Sitting of 6 February 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 13 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    North-West Regeneration
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next expects to visit the Government office of the north-west to discuss regeneration of the region. [30883]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office(Mrs. Barbara Roche): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the Government office of the north-west. He last visited it in September and I visited it in November.
    Mr. Winterton:I am sure that the Minister is aware that not even a borough such as Macclesfield, which currently has an unemployment rate of just 1.1 per cent.—and is brilliantly represented—can rest on its laurels. We must look to the future not least because of the tragic announcement of 993 redundancies on the periphery of the constituency by BAE Systems at Woodford. Does the hon. Lady not accept that it is absolutely essential for the future prosperity and economic growth of my area that the regional planning guidance receives an early approval? The matter currently rests with a Minister in another place, Lord Falconer.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter. I know that he and other Members of Parliament have taken a great interest in the redundancies, and we extend our sympathies to all those affected. Of course it is right that we need to move as quickly as possible, which is why the Government office and all the other agencies, including the Employment
    844
    Service, are working hard. It is right that we move ahead with the plan, and we shall do so as soon as we practically can.
    Andy Burnham: When my hon. Friend next meets representatives of the Government office of the north-west to discuss these issues, will she stress the important role that sport and sports development can play in regenerating deprived communities in the north-west, especially those such as mine which have proved to be the hardest to regenerate and turn round? In particular, will she ask the Government office of the north-west to give whatever support it can to Wigan council's exciting proposals for a new community sports complex and a new stadium and home for Leigh RMI and Leigh Centurions?
    Mrs. Roche: I am aware of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in these matters, and I know that he used to play cricket for Lancashire Schoolboys. We can all admire his sporting prowess, from which the Commons team may benefit.
    Of course I recognise the part that sport can play in regeneration. I spoke recently to some of the businesses involved in the sports and tourism industry about what can be done. When I next visit the area, I shall be delighted to have such discussions.

    Civil Emergencies
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 9 January 2002, Official Report, column 530, on civil emergencies, if he will make a statement on the updating of guidance to local authorities.[30884]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government have issued guidance to local authorities on the response to a deliberate release of chemical or biological agents. The guidance is under continual review, and the civil contingencies secretariat at the Cabinet Office remains in dialogue with local authorities on the matter.
    Mr. Dalyell:What guidance is being given about the horrendous eventuality of smallpox?
    Mr. Leslie: Many Members will be aware of the BBC 2 television programme broadcast on that subject yesterday, which described a hypothetical situation. I emphasise that smallpox has been eradicated and that good contingency plans are in place. We have substantial stocks of vaccine but, clearly, their size and location are not in the public domain for security reasons. The Public Health Laboratory Service is always updating its guidance, which is available to GPs on its website, and that guidance has also been sent out by public health directors.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister agree that civil emergencies occur for different reasons, be they climatic, medical—as he has described—or terrorist? What consideration has he given to the appointment—or what consideration has he given to talking to the Prime Minister about the appointment—of a Minister, perhaps

    845
    not a Ministry, who can co-ordinate the activities of different Departments? Does he not accept that appointing a senior civil servant for such a role is not enough?
    Mr. Leslie: Last year all Members were sent a letter on the matter by the Home Secretary, who chairs the Civil Contingencies Cabinet Committee. To make sure that we have the generic capability to co-ordinate emergency planning and civil contingencies, the new secretariat has been established at the Cabinet Office to allow us to be flexible and respond as necessary to whatever eventualities may arise.
    Andrew Mackinlay: What preparations and plans exist for the possibility of a major aircraft failure or collision over central London? That is increasingly possible because of the intensification of the use of Heathrow airport and the aviation industry's wrong demand for an extra runway at Heathrow.
    Mr. Leslie: I would not want to open up a discussion on the extra runway, but in terms of risk, new technology is being developed all the time to improve air traffic control. My hon. Friend will know that response and recovery activities fall in the first instance to local authorities and the police. We are ensuring that the tools are available so that those organisations are well placed to cope in the unlikely eventuality of anything happening.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What preparation has been made for a major offshore incident that could result in a massive oil spill, similar to the Braer disaster or the Sea Empress disaster off the coast of Pembrokeshire? Both reports on those disasters recommended placing a statutory duty on local authorities to deal with offshore oil spillages, but that has still not been put in place. Will the hon. Gentleman promise to introduce that?
    Mr. Leslie: I will submit the hon. Gentleman's comment to the emergency planning review that the Cabinet Office is undertaking. The maritime authorities and, indeed, local authorities ensure that we learn lessons from the accidents that occur from time to time. I shall certainly try to give the matter closer consideration.

    Rural Policy
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Which Departments and agencies are involved in the development of rural policy for whose co-ordination his office is responsible. [30886]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): I am responsible for the Government office network which provides a strategic presence in the regions for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, indeed, for the social exclusion unit whose work covers issues of relevance to rural areas.
    Mr. Tyler: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the written answer given by the Prime Minister last Friday at column 571 in which he describes in detail all the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister? There is no mention of rural affairs or the co-ordination
    846
    of rural policy. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give a single example of when his intervention has secured an improvement in rural policy since the general election?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the fact that we have established a Department for rural affairs specifically to deal with such matters. Many of the issues that he raises, which he used to refer to the Cabinet Office before the last election, are now dealt with by another Department.
    Mr. Chris Pond (Gravesham): The rural White Paper said that we need to have a vibrant living and working countryside and that to achieve that aim a range of essential services needs to be in place in rural areas. I am pleased to say that there are plans to open two new rural post offices in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to ensure that the work of all relevant Departments is co-ordinated so that our rural communities have those services?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: Many of those issues were highlighted in the rural White Paper, for which I had responsibility in my previous job. We thought that it was important to separate rural areas from urban areas and not to get the two mixed up. We made it clear that special programmes were needed, which we identified in the rural White Paper and which are being carried out by the Department. Many of my hon. Friend's points are being attended to directly by the Department and the relevant Minister.
    Mr. Tim Collins: The Deputy Prime Minister said today and, indeed, in the past in response to written questions that lead responsibility for rural policy now rests with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He however, is, responsible for the work of the social exclusion unit. Does he recognise that there are serious problems of social exclusion in many rural areas? Will he specifically ask the social exclusion unit to consider rural policies?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point; it is all the more valid after 18 years of a Tory Administration under whom we saw a doubling of poverty and a decline in bus transportation, the provision of schools and post offices in rural areas. That is why the social exclusion unit has been deliberately designed to look specifically at those problems, which we identify as existing as much in rural areas as they do in urban ones. Indeed, a specific study is under way on transport in rural areas because without an adequate transport system many people in those areas cannot get access to the services that they need. That is why we have increased considerably the amount of transport resources in rural areas, set against the decline that we saw in those 18 years.

    Children in Care
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What research his Department has carried out into the educational attainment of children in care. [30887]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The social exclusion unit is investigating what more might be done to raise the educational attainment of children in care. It is currently gathering evidence and undertaking an intensive programme of visits to schools and children's homes. It is also consulting widely with professionals and with children in care.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work of the social exclusion unit has been critical in sending a message to all local government departments that the record of educational attainment of looked-after children has been woeful. It is something for which we all have responsibility, particularly since we gather that 75 per cent. of young people leaving care do so without educational qualifications.
    However, there is some good news. In the Medway towns in my constituency, two such young people have been the first to receive bursaries from the local authority to go to university, and there is one more to follow. That is the sort of thing that we want to see—young people who have been in care getting the same as other young people, rather than anything special. I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will continue to monitor carefully the attainment of such young people, so that they get what they deserve, which is nothing less than others get.
    Mrs. Roche: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The record of attainment of educational qualifications among young children in care is woeful, and we all need to take that very seriously. Looked-after children need our absolute commitment, which is why I am delighted that the social exclusion unit is pursuing the matter. I welcome my hon. Friend's news.
    Some good practice is on the way. For example, I recently visited Brighton and Hove council to talk to teachers, foster parents and looked-after children. The council's track record of designated teachers is very good.
    Angela Watkinson: What mechanisms are in place to assess the relative success of the social exclusion unit compared with its costs?
    Mrs. Roche:The social exclusion unit takes on projects at the direction of the Prime Minister and under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister. So far, it has had a tremendous success rate. A good example is the meeting of targets on reducing rough sleeping and on reducing teenage pregnancy. Those are extremely good developments. Of course, there are more projects on the way, such as that on transport which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has already mentioned.

    Curry Report
    Mr. Michael Jack: Whether the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a submission to Sir Donald Curry's report on the future of farming. [30889]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): No Cabinet Minister made submissions to Sir Donald Curry's commission, as it was established by the Government in the first place.
    Mr. Jack: I am sorry that the Minister cannot say that the duchy itself made a submission to the Curry
    848
    commission, which has produced the most significant report on British food and farming for many years, and offers an important way forward. In the light of its findings and the worries of duchy tenants as they see, for example, investment in more housing and changes in land management arrangements for the estate, what investment will be made in duchy farms in Lancashire to unlock their potential? When will the Minister be able to give the House those details?
    Mr. Leslie: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of the importance of the commission's findings on the future of farming. The report is full and comprehensive, and aims to make the farming industry more sustainable and profitable. Clearly, many of those issues rest with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Although the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Lord Macdonald, is in another place, I shall certainly ensure that he is made aware of the right hon. Gentleman's questions and comments.
    Mr. David Drew: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments. Is it not important that central and local government take a lead in ensuring that Curry's proposals are advanced? Anything that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends can do must only be to our advantage.
    Mr. Leslie: Rural affairs cut across all Departments. As Ministers, we all must be aware of rural as well as urban dimensions. The Royal Society study by Sir Brian Follett will provoke discussion on a number of important issues that need to be considered, but I shall ensure that I pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    Special Advisers
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What action he has taken to co-ordinate policy on the duties of special advisers among Government Departments. [30891]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Select Committee on Public Administration, a code of conduct for special advisers is now in place, with duties and responsibilities also set out in a model contract of employment.
    Dr. Lewis: We all know what Jo Moore said on 11 September about burying bad news, but since then she has tried unsuccessfully to have a crony appointed as her Department's head of media and, more recently, has succeeded in damaging the Prime Minister by suggesting, heaven forfend, that he regards the trade union movement as wreckers. Is she setting a good example for special advisers in other Departments to follow?
    Mr. Leslie: I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's obsession with these matters. On the particular case that he mentioned, there was an open competition for that

    849
    appointment; somebody else got the job and the Cabinet Secretary cleared the appointment. It is now time to move on.
    Tony Wright: May I repeat my oft expressed view that the way to see off the Opposition's absurd fixation with special advisers is to move ahead, building on the code that we have already established; introduce the civil service legislation that we promised; set a cap on the number of special advisers; and define their relations with civil servants? That would put a stop to the nonsense that the Opposition keep bringing up.
    Mr. Leslie: As I said to the Select Committee on Public Administration last week, we need to make sure that we enshrine certain principles in a code of conduct for special advisers. That code is a new initiative from this Administration and will create more transparency in those areas. We can look at a cap on numbers and we shall want to consult on those matters when any future civil service legislation is introduced.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister recognise that it is important that a clear boundary between political advisers and civil servants, who must be politically impartial, is maintained? What action has the First Secretary of State taken to ensure rigorous enforcement of that code in the light of what has happened, and when will the civil service Bill to which the Minister referred be published?
    Mr. Leslie: The code of conduct makes plain, as does the ministerial code of conduct, the parameters of special advisers' work and operations. We are working on civil service legislation and will publish it when we are ready to do so. The code of conduct should be welcomed all round; indeed, the Public Administration Committee noted that it was both a welcome step forward and progress that should be acknowledged.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: In the light of the excellent fourth report of the Public Administration Committee, which was published last February, does my hon. Friend intend to take any further action in that respect? In particular, he should take note of the fact that the report says that the official Opposition
    "were unable to give a categorical assurance that its Short Money funding"—
    our taxpayers' money—
    "was used exclusively for parliamentary business."
    Will he seek a guarantee from those on Opposition Front Bench that in future such assurances will be given?
    Mr. Leslie: That is an interesting question. Not many people realise that the Opposition benefited from a threefold increase in the Short money, which goes to support their work—it is purely for parliamentary business, of course, and I am sure that it is true that central office is not propped up by that £3.4 million. I tried to do a bit of research the other day and it seems that in their
    850
    annual report and accounts, the Tories simply lump Short money with the rest of the income that they generate— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Since the Minister is on the subject of threefold increases, can I point to the threefold increase, from roughly £50 million to just under £150 million, in the Government's spending on advertising through the Central Office of Information? Since the most senior special adviser of them all is Alastair Campbell, how does the Minister justify this morning's reports that Mr. Campbell will get his sticky fingers on taxpayers' money and have direct control over Government advertising?
    Mr. Leslie: Another conspiracy theory from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Central Office of Information undertakes extremely important marketing campaigns—for example, on public health and protection or on recruiting extra doctors and nurses. If he feels that that is money poorly spent, I shall start to worry for him.
    Mr. Collins:The Minister is renowned for being a man of his word, so will he give the House a categorical assurance that Mr. Alastair Campbell will not be in any position to give orders to the Central Office of Information as a result of the restructuring, and that any official of the Central Office of Information will be entitled to decline to follow any instruction given by Mr. Alastair Campbell—yes or no?
    Mr. Leslie: The Central Office of Information has recently undergone its quinquennial review and the results were published yesterday. Those involved closer working with the Government information and communications services, as well as the strategic communication unit. We must have coherent government, which has a strong corporate strategic management. We must make sure that those recruitment exercises and public health campaigns are undertaken as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What his estimate is of the salary bill for special advisers in Government Departments in the financial year 2002–03. [30892]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government have already announced changes to the pay system for special advisers based on civil service job evaluation. The process of evaluation is not yet finished, so the salary costs for the next financial year will be provided once the exercise is completed.
    Mr. Blunt: There's a surprise—that the figures are not available. Will the Minister confirm that part of those salaries is paid to Alastair Campbell? From the hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), he made it clear

    851
    that the Central Office of Information will be answerable to a political appointee. Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that that is a corruption of government?
    Mr. Leslie: Is it not amazing that the hon. Gentleman forgot to mention that he is a former special adviser? That level of masochistic self-loathing in the Conservative party is deeply distressing. The hon. Gentleman should realise that we believe that the Government must be led strongly from the centre, and that we must make sure that we have effective and successful communications campaigns for the benefit of the recipients of public services across the country.

