September 2000. We inherited declining recruitment to training. By 1999–2000, the number of trainees coming forward had decreased for eight consecutive years. If that trend had been allowed to continue it would have seriously endangered our ability to replenish the stock of teachers in the medium term. The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Miller, also referred to the fact that the teacher population is ageing. We need to be aware of that fact.
When the training bursaries were announced, the number of inquiries about teacher training received by the Teacher Training Agency leapt to an all-time high. That level of interest has risen still further in the two intervening years. Interest was soon translated into increasing numbers of applicants, and for the 2000–01 academic year there was a 7 per cent increase in total recruitment to training. A further 5 per cent increase followed in 2001–02. Tomorrow morning the Graduate Teacher Training Registry will publish the PGCE applications figures to date for 2002–03. I am sure that all noble Lords await those figures with interest.
The quality of our trainees has sometimes been subject to unfair criticism. It has been said, for example, that increasing recruitment is reducing the overall academic standards of entrants. There is no evidence to suggest that that is the case. Our evidence shows that the average degree pass of new postgraduate trainees has remained. stable for a number of years, with about half of all new entrants holding an upper second or better. I should perhaps add that degree class is not, in any event, an entirely reliable indicator of how effective a teacher a candidate will be. Moreover, almost all teachers coming into the classroom nowadays are effective. That is one reason why, as the Chief Inspector of Schools' annual report noted today, the number of good, very good or excellent lessons has risen to its highest ever level.
It has also been said that a rising recruitment rate is being negated by a rising drop-out rate. Authoritative figures on how many of that cohort successfully completed their training will not be available until later this year. However, last week the results of an independent study of wastage from PGCE courses in 2000–01 were published. The sample was very large, comprising more than half the trainees recruited in that year. The results showed that only 11.3 per cent failed to complete their courses. In the previous year, the overall course failure rate was 13.5 per cent.
We believe that the position is improving, and it is not difficult to see why. The training bursaries and the fact that the Government pay the tuition fees of

625
graduate trainees are encouraging more people to consider and enter teacher training. They are also enabling more of them to stay the course who in previous years might have abandoned it.
Completion rates will never be 100 per cent. Teacher training is demanding and the standards required are very high. However good they look on paper, some trainees will simply fail to meet them. Others will decide, on exposure to the realities of the job, that teaching is not a career for them. But what we have tried to do, and I believe we have succeeded, is to reduce the number of potentially good teachers forced to give up their ambitions simply because they cannot afford them. I take on board the point that both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Andrews made about the need to track that information to give more detail. I shall take that idea back to the department, provided it does not involve asking teachers anything as we do not want to increase bureaucracy for them, as I said before.
The second key issue that I want to address briefly has also attracted more than its share of unreliable statistics. Higher recruitment to training may be producing more newly qualified teachers, we are told, but more of them are failing to enter a teaching job. The latest figures at our disposal show that over 70 per cent of those teachers who qualify in England are teaching in the maintained sector in England by March of the year after they qualify, and that 80 per cent will have taught in the maintained sector in England within four years of qualifying. Of course, other teachers will find jobs in, for example, Scotland and Wales.
That is closely linked to a third issue. The story continues to the effect that those new teachers who do enter the classroom leave again in droves after only a couple of years. Any noble Lord who studies the latest official figures will know that, indeed, some 20 per cent of those who started teaching in England in 1997 were no longer doing so three years later. That is a sobering statistic, even though it does not take account of the fact that many of those who leave the profession subsequently return to it. In the latest year for which figures are available, there were 36,000 entrants to teaching in England, 10,000 of whom were teachers returning to the profession after a break in their careers. Furthermore, as noble Lords are aware, the total number of teachers has continued to rise, by no fewer than 11,000 since 1997.
Nevertheless, the Government have never sought to conceal the fact that too many of those who qualify as teachers never teach, and that too many younger teachers leave teaching never to return. Every percentage point by which we can reduce teacher wastage means over 4,000 teachers in the classroom who would not otherwise have been there. My noble friend Lady Andrews spoke of regional variations which are an important factor—the relevant figure is 4.3 per cent for inner London compared to an average of 1.4 per cent. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that the number of unqualified teachers has doubled. The number has risen but mainly because of new
626
employment-based training programmes such as the graduate teacher programme. That is largely why the figure has risen.
It is clear that we must make careers in teaching more attractive, financially and otherwise. We also need to make them more sustainable, to prevent teachers being worn down by the reality of life in the classroom. This is what we are striving to achieve. All teachers have already enjoyed three above-inflation pay rises in a row. Following my right honourable friend's acceptance of this year's recommendations, a fourth is in prospect from 1st April. Pay for a good, experienced teacher is already 25 per cent higher than it was in 1997, 12 per cent higher in real terms. Teachers at the start of their careers last year received a pay rise of almost 6 per cent. This year, their pay will again rise by more than inflation. Gradually, we are making teaching better able to compete with the rewards that other careers can offer. The General Teaching Council, which I understand from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was a Liberal Democrat idea—if that is the case, I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for that—has played a major part in supporting teachers in that way.
I must mention the contribution that induction for newly qualified teachers is making. We need to ensure continuous professional development in schools. I acknowledge the concept of heads being judged by their commitment to continuous professional development—that is an interesting concept which we shall consider—and the role of middle managers in supporting teachers. I believe that my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned that point. We also know that school leadership is important and that school leaders new to headship need a good support system. We have therefore asked the National College for School Leadership to review the relevant programme in order to maximise the support given to heads as they take up their first headship post.