    Poverty
    Paul Goggins: When he last met representatives of UK poverty organisations. [30893]
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (Mr. John Prescott): On 23 January I met the all-party parliamentary group on poverty. The meeting was attended by, among others, the Poverty Alliance, ATD—Altogether towards Dignity—Fourth World, and the UK Coalition against Poverty. I also gave a keynote speech on 15 January at the Fabian society conference, which was attended by 200 organisations associated with poverty relief. I maintain regular contact with the groups in London and on my visits to other areas of the United Kingdom.
    Paul Goggins: The Government have done a great deal to tackle the problem of low income, including the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, the minimum wage and the working families tax credit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty is not just about money? It is also about power. What steps is he taking to ensure that people with direct experience of poverty can have a bigger say in the development of Government policy?
    The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State: That important point was made by the all-party parliamentary group, the representatives of which come from all parts of the House. The group has made it clear that people who suffer from poverty should be actively involved in advising and in decision making here in the House. That is absolutely right. We have commissioned a report to see how we can improve on that process. Those people want a say in the programmes that we are bringing in to relieve the poverty that they are suffering.

    Ministerial Code of Conduct
    Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): What plans there are to revise paragraph 122 of the ministerial code of conduct. [30895]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): None.
    Mr. Robathan: The Minister will know that paragraph 122 of the ministerial code forbids financial dealings between Ministers and trade unions. When will the Deputy Prime Minister enforce the ministerial code for
    852
    himself and end his financial dealings with the RMT, which are worth between £12,000 and £14,000 a year to him?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman has been pursuing the matter for some time.
    Mr. Robathan: What about the ministerial code?
    Mrs. Roche:If the hon. Gentleman refrains from shouting, I will give him his answer. He knows that his question is nonsense. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has ruled that there has been no benefit at all. It has also ruled that the code has not been broken. The hon. Gentleman should move on and get a life.

    Special Advisers
    Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the accountability of special advisers. [30896]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Christopher Leslie): As with all civil servants, special advisers are accountable to Ministers. Ministers are accountable to Parliament.
    Norman Baker: That system would work if Ministers answered questions about special advisers. As well as continually blocking questions and refusing information, they do not even stick to the code of conduct introduced by the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Major. That system does not work. Why will the hon. Gentleman not answer questions and ensure that the special advisers are accountable to this House?
    Mr. Leslie: We went through all this nonsense yesterday in Westminster Hall, where the hon. Gentleman was pulled up by the Deputy Speaker for his intemperate language. I really think he needs to get a grip.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Andy King:If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    I am sure that the whole House will join me in wanting to pay our respects on the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne.
    Andy King: Has my right hon. Friend had time to examine the scientific and medical opinion on the MMR

    853
    vaccine? Does he agree that, whatever our view, this matter is so important that it must not be allowed to become a political football?
    The Prime Minister: I do urge people not to pay attention to what is sometimes called Government advice. The Government are in fact giving advice on the basis of the advice given to them by independent experts. That advice, which is that the MMR vaccine is safe and is best done in combination rather than separate jabs, is supported not only by the Government's independent advisory committee, but by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association and the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. No fewer than 90 countries around the world use the MMR vaccine, including every major industrialised country, and 500 million doses of the vaccine have been given since 1972. I say to people that the scaremongering—and it is scaremongering—about this vaccine is wrong. Often, such scaremongering does not matter, but in this case it does. If anybody has any doubts, the full evidence is available and can be given to any parent who wants it.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: May I join the Prime Minister in congratulating Her Majesty on the 50th anniversary of her accession?
    Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the number of cancelled operations has risen or fallen since he came to power?
    The Prime Minister: It has risen; however— [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] It has risen by about 20,000; however, the number of operations as a whole has also risen by more than 500,000; 19 out of 20 operations are done on time; the average waiting time for an operation has fallen since 1997; and, therefore, although it is correct that the number of cancelled operations has risen, if we look at the number of operations as a whole—more than 5.5 million in this country—I think that the national health service has a record to he proud of.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The answer is quite correct: 50 per cent. I have to tell the Prime Minister that that is not just a figure. He talks about the rise in the number of operations done, but the numbers that have been cancelled have risen as well, and that is a real tragedy for those who have to wait. [Interruption] Well, the reality—he may not want to hear this—is that this is not one or two cases, but 80,000 people who have had their operations cancelled on the day when they were expecting to have them. That is a matter of fear and anxiety for 80,000 people—many more than when he came to power. So, as those numbers have risen and 80,000 people have had their operations cancelled, will he now tell us the reason why?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained a moment ago, far more operations have been done by the national health service—about 500,000 more. Less than 2 per cent. of operations are cancelled, which should put the matter in perspective. The only answer is indeed to increase the capacity of the health service, including more nurses, doctors and consultants, as well as other staff, and more
    854
    beds. That is precisely why we are increasing investment in the national health service. The right hon. Gentleman is in favour of cutting that investment. Therefore, whatever the problems of cancelled operations—I say that they should be put in perspective—the remedy that he has, which is to cut that investment, is the wrong remedy. The remedy that we have—invest and reform—is the right one.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Before the Prime Minister talks about what he supposes is our programme, perhaps he will pay attention to the comments of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on his record. It stated:
    "public sector net investment over the five-year period since Labour came into power"
    is
    "the lowest figure for any five year period since the Second World War".
    The Prime Minister is in government and it is his record. The answer that he did not give to my question is that hospital beds are in short supply because they are being blocked by people who cannot get a care home or nursing home bed. The figure that he did not want to provide is that 40,000—nearly 10 per cent. —fewer care home beds are available since 1997 when he took over.
    Age Concern says that the care sector is in crisis. The head of the Registered Nursing Homes Association said that Government policy was to blame. The Government's policies are damaging the NHS. Is not the Prime Minister's real achievement after five years to have increased both the queue to get into hospital and the queue to get out?
    The Prime Minister: Public sector investment in the health service has increased under the Government and is continuing to increase. We are roughly the only major industrial country anywhere in the world that is increasing expenditure on health and education as a proportion of national income. Is it the Conservative party's case that we are not spending enough on health and education? When we announced our spending plans, Conservatives called them reckless and irresponsible. We know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to run down the national health service because he does not believe in it. The clearest evidence of that came yesterday, when the Leader of the Opposition said:
    "The health service doesn't serve anybody…It doesn't serve doctors or nurses. It doesn't help the people who are treated."
    What an insult to the NHS and the people who work in it! Conservatives denigrate the health service because they want to undermine it. We want to increase investment, whereas the right hon. Gentleman would cut it.
    Vera Baird: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the United States authorities about a British national who is currently on death row in Georgia? His name is Tracy Housel and he is severely brain damaged. Although he has been on death row since 1986, his execution date is likely to be set this month. Will my right hon. Friend say what representations he believes he can make? Will he please act quickly, before the date is set?
    The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary has written to the Governor of Georgia and the state board of

    855
    pardons and parole, urging them to commute the death sentence to a term of imprisonment. We shall continue to make representations to the state of Georgia. I hope that my hon. Friend understands the position and that we shall continue to make representations on behalf of that individual, who I believe is a joint US-UK national.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I fully associate Liberal Democrats with the Prime Minister's congratulations to Her Majesty on this special day.
    I want to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him prior notice—in the sense that the leader of the Tory party will ask him the same question this time next week. Yesterday, the Labour-dominated Transport Committee described the Government's proposals for the part-privatisation of the London Underground and their claims that it would save £4.5 billion as inadequate and flawed. How does the Prime Minister explain that?
    The Prime Minister: I explain it by saying that, of course, the Committee is entitled to its view, but the value-for-money reports are being considered at the moment. They will be published and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement about that. The safety case—in so far as that is a point of criticism—is being assessed by the Health and Safety Executive; that is entirely proper. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must explain—if they oppose the public-private partnership which allows major infrastructure work that is urgently necessary to be done on the London underground—how they would make up the £5 billion shortfall if they took out the private element.
    Mr. Kennedy: Everybody in the country knows that the railway system is in a state of chaos, thanks to privatisation. Why do not the Government listen to the majority view of Londoners, and to the advice of the Labour-dominated Transport Committee and decide not to go down the route of part-privatisation for the tube? Should not the Prime Minister swallow his pride and stop this disaster in the making?
    The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman again why we believe that this is important. The London underground will remain in the public sector from the time that the tube opens until the time that it closes. The reason that we are engaged in this public-private investment partnership is so that the infrastructure work, which is urgently needed in the tube, can be done. [Interruption.] I urge Liberal Democrat Members to listen to the arguments, rather than heckling. If we decide to do this in the old public sector financing way, we will lose the billions of pounds of private investment necessary, and all the evidence is that, if we do it in that way, the work will run over budget and over time. It is important, however difficult the decision may be, to take the right decision for the future. This plan is ready to go; it will get immediate money into the tube; and we are doing it not out of pride but because we believe it to be the right thing to do.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When my right hon. Friend is preparing his in-flight reading for the next couple of days, would he care to take with him the report
    856
    on the Chinook crash? I hope that he will look, in particular, at paragraph 174, in which Lord Jauncey and his colleagues unanimously come to the conclusion that
    "the reviewing officers were not justified in finding that negligence on the part of the pilots caused the aircraft to crash."
    I realise that the primary response to that will be from the Ministry of Defence, but will the Prime Minister accept that many of us, who have sympathy with the Department in a variety of ways, feel that the Gordian knot of self-interest that surrounds the Department on this issue must be cut through? We look to my right hon. Friend for a better, clearer and fairer understanding of a complex issue that has been dealt with by some of the most distinguished jurists in the other place. They have come up with a conclusion that drives a coach and horses through the views of the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is obviously right to say that this is a complex issue, although I hope that he would also acknowledge that those who conducted the original inquiry are wise and celebrated people as well, and experts in that particular area. Obviously, we have to study the report, and we shall do that. We shall study its complex technical detail and give a proper response in due course.
    Mr. James Gray: Is the Prime Minister aware that some 350 jobs had been lost in the town of Malmesbury before yesterday's devastating news of 820 redundancies as a result of James Dyson moving some of his business to the far east? The Prime Minister will understand that that is appalling news for a town of only 4,500 people. Nationally, 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the right hon. Gentleman came to power, and manufacturing industry is now officially in recession. Will he accept personal responsibility for this, or will he seek to blame someone else?
    The Prime Minister: It would be right, surely, to point out that there have been 1.2 million extra jobs altogether since we came to office. It is correct to say that manufacturing has gone through a difficult time; of course it has. It has done so in many parts of the world, but I believe the best thing for manufacturing is low interest rates, low inflation and a stable economic environment, and that is what manufacturing has. If we were to go back to the policies that the hon. Gentleman used to support under the Conservative Government, which caused massive manufacturing job losses and a huge cut in manufacturing output and investment, that would be the worst thing. Having said that, of course we are deeply disappointed at Mr. Dyson's decision, but that is a decision for his company.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: The Prime Minister will be aware that the performance and innovation unit's report on future energy supply is now widely available on the internet, and that it confirms that renewable sources should have a vital and increasing role in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] The UK is uniquely rich in wave and tidal energy sources, but if this potential is to be unlocked, it will require a lead

    857
    from the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] If this can be given, there is the potential for a new green industry, providing thousands of jobs. Will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking far too long.
    The Prime Minister: Over the next three years, we have committed about £260 million in an extensive capital grants programme for renewable energy. We have a target to reach 10 per cent. renewables by 2010. [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] [Laughter.] There will be a—[Laughter.] I am told— [Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister answer.
    The Prime Minister: These issues will be further canvassed in the PIU report next week.
    Mr. George Osborne: What the Prime Minister just said on the MMR vaccine deals with the world as he wishes it to be, not as it is. The fact is that tens of thousands of parents do not accept his assurances that the vaccine is safe, however good the medical evidence. Instead of calling them scaremongers, should he not give them the choice of three separate vaccinations on the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: I really have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the position that the Conservative party has adopted today is, in my view, totally irresponsible. Let me tell him why that is the case. The evidence that I have read out is evidence not just about the importance of the MMR vaccine but about the importance of having it in combination, rather than in separate jabs. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that the evidence that that way is better comes from right round the world—not just this country. It comes from 90 different countries. [Interruption.] Can I say this to the Opposition? This is important, so let me at least give them the evidence, as that is what people are asking for.
    Every single piece of independent research that has been done around the world has found that it is important to have the MMR jab in combination, not separately. Let me inform the House that, most recently, the major US conference, as reported in the American medical journal Pediatrics, said that
    "the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism or associated disorders."
    It went on:
    "Separate administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines to children provides no benefit over administration of the combination MMR vaccine and would result in delayed or missed immunisations."
    Two further pieces of evidence are important. Between 1994 and 1999, for various reasons, Japan went for separate jabs, rather than the MMR combination. Over that time, when there were no deaths from measles in Britain, there were 85 in Japan. In addition, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that when a previous Government had to face a similar issue in respect of whooping cough, as a result of pressure it was decided not to give the vaccine in the original form. As a result of that, the immunisation programme virtually collapsed. As a result of that, some 100 children died of whooping cough.
    858
    This is a serious issue and I simply say to Opposition Members: read the evidence. Incidentally, the press have continually said that we have failed to provide the evidence. The evidence is published on the Department of Health website and it is available for anybody to see. Any parent who writes to the Department of Health can have the evidence, so I urge all Members of the House to have a care as to what we say on this issue, because, genuinely, the safety of children is at risk.
    Mr. David Clelland: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deny today's story in Newcastle's The Journal, which says that he, or his office, has personally intervened in the drafting of the forthcoming regional government White Paper to insist that it contain a clause stating that regional government cannot go ahead without the abolition of the county councils?
    The Prime Minister: The regional government White Paper will be published in due course and my hon. Friend will be able to see the proposals that are made there.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On Sunday the Prime Minister said that the trade unions were "standing in the way of good public services". Does he stand by that?
    The Prime Minister: I said that anyone who opposed the necessary reform of public services was standing in the way of improvements necessary for public services. I also said that those who, like the right hon. Gentleman, want to cut essential investment in public services were grossly undermining them.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I think that answer says it all.
    The Prime Minister has clearly apologised to the trade unions, as was reported today. He has gone grovelling to them. When the general secretary of the TUC called his comments "juvenile" and "bizarre", was he defending the Conservative party? When Unison issued its big advertisement attacking that, was it defending the Conservative party?
    The truth is that the Prime Minister has had to climb down. Let us ask why. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us, as leader of the Labour party, how much money the unions gave his party last year.
    The Prime Minister: In no shape or form are we giving way on the reform programme in the health service and the education service. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Well, the amount of money given to the Labour party—thanks to the procedures we introduced—is there for people to see.
    It is important that we carry on with the reforms in health, education, transport, and law and order, but the reforms should be matched by investment. I will take on either people like the right hon. Gentleman who want to cut investment, or people in the trade union movement or elsewhere who want to halt the advance of reform. "Invest and reform" is right. Now perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what his position is.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister took a long time not to answer the question. Let us now give him the

    859
    answer. The figure is £8 million, in a six-month period last year—and in the case of two unions that are either on strike or about to strike, it is nearly £1.25 million.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but I must tell him that the Prime Minister is here to answer questions as Prime Minister, not as leader of the Labour party. [Interruption.] Order. I am talking about the rules of the House, which the House has given me to protect. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could ask another question.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: rose— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: This issue goes right to the heart of the Government. While I fully respect what you say, Mr. Speaker, I must point out— [Interruption] —if I may—that it is about what is happening on the railways and in the Post Office. I am simply raising an issue, and asking a question about whether there are links with and reasons for Government policy. I would like to pursue that line if you are agreeable, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can ask the question—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is using some ingenuity. Let us see how he puts his question—whether he puts it in another way.
    Mr. Duncan Smithrose— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I will certainly ask the question, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps in a slightly different way.
    No wonder the Prime Minister grovels to the trade unions after having attacked them, from one day to the next. The truth is—this is the reality for the present Government, so heavily linked to the trade unions—that five years ago the Prime Minister used to talk about "24 hours to save the health service"; on Monday, it was 24 hours to save his donations. Instead of briefing and retreating, attacking and withdrawing, why does the Prime Minister not cut his links with the strikers and the wreckers?
    The Prime Minister: In regard to the actual industrial dispute, we have made it clear that we believe the strike action is totally unjustified and should not take place. In relation to the national health service, however, there is a real issue, as there is in relation to investment in our public services. The strategy of the Conservative party is absolutely clear, and that is why we will not adopt it as a Goverment—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask Members to be seated. Let me also say to the Prime Minister that the policy of the Conservative party is nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Fortunately, the policy of the Conservative party will never be the policy of this Government, but there is a real issue in respect of public services. What is important is that we end up with the investment and reform that our public services need. They are getting substantial investment over the next few years. In each of these areas, there is a substantial reform programme. As I have said, whether it is those who are opposed to reform, or those who are opposed to investment, we will take both of them on and we will win that battle for our public services
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is The Prime Minister aware that tomorrow will see the naming of the 2,500 runners in the Queen's jubilee baton relay, which will effectively launch the run-up to the Commonwealth games in Manchester later this year? Will he join me in congratulating those runners, who literally straddle the world? Every one has been picked because of their contribution to local communities. Will he join me in wishing them every success in launching what will be the most successful multi-sports event in this country for many years?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly join my hon. Friend in his congratulations for all those who are organising the Commonwealth games. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will be launched by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham palace on 11 March 2002, Commonwealth day, from where it will depart on a tour of some 22 Commonwealth countries before returning to the United Kingdom on 6 June. The baton will then tour the length and breadth of the UK for 50 days before arriving in Manchester for the opening by the Queen of the Commonwealth games on 25 July. I believe that the Commonwealth games will be not just a fantastic success story for the north-west but a great showcase for the country.
    Chris Grayling: On 19 December at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said about Railtrack:
    "the longer the administrator's work has gone on, the more financial difficulties he has uncovered."—[Official Report, 19 December 2001; Vol. 377, c. 288–9.]
    On three separate occasions since then, the Railtrack administrator has publicly said that that is not the case. Who is telling the truth?
    The Prime Minister: The petition that was presented to the court announced debts of about £1.7 billion, which is exactly why Railtrack was put into administration. The Railtrack administrator will publish the full details of what the debts were at a later time. When that happens, the hon. Gentleman may have to withdraw the implication of his question.
    Phil Sawford: Will my right hon. Friend consider visiting Kettering general hospital to look at the new orthopaedic theatre, the new CAT scanner, the £900,000 investment in intensive care and the £1 million

    861
    plans for a new dermatology unit? Does he agree that, after that massive investment in our health service, the real wreckers are those on the Conservative Benches?
    The Prime Minister: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend's constituency hospital in Kettering, although preferably not as a patient—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I think that most of us would like to maintain our good health if we possibly can. What my hon. Friend has described in his constituency could be described in most constituencies up and down the country. There is a massive amount of investment going in. Figures published yesterday on recruitment to the health service show, for example, that we have met the target on the number of nurses in the national health service plan some two years early. I say to my hon. Friends and indeed to Opposition Members that, with the progress over the next few months, I think that people will start to see in their constituencies exactly the same level of investment and change as people already notice in respect of the school system.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Is The Prime Minister aware that on the day of the Twin Towers disaster, there took place in this city an arms trade fair sponsored by the Ministry of Defence? Among the customers at that fair for state-of-the-art weaponry were both sides in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Would it not be a useful start to The Prime Minister's mission to Africa if he announced that henceforth this country will not sell arms to both sides in African civil wars?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know about the particular point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I will investigate it and write to him. Our arms sales to Africa run at about 1 per cent. of total arms sales, so it is important to put that in context. There are also, incidentally, jobs and industry in this country to consider. Of course it is important to take care who we sell arms to, and we do. The desire of African nations is for the partnership for change in Africa—which covers a whole range of issues, including aid and trade, investment and governance—to be satisfactorily put together for the G8 summit in July, so that the developing and developed world can give Africa the chance that it needs.
    Brian White: The Prime Minister will be aware that, even before the dropping of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, it was one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world. In fulfilling his pledge not to walk away from that country, will he outline what the Government are doing to help clear land mines there?
    The Prime Minister: We are, I think, providing several million pounds for the clearing of mines in Afghanistan. Part of the function of the international security assistance force is precisely to ensure that we give every help to the Afghan authorities in clearing mines from the area. My hon. Friend would be pleasantly surprised by the amount of progress being made there in very difficult circumstances. On the humanitarian side, although there are still real problems as a result of drought, and some instability in certain parts of the country, the World Food Programme now reckons that it is getting more aid into Afghanistan than ever before.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just made—perhaps The Prime Minister would listen to this.
Hon. Members: He's off.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a point of order before us.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Not for the first time, I wish The Prime Minister bon voyage.
You have just made the interesting and almost theological ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we must in future draw a distinction between the right hon. Gentleman who is now on his way to west Africa in his role as Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman in his role as leader of the Labour party. Are we to understand, then, that in future we may no longer question him when the Government's policies, as so often happens now, diverge from those of the Labour party that was elected to support them?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can always ask questions about the Government's policies. The Prime Minister is here at Prime Minister's Question Time to answer questions regarding his role as Prime Minister, not as leader of the Labour party.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we also take it that in future you will use your sound judgment and prevent
864
The Prime Minister from misrepresenting Conservative party policy when in fact he is being questioned about his Government's policies?
Mr. Speaker: I think that I demonstrated that I was able to tell both the Leader of the Opposition and The Prime Minister when they were out of order, and I will continue to do so when necessary.
Chris Grayling:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not another extension of Prime Minister's Question Time.
Chris GraylingNo, it is not, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard me asking The Prime Minister at Question Time about his comments before Christmas. Since—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like an extension of Prime Minister's Question Time to me.
Chris Grayling: I assure you that it is not, Mr. Speaker. I am really asking this question knowing the importance that hon. Members attach to your judgment as a guardian of the interests of the House. When I have asked The Prime Minister, on two separate occasions, through written questions, to substantiate a comment of his that has been contradicted by someone outside the House, and he refuses to do so, what advice can you give me about how to pursue the matter?
Mr. Speaker: As I have said before, keep persevering.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In questioning The Prime Minister about the discharge of his duties as Prime Minister, is it proper for the House to question him about what influences may have been brought to bear?
Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Lady what I said to the Leader of the Opposition: let us see how the questions are framed, and then I will make a ruling on them.