Noble Lords mentioned paper and e-mails. I understand that point. We have made a commitment to reduce teachers' workloads which is perhaps the most frequent factor cited in research into why teachers leave the profession. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report is now being considered by the pay review body. It confirms the extent to which teacher workloads have been rising, largely because we are expecting our teachers to be clerical officers and administrators for too much of their time. The document states:
"Teachers in many schools perceive a lack of control and ownership over their work, undertaking tasks—particularly documentation—which they do not believe are necessary to support learning, or which could be done by support staff rather than by teachers or more efficiently using Information and Communications Technology".
What has been done in Scotland is interesting but is a matter for Scotland. Our discussions have recognised that flexibility is important at local level and that is something for which teachers and head teachers will be looking. Together with that goes the use of other professionals who are able to develop their skills to work alongside teachers.

627
Behaviour and exclusion has been cited again and again as a key reason for teachers leaving the profession. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned perceptions of what teaching is like—and this may touch on the role of the media. We know that behaviour and exclusion is a problem but many schools are dealing with it effectively and efficiently. It is our job to support them.
Having cut exclusions by one third from a high figure, it is important to ensure that children who are excluded will receive the full-time education that they need and deserve, regardless of the circumstances, to help them return to mainstream education where that is possible.
We are addressing all those issues. Our positive vision for the teaching profession is that which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State described to the Social Market Foundation on 12th November. If the workload is to be cut significantly, teaching must be helped to modernise. We need not only to recruit more support staff but to use them better—helping qualified teachers to shed tasks that could more sensibly be done by support staff. We need to release at last the full classroom potential for information and communication technology.
We need to see that remodelling of the school workforce as part of the modernisation of the teaching profession. We must free teachers to spend their time on activities that can make a real difference to pupil achievement and to concentrate on the ideals that brought them into the profession in the first place—ideals mentioned by many noble Lords. Measures to assist in that respect will be my right honourable friend's top priority in the current spending review—your Lordships heard it here first—that concludes in July 2002. The Education Bill that will shortly come before the House is designed to make its contribution. I am sure that we will have many opportunities to
628
debate whether the Bill contains draconian powers but within it, trusting teachers and allowing schools to innovate is key.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, used a good reinventing government phrase about deciding what we want people to do, then getting them to understand and doing it. I would argue that we have done that with our literacy and numeracy strategy—designed a system, explained it and let teachers implement it. It is the achievements of teachers every day in the classroom that we celebrate, not ours. I am sure that Sir John Harvey-Jones would agree with that analysis.
Despite the progress made, recruitment and retention problems in teacher training are not yet solved. We know that there is more to do and we are committed to doing it. We have talked about stability and the need to ensure that teachers have time to bed down the initiatives. We have talked about workload, bureaucracy and the need to communicate appropriately with teachers. We have talked also about continuing professional development—the means by which we ensure that skills are constantly upgraded, which is part of teachers feeling valued and rewarded—and working closely with all those involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned Ecclesiastes and said that this is the time to say thank you. The chief inspector's report and the responses of all noble Lords tonight have been a definite echo of the need to say thank you to all our teachers. We need to get the message across to teachers that they are indeed valued. They provide a more than important service to all the young people in our country. We benefit from teachers. The next generation, with the fantastic group of teachers that they have, will benefit even more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, described teachers as having an interpersonal gift—a wonderful phrase that precisely describes them.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Metropolitan Police Numbers
  Metropolitan Police Numbers
  Asylum Seekers Held in Prison
  Asylum Seekers Held in Prison
  Animal Procedures Committee Chairman
  Animal Procedures Committee Chairman
  Compact on Relations between the Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector
  Compact on Relations between the Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector
  Annuity Reform
  Annuity Reform
  Medical Practitioner Services: VAT
  Medical Practitioner Services: VAT
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Trafficking in Human Beings
  Badger Protection
  Badger Protection
  Sheep Lice Treatment
  Sheep Lice Treatment
  Animal Disease Control
  Animal Disease Control
  Rural: Definition
  Rural: Definition
  Agriculture Council, 21 January
  Agriculture Council, 21 January
  Fetal Abormalities: Informing Parents
  Fetal Abormalities: Informing Parents
  Macular Degeneration
  Macular Degeneration
  Care Leavers: Higher Education
  Care Leavers: Higher Education
  Blood Products: Safety Initiatives
  Blood Products: Safety Initiatives
  Independent Healthcare Providers to the NHS
  Independent Healthcare Providers to the NHS
  Headlice Treatment
  Headlice Treatment
  Nursing Staff
  Nursing Staff
  Oral Anticoagulation Therapy: Testing Strips
  Oral Anticoagulation Therapy: Testing Strips
  Stem Cell Research
  Stem Cell Research
  Food Standards Agency Report and Accounts
  Food Standards Agency Report and Accounts
  Benefit Claimants: Post Office Card Accounts
  Benefit Claimants: Post Office Card Accounts
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  Belfast: European Capital of Culture Bid
  Belfast: European Capital of Culture Bid
  Parliamentary Estate: Accommodation for Sinn Fein Members
  Parliamentary Estate: Accommodation for Sinn Fein Members
  Drumcree Protest: Cost of Security Arrangements
  Drumcree Protest: Cost of Security Arrangements