Education Bill (Programme)(No. 3)
3.34 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd January (Education Bill (Programme)(No. 2)), at this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of the Education Bill as amended in the Standing Committee (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock and proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
I am moving this new programme motion with the simple intention of ensuring that there can be an additional two hours of debate on the Education Bill. The Government have consistently offered additional time to debate the Bill, and I am sure that the House will now want to consider the substantial issues raised in the amendments that have been tabled. I hope that we can now move swiftly to debate the Bill, with the benefit of the additional two hours for which the motion provides.
3.35 pm
Mr. Damian Green: I have no wish to detain the House. We have substantive matters to debate this afternoon and evening. I congratulate the Minister on managing to get the motion on to the Order Paper: that is a refreshing improvement on yesterday's performance.
I also take this opportunity to withdraw something that I said in the heat of the moment last night, when the Government appeared to be in complete chaos. I said that I could not believe that the Government's problems last night were due to monumental incompetence, and that they were in fact due to some forces of malice. Having received further explanation from Ministers, I now wish to withdraw unreservedly the allegation of competence that I made about the Government, as I now understand that the affair was a complete cock-up.
It is refreshing that we have got the two extra hours, not least from the perspective of the Bill's progress through the House, in Committee as well as during yesterday's shambles. It may interest the House to know that, in Committee, consideration of clause 11 was not completed. Clause 12 was not debated at all, and neither were clauses 19 to 24, 28 to 38, 41 to 43, 45 to 48 or 63 to 71. There was no debate on schedules 2 to 4 and 7 to 9.
It is clear that the 44 hours that the Government allowed for consideration in Committee was woefully inadequate for such a serious Bill. Those hon. Members who do not know how serious, important and long lasting the Bill is should read clause 2. That clause gives the
866
Secretary of State—not just this Secretary of State, but her successors as well—the power to suspend clauses from every Education Bill ever passed by the House, including this one. Clause 2 therefore allows the Secretary of State to ignore many of the provisions before us.
The Bill deserves the full consideration that it has not received. The programme motion is welcome in at least a small way. It is plain from what happened yesterday that the Government wanted to move the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) out of prime time, so that what he had to say could be hidden in the dark recesses of the night. We should be grateful to all those who contributed to yesterday's important debate on the matter for the fact that the Government have signally failed in that intention. We should be grateful to them also for the fact that we are about to have today's important debate—a debate, I should point out again, in which I am on the Government's side. In that context, the Government's actions yesterday to try and suspend debate seem especially perverse.
Thanks to the efforts through the usual channels and those who contributed to yesterday's debate, we have managed to obtain a small amount of extra time for consideration of the Bill. For that, the House should be grateful.
3.39 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has said, and in the interests of brevity I shall not repeat it. However, perhaps we should point out to the Government's mismanagers of the House's business that their efforts yesterday were entirely counterproductive.
I believe that hon. Members from all parties think that this important debate should be in prime time. More attention has been drawn to the matter than would have been the case if the debate had been allowed to proceed last night.
However, Liberal Democrat Members accept that it was mistake rather than mischief that got us into yesterday's ridiculous position. We are grateful to the Government for listening to our plea last night that additional time should be made available to reinstate the two hours that we lost. I hope that we can now proceed with the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd January (Education Bill (Programme)(No. 2)), at this day's sitting proceedings on consideration of the Education Bill as amended in the Standing Committee (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock and proceedings on Third Reading (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight.

Orders of the Day

  Education Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Education Bill

    New Clause 1
    No REQUIREMENTS OF ATTENDANCE AT A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP

    (1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:

    (a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;

    (b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship.

    (c) the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to any particular faith or denomination.

    (2) The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.

    (3) Where the local education authority is informed that there are insufficient applications to a particular maintained school to till the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.39 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Employment etc. of teachers: religious issues—

    ?(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows.

    (2) Section 58 (Appointment and dismissal of certain teachers at schools with a religious character) shall cease to have effect.

    (3) Section 59 (Staff at community, secular foundation or voluntary, or special school) is amended by leaving out subsection (1) and inserting—
    "(1) This section applies to any maintained school."

    (4) Section 60 (Staff at foundation or voluntary school with a religious character) shall cease to have effect.'.

    New clause 18—No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship (No. 2) —

    (1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:

    (a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;

    (b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;

    (c) the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to a particular faith or denomination.

    (2) The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.

    868

    (3) Where the local education authority is informed that there are sufficient applications to a particular maintained school to fill the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.

    (4) This section shall only have effect in respect of schools established after the coming into force of this Act.'.

    Amendment No. 78, in clause 208, page 125, line 14, after "206", insert—
    section (No requirements of attendance at a place of religious worship (No. 2))'.
    Mr. Dobson: The new clause was tabled in my name and in the names of a large number of hon. Members, including—albeit at the risk of alienating some of my hon. Friends—that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Whatever my differences with the hon. Gentleman on other matters, he has been stalwart in the pursuit of a more inclusive approach by religious organisations and religious schools. I was going to say that he had acted despite his known Christian commitment, but perhaps I should say that he has done so because of it.
    Although I was baptised and confirmed a member of the Church of England, I am a person of no religious belief whatever, but I was brought up by my Anglican mother and my unbeliever father to respect the religious beliefs of everyone.
    The new clause would require all religious schools to admit 25 per cent. of their pupils from families of other faiths or of no faith. That is a measured proposal. New clause 18 would apply that 25 per cent. minimum rule only to new religious schools. It must be recognised that that might be interpreted as discriminating against those religious groups who hope to set up more religious schools—especially the Church of England, with its proposals for 100 extra secondary schools, and people of the Muslim faith and others.
    There may be shortcomings in the drafting of our new clauses such that they would not achieve the intentions of their supporters. Indeed, from my experience, there might even be results that we did not want. However, if there is anything wrong with the drafting, it can easily be corrected in the House of Lords. The Government and their draftsmen are obviously good at making changes on Report, we are dealing with one Government new clause and no fewer than 43 Government amendments. I am sure that we could get some help from them if necessary.
    Our proposition is supported by members of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrat party. Furthermore, if those members of the Tory party who have spoken to me face to face were telling the truth—I assume that they were—we also have support from people in the Conservative party. Certainly many teachers, parents and members of religious groups support our proposals—as do many children.
    Some of those people would question the very basis of a Church-state relationship in which the taxpayer funds religious schools at all. Money taken from taxpayers of all faiths and of none is handed to various groups who knowingly discriminate against certain children and exclude them on the basis of religion. Those circumstances are unusual. People would agree that if we substituted the words "race" or "colour" for the word "religion", such discrimination would be unacceptable.

    869
    However, that is a fundamental debate and this is neither the time nor the place to hold it; even if it is the place, it is certainly not the time.
    Our proposals respond to current circumstances in which substantial changes are likely to be made and in which there will be a considerable extension of the number of religious schools promoted by religious groups and encouraged by the Government.
    The impression has been created that there is something special about religious schools. The White Paper refers to their "distinctive ethos and character". If that ethos and character are indeed distinctive, one would want to promote them only if one believed that they were superior. That impression is sometimes created by those who advocate such schools, and it is resented by teachers, parents and older children in many non-religious institutions.
    3.45 pm
    One does not have to go to a religious school to witness the promotion by dedicated staff of the spiritual, moral, social, and cultural well-being of children. It is frequently provided by staff in non-religious schools—by people with a profound belief in their own religious faiths and by people with none. They manage to provide those things in state schools that have no religious element.
    To justify those remarks I cite Argyle primary school in King's Cross in my constituency, which is one of the most deprived communities in the country. The Ofsted report described that school's contribution to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural well-being of children as "outstanding in all respects". The nearest mixed state secondary school, South Camden community school, which my own children attended, was described as "very good overall" in those respects in the recent Ofsted report—and that is without the benefit of clergy, although the report did not add that.
    The impression is also created that religious schools perform better and get better results. There is no sound evidence for that. If we compare like with like—schools with similar intakes—or if we take differing intakes into account, the performance of schools throughout the country is similar, as has been shown in surveys undertaken not only by liberal and left-wing organisations but by those that are pretty far to the right of the Conservative party. Those surveys show that some religious schools are inclusive and do a brilliant job, some are not inclusive and do a brilliant job, and some are not inclusive and do not do a brilliant job. The same applies, of course, to non-religious schools.
    The problem with religious schools is selection. It is not generally a problem with primary schools. Most of those serve their neighbourhood and are inclusive, whatever their religious nature—very few are selective, and that is how it ought to be. The problem arises with secondary schools. Some religious secondary schools are inclusive, but some are not, and as the law stands all of them can if they wish select children from their religious group only. Inevitably, that means the rejection and exclusion of children from families of other faiths and of no faith. I emphasise the latter as it is important, because more than 40 per cent. of the population of England and
    870
    Wales subscribe to no organised religious belief. They are just as entitled to send their children to the school of their choice as anyone else.
    That selection inevitably divides communities is undeniable. We live in a society where many people are concerned about the loss of social cohesion. They want to avoid division and exclusion and promote inclusion. It is inevitable that separate schools promote division. They divide the sheep from the goats—us from them and them from us. It is part of the function of establishing high morale within the school. It promotes an exclusive sense, suggesting, "We are great people in this school. We are not like that school down the road." That is part and parcel of almost any school or organisation. There is rivalry between schools, which can sometimes lead to abuse or the odd fight or unpleasant behaviour.
    If we add more and more divisions—on the basis of religion, race, or colour—we will see a geometric, not an arithmetic, progression of such problems.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I will not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
    Within the United Kingdom we have had a terrible example of what can happen when most schools in an area are divided on religious grounds the vile scenes that were seen outside the Holy Cross school in Belfast recently. That behaviour, by those who call themselves loyalists and parade themselves as Protestants, would not have occurred if Protestant children, as well as Catholic children, had gone to the Holy Cross school. I am not suggesting that the situation anywhere in England and Wales is as bad that, and I do not want it to be as bad as that in the future, but there are conurbations where divisions will increase if something is not done to make Church and religious schools more inclusive, or to restrain their spread.
    I would be the last person to suggest that social divisions in our cities and conurbations—or in our rural areas, for that matter—are simply the product of the schooling system. That would be absurd. They are clearly to do with housing and employment, but hon. Members on both sides of the House are working to reduce those divisions. The Government have an effective social exclusion unit, which is there to promote integration. If the Government machine is moving in one direction with the policies on housing, jobs, training, and regeneration, it would appear that education is the cuckoo in the nest, moving in the opposite direction.
    It is said that everyone wants schools to be inclusive; indeed the Government's Green Paper says:
    "We will support inclusive faith schools".
    The briefing kindly provided to the parliamentary Labour party says that the Government's
    "hope is that all faith schools should adopt more inclusive admission policies."
    I share the Government's hope, and the Bill is their hope made flesh. The Archbishop of Canterbury, no less, also supports that view. He was reported as saying that Church schools
    "should include some children of other faiths and of no particular faith, as well as…of Christian families."

    871
    I support that and share his view, which is why we are introducing these proposals. We propose a national minimum of 25 per cent.
    Mr. John Burnett: The Church of England briefing that I have seen makes it clear that it does not want such a percentage foisted on it by central diktat.
    Mr. Dobson:Well, I was about to come on to that very point. My next note says, "Objections— central diktat." So I commend the hon. Gentleman on following the impeccable logic of my speech, but the concept of central direction would probably not be recognised as wholly alien to the education policies that have been pursued by the Labour Government, whom I strongly support, since 1997, and I want to assist in that process.
    There is also an objection to quotas, but the Church of England's own document, which set in train its proposals for 100 new schools, says:
    "This could be achieved either through catchment or quota".
    It then adds— I do not like misleading people—
    "as appropriate to local circumstances."
    Once again, I agree. We propose a national minimum. Perhaps, in certain circumstances, that national minimum might not be met, and we try our best in our humble new clause to allow for a derogation from the minimum if it cannot be reached for practical reasons.
    Our proposals would widen parental choice. They would give every parent in every area the opportunity to apply to every school, with the chance of their children getting into every school.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I went to a Catholic primary school and a Catholic secondary school. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question on his 25 per cent. limit. If someone outside a three-mile area decided that their child should go to a Church of England school or a Catholic school that was more than three miles away from that person, although they did not profess the faith of that faith school, would they qualify for free school transport as they currently do?
    Mr. Dobson: It is my understanding that if someone of a particular religious faith wants to send their child to a school of that faith and they live sufficiently far away, they are entitled to free school transport. In fairness— I believe in equality— that would also apply the other way: at least I hope it would.
    The problem with the existence of religious schools is that children get rejected because their parents are not of the appropriate faith. That means that those people are not allowed to exercise their choice— the school does the choosing.
    Ms Claire Ward rose—
    Helen Jones rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).
    Helen Jones: Is not the real problem with my right hon. Friend's new clause— particularly in relation to Catholic
    872
    schools, which are largely socially inclusive because of their wide catchment areas— that it would create a situation in which 25 per cent. of pupils were being accepted into school on grounds other than their faith? That would create a situation in which those schools became more socially exclusive, not less, because the people who would know how to work the system would be the clued-up parents who understood it.
    Mr. Dobson: In those areas in which there are many Roman Catholics, that process already applies even to the Roman Catholics, because the clued-up parents get their children into the Roman Catholic schools that they regard as better than some of the other Roman Catholic schools. The proposition applies to everyone; the new clause would not introduce a novel problem.
    The Church of England is proposing to have an additional 100 new secondary schools. Its report makes it clear that that will not be in response to the increase in the number of children. The majority of the new schools will result from existing community schools being taken over. Let us consider the example of a town or neighbourhood in which there are currently two non-religious community schools. All the parents in that area can choose to send their children to one or other of those schools. If one of them becomes a religious foundation, the religious foundation will start turning some children away, and people who are not of the particular faith may have only one option. They will be able to send their child only to the remaining non-religious school. That will reduce choice.
    Angela Watkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I should make progress.
    A further problem arises from the existence of religious schools and specialist schools. The concept of the specialist religious school is irreconcilable with the concept of parental choice. Let us suppose that a Roman Catholic school becomes a specialist language school, or a Muslim school becomes a specialist mathematics school, or a Church of England school becomes a specialist IT school. Unless people are of the appropriate faith, the new specialist school will not be available to them.
    Caroline Flint: On the issue of specialist schools, McAuley Catholic comprehensive school in my constituency has just been awarded specialist status in performing arts and design. My understanding is that part of what specialist schools do is to offer a specialism to the wider community. Specialist status is about a community of schools working together to make the most of their assets by sharing them more effectively across the board. Is that not different from the old grant-maintained days when the school community was divided? Specialist status is about diversity, but within a community of schools.
    Mr. Dobson: There is something in what my hon. Friend says, but not everything. If someone wants to specialise in whatever is offered by the specialist religious school, the best place to do it is in the school that specialises. The impact on the surrounding area in terms of that specialism is diluted the further away one is from the core school offering such provision.
    4 pm
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend knows that we share a common position on some things. Indeed, I was proud to associate to myself with his intervention regarding Islamophobia when we debated the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. However, I have two concerns about the new clause. First, for Muslims in my constituency, this is the first time they have stood a chance of getting anywhere near parity, and they see the introduction of quotas as discriminatory. Secondly, is it not naive to believe that just because children of different faiths or different colours are in the same school they will integrate? According to the three reports, the problem was the lack of integration in most non-religious state schools in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford.
    Mr. Dobson: I believe in equality between religions. The new clause would apply either to all existing and future religious schools or just to future religious schools. People of the Muslim faith might believe that the latter application discriminates against them, and there may be something in that. However, the suggestion that one religion feels a bit upset about the proposal does not mean that we should desist from implementing it.
    The Government Chief Whip sent a letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, to a number of hon. Members. Sadly, she did not send it to me, although it mentions my new clause. The council opposes my proposal. I think that the Secretary of State will say that the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and other groups oppose it, but we have known that all along. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) has advanced the discussion.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What about the hon. Lady's second point—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Dobson: I am making my speech.
    The next objection is that the new clause might mean that children have to be bussed in. Let us suppose that a non-religious school in a particular locality serves the whole neighbourhood. If it becomes a religious school and uses the current admissions policy, it can reject children who live nearby who are not of the appropriate religious faith. So children living nearby would have to be bussed to schools elsewhere that will admit them and, as they travel out of their neighbourhood, they will pass vehicles coming in the other direction bringing religious children to the school in their area. I do not believe that that is a valid objection.
    Angela Watkinson rose—
    Mr. Dobson: Another objection to the amendment is that it sets aside a long-standing arrangement between Church and state. As the parliamentary Labour party briefing said:
    "The effect of this amendment would be to tear up the historic concordat between the state and church that was the foundation of the 1944 Education Act."
    874
    That concordat was not set in tablets of stone. It must be as susceptible to change as any other part of the 1944 Act and the settlement. The House has passed no fewer than 42 Education Bills since 1944, many of which amended either the 1944 Act or subsequent Acts. We cannot say that that arrangement is sacrosanct and can never be changed.
    Ms Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those Acts were introduced after a consultation process that involved many of the organisations and parties that would be affected by the proposed changes? In the case of the new clause, however, the very organisations that would be most affected and, indeed, the parents who would wish to send their children to faith schools have not been consulted. They have found out about the proposal through the media and have had little opportunity to make representations to their Member of Parliament or to have a view on the proposed change. That is not consultation with the organisations that count.
    Mr. Dobson: I take my hon. Friend back to the start of my speech, when I pointed out that we are not proposing to initiate something but responding to initiatives by others. There has been considerable consultation by the Government and the Church of England. Not all the responses in any way favoured further extension of religious schools.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am sorry to disturb the flow of my right hon. Friend's speech, but I should like to respond to the mention of the historic settlement and the lack of consultation. I am not sure how many Members know that the historic settlement of 1944 set up state sponsorship of faith schools, but based on a 50 per cent. state contribution. Since then, the faith contribution has fallen—and it is now proposed that it be 10 per cent. I do not believe that the general taxpayer has been consulted on that.
    Mr. Dobson: I admire my hon. Friend's logic, because that was the very next point that I was going to make. The 50:50 split between the Churches and the taxpayer was not set in tablets of stone, and it is now proposed that the split be 90:10, which is a very large difference—a huge amount of extra investment. It has quite rightly been part of the Government's rubric that extra money must be matched by reform. I am proposing the reforms to match the extra funding.
    In addition, I do not think that anybody envisaged in 1944 that the Church of England would propose a 25 per cent. increase in the number of its secondary schools, but that is what is being considered. The policy has been entered into without looking at the wider considerations.
    Criticisms of our proposals appear to boil down to two: first, that they are an unwarranted, draconian interference, which would cause huge problems and a major upheaval; and secondly, that they are wholly unnecessary because religious schools are already doing what we propose. One or other of those propositions might be true, but both cannot be, and as it happens, I think that they are both wrong.
    Angela Watkinson: I am exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for finally giving way to me. Does he acknowledge that denominational schools throughout

    875
    the country are highly successful because of the shared ethos between parents, the school and pupils, and that as a result they are heavily over-subscribed and are already rejecting large numbers of applicants from their own faiths? Demand is the reason for their success. Perhaps in the past they have had a higher proportion of non-denominational children, but as their success has increased, so has the number of pupils from their respective faiths. How can he justify rejecting even larger proportions of applicants from the respective faiths?
    Mr. Dobson: The Church of England's proposition is rather like a hydraulic system. It would argue, I think, that it wants 100 extra schools and that those 100 extra schools could take up any displacement that results from the proposals. But in any case, there are plenty of over-subscribed non-religious schools. The situation applies across the board.
    The problem is that although most religious schools try to play the game and be inclusive—as I have said, nearly all primary schools do so and quite a number of secondary schools do so too—the ones that do not bring the whole system into disrepute. The ones that are already inclusive would not be much affected by our proposition, and the others would be brought up to scratch.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I really must get on.
    It is clear that no one has been very good at bringing such schools up to scratch until now. If all the faiths are saying that they want schools to be inclusive and some schools still are not, clearly there is not the machinery in the faith arrangements for them to do what their diocesan boards and the Muslim equivalents would like them to do. All we are proposing is a national minimum; introducing it should be a function of central Government.
    Public opinion is on the side of my proposal. I do not attach much importance to opinion polls; I never have and I never will. However, a recent MORI poll showed a 2:1 majority against expanding faith schools; a 4:1 majority believed that it was right to require them to take in children from other faiths. I have listened to children's views as well. As I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can confirm, the Department for Education and Skills conducted, with Save the Children, a consultation on the proposal. Three quarters of the children who took part in that official consultation, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) was asking, thought that faith schools were not a good idea. One said:
    "If you separate everybody, then pupils can't mix together and then racism can happen more often."
    There were further comments like that.
    I commend my proposals to my right hon. Friend. They have two advantages from a political point of view; they are popular and right, a combination which is not always available to us. My right hon. Friend is a friend, she is honourable, but in this case, I am afraid that she is not right: she is wrong. I urge her to accept our proposal. There may be better ways of introducing of it, and we are happy with that. There should be a minimum of 25 per cent., preferably for all faith schools, not just new ones, which would reduce the divisions in our society.
    876
    I return again to my right hon. Friend's briefing, which says:
    "A more effective way to tackle segregation is to encourage children from different communities to meet and engage with each other."
    The place where children can best do so is school, and we should promote that. Members sometimes ask in the House, "What will people think in future about we are doing today?" I am not usually in a portentous mode, and try to avoid that sort of thing. However, I will adopt that mode now because if we do not work today—not tomorrow, not in 10 years' time—to counter division and exclusion, we may promote a ghastly society with groups at one another's throats; it would be like "A Clockwork Orange", "Blade Runner" and racism all thrown together, which is an awful thought.
    I have now reached an age at which my greatest concern is my grandchildren and the society in which they will grow up. I want them to grow up in a society in which all the groups of our diverse population are at ease with themselves and one another. I want a society with an education system where every child is treasured; where every child learns to value diversity and to respect others; where children can understand the variety of contributions that they all make to our culture and welfare, and understand that they all share in both the potential and the frailty of the human condition. They will learn that best not just by studying the theory, but from day-to-day practical experience with their classmates in their classroom, which is why I have tabled my new clause.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Damian Green: We have just heard a sincere and passionate speech from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, the House knows, holds strong views. But for all his sincerity and passion, he is wrong. He and his Liberal Democrat allies would make education in this country less diverse and worse if they had their way.
    I shall turn to the detail of the new clause in a moment.
    It is worth making the case for faith schools, which have suffered so much unfair denigration as the issue has been debated over the past few months. I should perhaps declare an interest, as I was educated at a Catholic primary school in Wales, in a small town which, as a port, saw a good deal of immigration, had very mixed communities and suffered absolutely no sign of racial or religious tension. I observed from my own experience that being educated at a Catholic school did not cut anyone off from the wider community.
    The right hon. Gentleman made something of the problems in Northern Ireland—the terrible problems surrounding the Holy Cross school. I merely observe that they clearly stem from the wider tensions in Northern Ireland, and that in a normal society, religious schools are a normal part of life.
    Apart from my own experience, my support for Church schools is based on the simple, pragmatic observation that the Church school is very often the good school. For many families, in our inner cities particularly, by far the best chance to obtain a top-class education for their children is the local Church school. The right hon. Gentleman may not have had time to read all of yesterday's report by Ofsted on the latest standards and quality of education, on which the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday.

    877
    The right hon. Gentleman and the House should know that the Church schools whose ethos he seeks to destroy through new clause 1 performed outstandingly well, according to the chief inspector.
    The report lists what it calls particularly successful schools. Of the 210 schools so identified, 82 are Church schools—more than a third. Given that roughly a quarter of schools are Church schools, the right hon. Gentleman will see that they score disproportionately well.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman think, or does the Ofsted report suggest, that the achievement of those schools was due to religion or to admissions policy?
    Mr. Green: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I propose to deal later in my speech with admissions policy and the effects of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and his supporters on it.
    Mr. David Laws: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just told the House, would he withdraw his support from faith schools if new information that showed that their performance was not as good as that of other schools became available? Is that the sole criterion that he brings to the debate?
    Mr. Green: It is not the sole criterion, but it seems reasonable to introduce into the debate the latest evidence. If Ofsted finds that existing Church schools are doing well, it seems a relevant criterion, which the hon. Gentleman may wish to bear in mind while he considers the evidence. I should say that the figures that I gave were for primary schools. For secondary schools, Ofsted identified 90 particularly successful schools, of which 17 are Church schools, so across the board, the Church schools are doing well.
    Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: No. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
    The positive way to deal with the matter is to build on the success of Church schools. The negative way—the way taken by those who tabled the new clauses—is to destroy their ethos. The reason for the existence of many of those schools in our inner cities is closely linked to the history of the Churches in catering for poorer communities and giving them the first leg up the ladder.
    I shall concentrate for a moment on the 1,500 Catholic schools, one of which I attended. It is timely for hon. Members of all parties to remember that they were initially set up to provide an education for a mainly underprivileged class, largely of immigrants, who at the time were suffering racism. One hundred and fifty years after those Catholic schools were set up as a priority, we live in a society where, by and large, Catholics are well educated and play an important and successful role in society. That is a success story emanating from the commitment of the bishops and church congregations of the day, and it is continued now by the Catholic Church and other Churches, which rightly attach such importance to education. We achieved that healthier position by
    878
    providing distinctive education for faith development as well as for other educational needs. That is what other newly arrived groups in our society, including the Muslim community, now seek for themselves.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the success of the Catholic community after immigration and up to the present day, would the hon. Gentleman care to compare the success of the Catholic community in Britain with that of the community in France, or even the United States, which is perhaps a better example? Both countries ensure that there is a division between state and religion. They have no state-sponsored religious schools, but that hinders neither the Catholic population nor, apparently, any other people.
    Mr. Green: First, the Bill applies to this country, so although the hon. Gentleman raises a fascinating subject, it is not germane to the new clause. Secondly, France was an explicitly Catholic country and became explicitly republican, so it is bizarre to attempt to compare the state of religion there with that of religion in the United Kingdom, as the circumstances are completely different. Of course, the United States was founded as an explicitly secular society in which Catholics form a small minority. Thus, I do not regard the example as especially relevant, even though I am tempted to do so.
    It is relevant, however, to draw an analogy in respect of communities that came here in previous centuries and have, through education, come to play a constructive role in the mainstream of society, and deal with the debate to which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) referred: the perceived problems of Muslim communities and schools in this country. I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House who hold strong views about Muslim schools to visit one. I remind them that there are very few maintained Muslim schools in this country; I think that there are four.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: My constituency has one or two schools that are largely Muslim but not Muslim in character. I am worried that, if we start to establish more Muslim schools, they will almost certainly be girls' schools. That is certainly the case in the Bradford area. We will almost certainly not have any boys' schools, because that is the way things are going. I feel that a school should be a microcosm of society and that we are going to fail the children in that respect.
    Mr. Green: It is not obvious to me that every school should be a microcosm of the whole of society, as that way lies a complete absence of the diversity that I suspect all hon. Members want in our education system. However, I agree that all schools should transmit the values and ethos of our society. They should pass on those values, including tolerance, respect for diversity and knowledge of our history. That should be—and is—the responsibility of schools, whether they are secular or religious in character. I suspect that the proposition that that should be the basis of education policy will be widely agreed across the Floor of the House.
    Let me return to the subject of existing Muslim schools. I recently visited such a school in London. If hon. Members visit it, they will see well-behaved and well-educated children learning the national curriculum with the same textbooks as in any other school. They will see a school that produces rounded children who leave the

    879
    school gates every day and live in the same world as everyone else in that part of north London. The school itself makes the point that 23 different nationalities are represented among the children's families and that its aim is to produce Muslim children who are British. Those of us who went to schools that produce Catholic or Jewish children who are British should recognise that that is an honourable aim.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman will have read the Cantle report. How will additional faith schools promote inclusion and bind communities together when, in respect of northern cities such as Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, we are told by Cantle, Lord Ouseley and all the other people who have considered them that there is a growth of parallel communities that are distinguished on the grounds of race and religion? Should we not address that issue?
    Mr. Green: Any good school prepares its pupils for life.
    Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: I suspect that I know what the hon. Lady will say. I want her to say it because I believe that she will mention her constituency experience, so I shall give way shortly.
    Any good school that prepares its pupils for life will enable them to integrate and be successful members of society. People who feel excluded from wider society because they believe that the education system has failed them are often alienated and fall into divisive ways. I suspect that hon. Members are not divided about the matter. Religious schools do not promote division; if they are good schools, their pupils will successfully integrate into society.
    Mrs. Fitzsimons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the three areas about which reports were produced, the minority of schools are religious? The problem is lack of integration in the state sector, in comprehensive schools where the pupils are 100 per cent. of one denomination, or in those that have a mixture of pupils who do not integrate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is more integration in some of our Catholic schools because they take more immigrants, especially asylum seekers from Africa who are Catholics? There is therefore a better balance of race in some of our Catholic schools.
    Mr. Green: I agree with the hon. Lady, who makes the case eloquently and on the basis of experience. However, some reports talk glibly about problems in northern cities and claim that they are due to Muslim schools. Most of the places where the terrible riots happened do not have maintained Muslim schools. It is therefore wrong to suggest that there is a link; it is a bad argument for those who support the new clause to use.
    Simon Hughes: As someone who was educated in faith-based schools and chairs the governing body of such a school, I know that the hon. Gentleman's argument about ethos is fundamentally flawed. Some Church schools have 100 per cent. Church admission; others admit 25 per cent. or more pupils who are not Church members. Schools with 25 per cent. of pupils
    880
    who are not Christian are no less Church of England or Roman Catholic than schools with 100 per cent. Church admission. The argument that the modest proposal of giving a quarter of places to pupils of another denomination or faith would undermine a school's ethos has no basis in fact. It is an insult to the many faith-based schools that already do that, with no detriment to their ethos.
    Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about admissions, with which I shall deal shortly. However, I want to finish my comments on Muslim schools.
    Like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, I received a letter from the Muslim Council of Britain. Mine came direct rather than through the Government Chief Whip. Its contents are interesting. It states:
    "The Muslim community agrees that both existing and new faith schools must be inclusive whilst contributing their unique character and ethos to the state system. We also agree with the principle that faith schools should be established where there is support from local communities …
    The Muslim Council of Britain believes it is right that faith schools deliver an inclusive national curriculum and work in close partnership 'with other maintained schools to build greater understanding between different religious communities."
    That is not an easy task, but it is heartening and sensible that the Muslim Council of Britain has set itself that aim. It should be the goal of every school, religious or secular.
    This country has a rigorous inspection regime because all of us, as part of wider society, have the right to know what goes on inside every school. If there is evidence that schools are falling below an acceptable standard, whether in general education or through anything to do with their religious background, remedial measures should be swift and effective.
    We value diversity in education. Conservative Members believe that parents know better than politicians what is good for their children. That is a fundamental divide between most Conservative Members and Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. They believe that they know best; we believe that parents know best.
    4.30 pm
    Lynne Jones: I speak as the parent of a child who attends a school with an intake of approximately 90 per cent. Muslim children. If that school became a Muslim school and did not show a willingness to take non-Muslims, my child would be prevented from attending it. That is already the case with the nearest school to where we live; it is a Catholic school, which my child is excluded from attending. How is the new clause going to prevent schools from becoming as inclusive as the Muslim Council and other faith-based organisations say that they want them to be? Why should schools exclude children such as mine?
    Mr. Green: Let me move on to admissions, which hon. Members who are in favour of the new clause go on about. I admired the way in which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras presented this as a modest proposal. He was no doubt hoping that most people would not have read new clauses 1 or 18. We should be clear what new clause 1 would do. It would not simply affect new Church schools but violently change the ethos of more than 6,000 mainly successful schools that are already operating. The coalition that signed up to this

    881
    proposal wants to take the power to tell thousands of schools how they should run their admissions policy, and thinks that it has the right to tell those successful schools to tear up policies that have worked for many years. That is arrogance of the worst kind.
    I refer hon. Members to the details of new clause 1. Even in its own terms, it is peculiar. Subsection (1) sets out what I assume to be the right hon. Gentleman's ideal case: a 0 per cent. target for religious admissions. Subsection (2) amends that target to between 20 and 75 per cent.—both completely arbitrary figures, so far as I can see. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would explain why he had chosen those two numbers, but he failed to do so. Subsection (3) throws in the towel altogether and states that a school can have 100 per cent. religious admissions, but only if it cannot fill its places.
    Let us be clear about the effect of new clause 1. All those who ask how this would affect admissions should consider this. If a school is unpopular, it can become faith-based. If a school is popular, perhaps because it is faith-based, it will have to have the very reason for its popularity taken away. Frankly, I fail to see how that would improve education. In fact, I suspect that unpopular schools—perhaps those whose rolls are falling because the population in the area is falling—would be the most vulnerable to what the supporters of the new clause are most worried about: being taken over by a religious sect that would try to do something with them of which those hon. Members would disapprove. But those are precisely the schools that the new clause would make most likely to go that way. Even in its own terms, the new clause is therefore defective. If I were against Church schools, I would think that this was a peculiar way to proceed.
    Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the popular schools are over-subscribed because of the quality of the religion or because of their results? Will he tell us how many schools he thinks there are in the country that perform poorly but are over-subscribed entirely because of their religion?
    Mr. Green: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not profess to know why millions of parents around the country choose the schools that they do. More to the point, nor do I seek to dictate their choice. That is the fundamental difference between us. Neither I nor the Secretary of State nor anyone else in the House has the wisdom to dictate to parents what type of school they should send their children to. Sadly, the supporters of the new clause think that they have that wisdom; I think that they are wrong.
    Glenda Jackson rose—
    Mr. Dobson rose—
    Mr. Green: I shall give way to the hon. Lady first.
    Glenda Jackson: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to dictate to parents where they can send their children to school. He is arguing that if a child lived next door to a Catholic, Church of England or Muslim school, but did not practise any of those religions—indeed,
    882
    they might be an agnostic or an atheist—that child should be denied access to such a school. He is, in effect, dictating to parents.
    Mr. Green indicated dissent.
    Glenda Jackson: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is exactly what he is doing.
    Mr. Green: That is precisely not what I am doing. If I were tabling a new clause that stated that every faith-based school had to take 100 per cent. of its children from its own particular faith, the hon. Lady would have a good point. As it is, I am not suggesting anything of the kind. It is she and those on her side in this debate who are trying to dictate to parents. I am saying that parents should have choice and that schools should have choice.
    The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says that Church of England schools and schools of all faiths wish to choose that option, but I say that he should not be allowed to dictate to them. He said that a passage in his speech dealt with central diktats, but he did not deal with them. Of course he is trying to put forward central diktats. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) and her hon. Friends are trying to dictate to parents, not those of us on this side of the argument.
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Catholic hierarchy in this country advises its schools that up to 10 per cent. of their intake should consist of children of other faiths or no faith at all?
    Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman is right, and his point shoots a hole in the argument made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate.
    Glenda Jackson: I was arguing not about the Catholic hierarchy, but with the hon. Gentleman's argument that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was attempting to dictate to parents. My point, which I proved, is that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to dictate to parents by denying children who live close to a faith-based school but do not practise its religion access to it.
    Mr. Green: Let me make the point simply for the hon. Lady. If, as the Catholic hierarchy says, 10 per cent. of the children should come from outside that faith, a child who lives next door to such a school has the chance to attend it. I am not seeking to dictate the ethos of such a school, but the hon. Lady is.
    In essence, new clause 18, which is a soft-cop option, says, "We oppose this on principle, but we will start by standing still." Anyone who believes that there would be no further attempts to damage existing Church schools if new clause 18 were accepted is deluding himself. That would be only the first step—
    Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: No, I have given way enough.
    Such a first step would prove seriously unpopular with recently arrived groups, which would observe that not all religions were treated fairly in this country. Rather than

    883
    easing tensions between such groups, it would make them worse. There is a very dangerous intent behind new clause 18.
    Ms Ward rose—
    Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
    Mr. Green: I have given way enough and other hon. Members want to speak.
    The worst argument for these changes was advanced by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, although the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate also believes in it strongly. The right hon. Gentleman said that parents do not choose such schools, but that the schools, because they are so popular, choose the parents. Let us unpick that argument and see what it means.
    There are a certain number of places in such schools, but parents want more, so there are more applications than places. Some of us say that, if there are more applicants than places, perhaps there should be more places to meet the demand. That is a basic democratic demand. Others, such as the right hon. Gentleman, say, "No, selection is so evil that we must eliminate all the places in such schools, so that no one is happy." That is old-fashioned equality of misery—[Interruption.] I am delighted to discover, from the noises to my left, that the Liberal Democrats have finally turned into the Labour party circa 1975.
    My final message is to the Secretary of State, who will know that The Prime Minister: is firmly against the new clause. I take this rare opportunity to agree with The Prime Minister, and I hope and expect that the Secretary of State will have the courage of The Prime Minister's convictions. The new clauses would not improve the education of a single child. On the contrary, they would put at risk the good work done day after day in thousands of schools that serve more than 1 million children. The new clauses are ill-conceived and could be hugely damaging. I hope that the Government and the House reject them.
    Paul Goggins: I begin by honouring the integrity and solid values of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It will soon become clear to the House that he and I fundamentally disagree on this issue, but, however we divide on it, I remain united with him in the aspiration to avoid at all costs the spectre of a society fundamentally divided. His is an honest and honourable view that is evidently shared by at least a sizeable minority of Members of Parliament, who question the role played by faith-based and denominational schools in our society. Some, indeed, would argue that such schools should have no place whatever in our society. That is not my view, but I acknowledge that it is the view of some. I suspect that it is not always a view that they have tested thoroughly with their electorates, although again I except my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who I am sure is always forthright with his electorate on such issues.
    I respect Members' right to hold that opinion and to argue for it. I hope that they, in turn, will accept that any proposal to alter the position of faith schools fundamentally should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) has said, be considered seriously in
    884
    Parliament only when that proposal has been made widely known, and after the fullest possible consultation. It should not, surely, be contained in a new clause tabled a mere 10 days before Report, which effectively tears up a 60-year agreement between Churches and state that has been honoured by all Governments and is, I believe—irrespective of the MORI poll—still widely supported by the people.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: When my hon. Friend speaks of a minority who may support my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he may be under a misapprehension. Does he not realise that a Whip is being exercised by the two largest parties, preventing any true expression of the genuine view of the majority?
    Paul Goggins: I hear what my hon. Friend says—
    Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Paul Goggins: I would rather answer my hon. Friend first.
    I know how many Members have supported the new clause, and I believe them to constitute a minority, albeit a sizeable one.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: My hon. Friend said that any significant change should happen only after proper consultation. Does he agree that it would be wrong to talk of greatly increasing the number of religiously segregated schools without such consultation?
    Paul Goggins: I note what my hon. Friend says, but the Bill does not include that proposal.
    I am pleased that many faith schools, especially in our main urban centres, contain a wide social and ethnic mix of pupils. An average of 20 per cent. of pupils in Roman Catholic schools throughout the country are not Roman Catholic. I believe, nevertheless, that it would be a huge mistake to enshrine in law a fixed quota for all faith and denominational schools. In practice, it would mean Jewish children being turned away from Jewish schools, Catholic children being turned away from Catholic schools, and Church of England children being turned away from Church of England schools.
    I also believe that the new clause would place a huge bureaucratic burden on local authorities and schools that would have to work out the new procedures. That would detract from the important task of putting as many resources as possible into raising standards in all schools.
    Ms Ward: I remind my hon. Friend that we have consulted on increasing the number of faith schools. The issue was contained in the manifesto on which every Labour Member stood in 2001.
    Paul Goggins: That is certainly an important point.
    Mr. Chaytor: The new clause does not in any way contravene the content of the manifesto. It does not deny the possibility of increasing the number of faith schools; it simply proposes a change in the admissions policy of all faith schools.
    Paul Goggins: I agree. The fact remains that the new clause could in practice deny parents the right to send

    885
    their children to the school of their choice because of the 75 per cent. maximum quota. That would utterly change the relationship between Church and state in regard to education. That point of principle has not been put to the British people. It should be put properly and consulted on properly before any decision is taken in Parliament.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Chaytor: My hon. Friend's answer did not relate to my intervention. I said that the manifesto on which we fought the election allowed for an increase in the number of faith schools and that nothing in new clause 1 prevents an increase in their number.
    Paul Goggins: I will try to say briefly exactly what I said before. We did not put in the manifesto, and we have not consulted on, a proposal to introduce a fundamental change in the relationship between Church and state, which new clause 1 would bring about. That would need to be consulted on fully and it has not been.
    It is important to point out that the Bill does not contain any powers to compel faith communities to establish new faith or denominational schools, which would be wrong and impractical. Having said that, I applaud the Government for their action to ensure a level playing between minority faith communities and the other faith communities that I have mentioned, such as the Catholic, Jewish and Church of England communities, which have a long-established tradition of running their own schools. Many minority faith communities already run their own schools in the independent sector. It would be far better if they were in the maintained sector, where they would be required to follow the national curriculum, employ properly qualified teachers and be rigorous in relation to standards of teaching and results.
    In the main, parents and children choose faith schools for two reasons. The first is that they wish to ensure that the faith and values that are supported at home are reflected in the teaching, organisation and ethos of the school. That long-standing and legitimate choice would be undermined by the new clause. The second reason, which has been touched on by several hon. Members, is that on the whole faith schools perform well in terms of standards and examination results.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: Can my hon. Friend point to an analytical scientific study that demonstrates with ample evidence that faith schools achieve better results than other schools?
    Paul Goggins: I am happy to give my hon. Friend evidence of that. There is a separate question: why do faith schools perform better in terms of standards and examination results? I do not make any simplistic assertion. The reasons why faith schools perform better are extremely complex, but the Ofsted report is clear. Last year, the number of pupils who achieved five or more A to C grades at GCSE in Church schools was 7.5 per cent. higher than in schools across the piece. That is the factual evidence that I bring to my hon. Friend's attention.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Paul Goggins: May I continue?
    886
    At key stage 2, results in maths and English were on average 7 per cent. better in Church schools than in other schools. That is clear factual evidence. There are several complex reasons as to why that is the case. I believe that it is explained partly by ethos: parents' values and the school's values complement each other. None the less the facts speak for themselves.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Paul Goggins: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford).
    Clive Efford: Is my hon. Friend saying that at the faith schools whose results he has cited, entrance is fully comprehensive and absolutely no selection takes place?
    Paul Goggins: I admit freely that this is a much more complex issue than—[Interruption.] I am saying that I fully agree that the reasons why faith schools perform better are complex; one cannot say just that it is because they are faith schools. None the less, the facts speak for themselves: faith schools' results are more impressive than the average.
    Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?
    Paul Goggins: No. We have a relatively short time for debate and I am sure that many hon. Members are waiting to speak.
    People choose faith schools because they complement their own faith and values and because they tend to do rather well. I acknowledge that it is unacceptable for parents who simply want to access a higher quality of education to claim falsely that they adhere to a faith or denomination.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
    Paul Goggins: No.
    It is understandable when parents do that, but not acceptable. That is why the Government's drive to ensure that high-quality education is available in all schools is so important, so that in academic terms all parents can be happy to send their children to any school. That aspiration can unite all Labour Members, and that—rather than removing the traditional right to attend faith-based schools—is the answer to the abuse of the system.
    Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the infinitely higher standards at faith-based schools. Is he really arguing that the boards of governors of faith-based schools would deny the opportunity of that quality of education to 20 per cent. of their intake because they did not share that faith? I have to be honest: that strikes me as a somewhat irreligious approach to our children.
    Paul Goggins: I made the point clearly that, on average, in Roman Catholic schools, for example, 20 per cent. of the children attending are not Catholics. In practice, many religious schools are far more inclusive than some hon. Members have suggested today.
    Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Paul Goggins: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I want to continue with my next point.

    887
    One argument for quotas that is urged by supporters of the new clause is that quotas would lead to greater inclusion and integration in places such as Oldham and Bradford. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said that. I acknowledge that we need policies to promote inclusion in all our towns and cities, but desirable—indeed, crucial—as those aims are, they would not be delivered by a restriction on school admissions. In practice, it would be a recipe for disaster. Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, I believe that it would mean bussing children in and out of communities, which would do absolutely nothing for social cohesion.
    All faith schools—all schools—should demonstrate a practical commitment to inclusion, but that should be done by local agreement, not central determination and diktat. I welcome the fact that the Government are to issue new guidelines to school organisation committees to promote greater inclusion.
    A further argument urged by supporters of the new clause is that faith promotes bigotry. They pray in aid, of course, the example of Holy Cross school in Belfast. Along with all Members of the House, I am sure, I condemn the bigots, but it is disingenuous to say that, because of such episodes, all faith schools promote bigotry and should have their position undermined. I do not accept that faith is the enemy of inclusion. Indeed, in my experience some of the best faith schools are outward rather than inward looking, and help their pupils to engage with and understand the wider world around them.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very often when faith schools can show how religious teaching promotes tolerance, which the scriptures of all the great faiths do, that they can help to challenge the intolerance that people sometimes associate with their faith, because of associated sects and so on? We have seen that in the Muslim and other communities.
    Paul Goggins: I believe that to be entirely correct. The challenging of intolerance is not necessarily confined to faith-based schools, but it is something that such schools can do.
    Valerie Davey: I taught religious education in a state school, and I know that one can teach inclusion. However, it is difficult for young people to believe in inclusion when it is taught in a school that is exclusive.
    Paul Goggins: I hope it is apparent from my remarks that I do not believe that schools should be exclusive in that way. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may scoff, but I am arguing strongly for schools to be inclusive. However, I also argue that a school's admissions policy and the way in which it organises inclusiveness should be left to that school. Such matters should not be determined in this Chamber, by this House of Parliament, with the results handed down to all schools in all circumstances.
    Geraint Davies: On that point, would my hon. Friend prefer the new generation of faith schools to be voluntary controlled rather than voluntary aided?
    Paul Goggins: I apologise, but I missed the first part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Geraint Davies: We are about to have a new generation of faith schools. Voluntary controlled faith
    888
    schools have a more open admissions policy, and are supported by the Anglican Church. Would my hon. Friend prefer them to voluntary aided schools, 100 per cent. of whose pupils are of one faith?
    Paul Goggins: I want plans and policies to be worked out locally to suit the circumstances of local communities. Faith communities and secular authorities should be involved in the discussions about developing schools and frameworks for education that reflect the needs and aspirations of local communities. We cannot produce such schools by laying down frameworks and quotas in legislation, as that approach would mean that there was no flexibility at local level.
    I am determined to finish with no more interventions, and I shall only take a few seconds. I repeat: all schools should, of course, be required to demonstrate a clear commitment to inclusion. However, that cannot be achieved by introducing a quota on admissions that effectively would deny many parents what is a legitimate choice for their children—an education in a faith-based or denominational school.
    Mr. Phil Willis: First, I am delighted that we are having this debate. The quality of some of the contributions so far has demonstrated the need for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for taking up the new clause, and for the measured way in which he introduced the arguments in favour of it.
    There are divisions among hon. Members of all parties on this matter, which people approach from different points of view. However, whenever a difficult matter arises in the House, specious arguments are raised to destroy what should be the basis for a good debate. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) did himself and his party a disservice by arguing that what is a very small amendment to admissions policy would destroy Church schools.
    The counter argument was also made—that many schools have children who are from other faiths or who have no faith at all. Although the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Muslim Council of Britain have said that they want the proportion of such children in each school to be between 10 and 15 per cent., it has been claimed that diluting the purity of faith schools will cause them to be destroyed suddenly. I do not believe that those two arguments can go together in a sensible way.
    5 pm
    The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned that my personal beliefs were different from his. From that perspective, may I point out that no faith worth its salt could hold that to bring in children from other faiths, or none, would so challenge that faith that it would be destroyed? Any faith that held such a view is not worthy of the title.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentlemen will let me finish my point, they can express their excitement.

    889
    We are coming to the heart of the argument. The Churches may be extremely concerned—although I do not believe that they are—that, by including in their schools children of different faiths or of no faith, their whole mission would be destroyed. However, the state should not be wholly funding schools to support a Church's mission. A Church's mission is for the Church itself—it should not be the objective of state funding in our schools.
    Mr. Turner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way to me earlier as his last few words have revealed the true purpose of the Liberal Democrat/old Labour proposal. Would not the amendment give the local education authority the power to say that a school may not admit more than 25 per cent. Catholic pupils, or 25 per cent. Anglicans, or 25 per cent. Muslims? It is not about admitting only 25 per cent. of pupils from other faiths, but as many as 75 per cent.— at the behest of the local council.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman always looks at the black side of any proposal. I realise, of course, that at the end of the debate I shall have to be thrown to the lions to be devoured.
    If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause carefully, he will see that it provides for the policy to be agreed locally. The admission forum would have to agree it locally. Indeed, the word "may" appears in the new clause; it is not a directive in that sense. The school's admission forum may decide that the policy is not appropriate in certain circumstances. We cannot be fairer than that.
    Mr. Goodman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: I shall give way in a moment, as the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to intervene before I had said three words.
    Another argument advanced by both the hon. Member for Ashford and the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) is that Church schools are successful because they are Church schools. I fundamentally disagree.
    Let us deal with schools that are successful—although I do not actually know what that means. If we define success only by the number of students who achieve five GCSEs at grades A to C or who pass A-levels, I challenge that definition. However, let us use that as one definition of a successful school. It is appalling for any Member of Parliament to claim that such schools are successful, without considering their make-up and without comparing them with schools that the hon. Member for Ashford would consider unsuccessful.
    If hon. Members take the trouble to examine the Civitas study and to compare the make-up of schools—their catchment area, the number of pupils taking free school meals and the special educational needs factor—they could make a realistic assessment of the results achieved in different types of school. We must not think that simply because a school is Church of England, Jewish or Muslim
    890
    it has a divine right to success. That is not the case. Schools are successful because they have good leadership, good teachers and supportive parents.
    Mr. Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman wants to change that.
    Mr. Willis: No, with respect, I want all children to be able to have access to excellence if it is available. I do not want it to be kept for a certain group of children who happen to have passed a faith test before they go to school. Most of the Church schools that I visit do not want to be exclusive—they want to broaden their boundaries.
    Mr. Goodman: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) right to say that under this clause a local authority could tell a Catholic school that only 21 per cent. of its pupils should be Catholic? Effectively, the clause could destroy the character of a large number of the faith schools that already exist. If that is the aim of those who tabled the clause, should they not be honest enough to admit it to the House?
    Mr. Willis: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House know me reasonably well by now—well enough to realise that if that was what I meant, it is exactly what I would say. That is not the intention and it is not my point of view. On admission forums, it was the previous Government who took away the right of local authorities to determine their admissions policies. Those arrangements are still in place and there has to be an agreement about distribution.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Willis: I wish to make some progress. In an hour's time, I will take more interventions.
    The amendment is not an attack on Church schools. If it is portrayed—[Interruption.] With respect—
    Paul Goggins: I will not take long, as I have spoken for long enough, as I am sure many hon. Members would agree. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be directing a number of his comments at me so I think that I ought to have a right to reply. He seemed to be reinterpreting some of my remarks to the point of making them a complete travesty.
    First, many Church schools serve disadvantaged communities—fact. Secondly, faith schools gain better examination results—fact. I said that the reasons were complex, but those are the facts.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record and we will leave it at that.
    Mr. Chaytor: rose—
    Mr. Willis: I will not give way as I wish to make some progress now.
    As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made clear, this clause is not an attack on Church schools. There are hon. Members who would frankly like such schools to go altogether. They have that point of view and they support the secular society. I do not and that is not Liberal Democrat party policy. I must make that clear.

    891
    I recognise the enormous strengths of many Church schools. I have two superb Church schools in my constituency and they practise what I am trying to preach in that their entries are inclusive—they encourage children from other faiths—they have the largest ecumenical sixth form in the United Kingdom and they do tremendous work outside the UK in other areas, in particular, in Northern Ireland. I recognise the great strengths of our Church schools.
    What I find unacceptable is that while the majority of Church schools deliberately choose to have inclusive admissions policies—in a Church of England primary school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) 95 per cent. of the pupils are from Muslim backgrounds—a small number of them will not move from the position that they want an exclusive enclave unless legislation encourages them to do so. I think that that answers the hon. Member for Ashford. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the mission of those schools is so special that they cannot allow anyone to dilute it, I challenge his argument.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am glad that we have now got to the heart of the issue. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the new clause, which would radically alter the character of 6,000 schools, is intended to deal with a small minority. Is it not up to him to prove why the disproportionate change that he and his hon. Friends are proposing should be accepted? If the measure is aimed at only a small minority of schools, it is wholly disproportionate and dangerous and it puts at risk excellence of education in many schools, in particular in our inner cities.
    Mr. Willis: I had thought that a highly intelligent member of the Conservative party was leading on education, but that argument is ridiculous nonsense. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways; he cannot say that a significant number of schools have open admissions policies and encourage children of other faiths and of no faith and that the proposal will destroy 6,000 schools. Let us remember that the Bill applies only to secondary schools; it will not affect any primary school at all. Again, most hon. Members would recognise that our school system has been built on filling in the gaps since 1870, especially in primary education.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: No, I will not give way for a second time because the hon. Gentleman was not nice last time. [Interruption.] The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Ashford is not worth serious consideration.
    Simon Hughes: I am always nice. Does my hon. Friend accept that his proposal is not only seen as modest by many people, including many in Church schools and the families of those who attend them, but is hugely welcome in communities such as mine, which have mixed-faith backgrounds and where some of the best schools already admit a percentage of pupils who are not from the same faith? The proposal would deal with the terrible system whereby many people suddenly find a faith and start going to church, resurrecting a faith that they have not practised for years, to get their children into a school, and
    892
    once their children are in, they are never seen in church again. There is a hypocrisy about the current system, which the proposal would begin to get rid of, and an honesty about the proposal, which would be hugely welcomed in most urban communities in England.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that comment, which stands on its own. There is clearly a contradiction in that only 10 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom go to any church at all, yet suddenly there is an overwhelming demand for faith schools. Somehow, those two things do not balance.
    Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: No. I want to make progress.
    The purpose of new clause 1 is very simple. It is intended to deal with admissions policies and the principle of inclusion. The White Paper clearly stated that the intention was to increase the number of faith schools and that, in fact, they should be inclusive in character. I gave evidence to Lord Dearing's commission, and Lord Dearing's report made it clear that the Church of England wanted another 100 schools, but it wanted them to be inclusive.
    The Archbishop of Canterbury, who was quoted by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made it absolutely clear in an interview that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement two and a half weeks ago that he wanted to see Church of England schools that were not 100 per cent. Church of England. That was a positive statement. The Muslim Educational Trust has gone on record as saying that it wants any new school to be inclusive. There is a recognition that inclusion should be at the heart of any expansion of our system.
    Although the right hon. Gentleman did not quote the public opinion polls, it is clear from polls published in The Observer and The Times Educational Supplement and by MORI that the result of every poll is against what the Government are trying to do. I am not against what they are trying to do, per se, but I am trying to moderate it, so that we can ensure that schools are inclusive in their operation.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on the word "moderate"?
    Mr. Willis: No, I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak and I do not want to take up too much time.
    Mention has been made of Northern Ireland, Oldham, Burnley and Bradford. It is important to address the issues involved rather than sweep them under the carpet. The hon. Member for Ashford is absolutely right. There were no Muslim schools in Bradford. However, the Ouseley report and the Cantle report draw the damning conclusion that children are already educated in segregated communities. Do we want to gold-plate that by making schools single faith as well? If that is the hon. Gentleman's vision—to make sure that children are kept in their place in their communities—it presents a frightening prospect for the future.

    893
    5.15 pm
    The overwhelming conclusion of children in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley was that they did not want to be educated in single-faith schools. They wanted to be educated as part of a broader community. We must respect those wishes, too.
    Mr. Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is making a travesty of my remarks. To say that I want to impose a single-faith school on anyone is ludicrous. Those of us who are opposed to the new clause are saying that parents should choose. Therefore, if parents do not want single-faith schools, they will not have them. The hon. Gentleman has just admitted that the riots in the northern cities were not caused by single-faith schools, so to pray such events in aid of his argument is absurd.
    Mr. Willis: At times, I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen to my arguments. The Cantle report and the Ouseley report draw the damning conclusions that the way in which children are currently segregated in schools does not provide them with a basis for living in a multicultural society, or with an understanding of each other's cultures and faiths. Although, in my constituency, that does not matter too much, because the Catholic school and the Church of England school work together, have a joint sixth form and are virtually all-white, it matters enormously in Bradford and Oldham, where there are hugely depressed communities.
    Before the hon. Gentleman yawns again, may I point out to him that yesterday's Ofsted report contains the damning finding that, although people from ethnic minorities have lived in this country for generations, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean youngsters are performing worse than anyone else. Are we saying that we want to bung most of them into schools that are out of the way, and that that will improve things? I do not believe that at all.
    Dr. Kumar: Does not the Ouseley report also reveal that the ethnic loyalties that are built up are cemented by segregation at a primary school level, and, subsequently, at secondary level? We must stop that at that level, otherwise the problem will only escalate further.
    Mr. Willis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the real challenges for education authorities in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford is to take up that challenge in their education systems. I honestly believe that the new clause would go some small way towards recognising that everybody should consider the way in which schooling is organised and admissions policies work, so that we try to encourage a greater mix. Alternatively, as the hon. Member for Ashford wants, the good schools in the good areas will continue to ban children.
    That is exactly what happens in Oldham, where Muslim children cannot currently get into the two Church of England schools. I congratulate one of those schools, which last week changed its admissions policy and said that it would deliberately take 15 per cent. of its pupils from non-Church of England backgrounds. That would not have happened without this debate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may howl but, in reality, unless we are prepared to confront these issues and have these debates, nothing will change. That is why we are here.
    894
    New clause 18 offers an alternative. We intend to divide the House on new clause 1 and new clause 18, which would apply to faith schools that are created after the Bill is enacted. As for that being unfair to Muslim communities, the Church of England wants to create another 100 schools. The Sikh faith also wants new schools and there is a move by the Jewish community to have more Jewish schools. All of those would need to have an admissions policy that provided for a mixed intake. That would be a good thing. I will be happy if new clause 18 at least is accepted and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will call my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to talk to new clause 2.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): I join the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the way in which he introduced the debate. On the whole, the tone has been constructive and positive. To a large extent, the debate is welcome. The subject is raised outside the House and it is right that we debate it here. I have no objection to that, although I shall set out why it does not have much to do with the Bill.
    I accept that there are things on which the House is united: a deep concern for tolerance and for more cohesive communities; a wish not to see a repeat of the events that occurred in many northern cities last summer; and a deep concern about the nature of the world after 11 September. We also share an awareness that, as we are enriched by rightly becoming a more multiracial and multicultural society, it is more difficult and challenging to teach and encourage tolerance. That is our starting point. I accept that as a given for every hon. Member.
    I also accept as a given the fact that most parties are split on the subject, and some may be more divided than others. The divisions are born not out of an adherence to a political party, but out of long-held views that were not taken into account when hon. Members chose which political party to join. Although the debate is to do with politics, I accept and respect the fact that Labour Members can have legitimate views about the role of the Church and of faith and Church schools and still be honourable members of the party who have every right to stand for election on a Labour party manifesto.
    Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Estelle Morris: Yes, but I want to make it clear that I will resist giving way after every other sentence, which has been the nature of the debate so far.
    Simon Hughes: In view of the conciliatory tone of the Secretary of State's remarks, will she also accept that there are different views within the hierarchies of faith communities and the faith communities themselves? Bishops of the Church of England take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and others. Some people, certainly in the Roman Catholic Church and of the Muslim faith, take the view endorsed by the Government.

    895
    There are no fixed, certain positions on this. However, the younger generation is overwhelmingly against division by faith. Young people reject it whatever the—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Interventions must be brief.
    Estelle Morris: Any organisation would be strange if it did not have a range of views, but I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman. The Roman Catholic Church and parts of the Jewish and Muslim faiths think that they keep the faith base in their schools because most of the people who attend them practise that faith. That is not true of the Church of England. Its admissions are far more inclusive. It believes that its faith value base can offer a good education for children of different faiths. I respect those views.
    However, like my hon. and good Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), I am not going to base my arguments against the new clauses on the contention that faith schools are inherently better. My arguments stand whether or not faith schools are at the top of the performance tables. I am not busying myself counting the number of Church of England schools that featured in yesterday's Ofsted list of outstanding schools. I am not arguing against the amendments because faith schools have a higher academic standard. If they do so now, that may change in future, and they may not always have had such standards in the past.
    The danger in using such an argument is that one unwittingly gives the impression that unless a school is a faith school, it cannot be a good school. Not a Member of this House feels that; no one feels that. Good schools are good schools whether they are faith schools or not. One way that I approach my job is to celebrate success wherever it occurs, and I never assume that success comes in any one shape, form, colour or creed.
    I have always felt that the strength of faith schools for those who have a faith is a shared value base—a sense of purpose, mission and being. That needs to underpin any good school. Interestingly, I first experienced that not when I was a teacher in an inner-city, multiracial, non-faith school, but when I started visiting faith schools in my constituency as a much younger Member of Parliament from 1992. Faith schools find it easier to articulate such commonality.
    I am not saying that any school that is not a faith school cannot have common values. Many non-faith schools strive for such values and find them. However, in a Roman Catholic school, there is a natural link between school and Church and home and community, which all of us who are interested in education know is the very foundation of the educational partnership that is good for children. Again, I am not saying that that does not exist outside Church schools. However, I have come to value and appreciate the fact that, for many people, it is easier to find in a faith school.
    My argument against the amendments is one of tolerance, which is exactly the argument deployed by those who support the amendments. This debate is not about who is more tolerant; it is about how we go about creating the tolerant society that we want.
    Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend is saying that she finds in faith schools a commonality and an ability to
    896
    promote inclusion and understanding of others. If that is true, surely it would be beneficial to the community as a whole and more in keeping with the ethos of those faith schools if they accepted people outside that faith. That would broaden the benefit.
    Estelle Morris: Many do so; 20 per cent. of children in Roman Catholic secondary schools are not of the Christian faith, and many Church of England primary schools, which contribute to the 7,000 total voluntary aided schools, are the only primary school in their village and receive all-corners—everybody who lives there.
    Head teachers in Roman Catholic schools in my constituency tell me that the fact that they are committed to admitting pupils by religious faith gives them their commonality and the link between home and Church and school. I do not want to take that away from them. That is what I regard as tolerance. I do not want to deny them the right and the ability, which they have had for a long time, to admit pupils according to faith to achieve the commonality and base that they value.
    I am not saying that such commonality cannot be achieved elsewhere. I know, respect and applaud head teachers in inner-city, multiracial schools, which one might argue face more difficulty in establishing a common value base. I do not want to deny a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, a Methodist, or whoever, the ability to create that common value base if that is what they feel makes their school successful.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend knows that the admissions policy in most Church schools is built on a lie. She talks about the commonality between the Church and the school. Why, then, do only about 8 per cent. of adults in this country attend church, whereas in America, where there is a separation of Church and state education, the churches are full?
    Estelle Morris: People do not have to go to church to say that they belong to a particular faith. For the record, I am a confirmed member of the Church of England but, to be open about it, I do not attend church regularly; I go only at Christmas and for constituency carol services. However, we should not say that people who maintain that they adhere to a faith do so only if they attend church. Some Churches may say that people have to attend church on Sunday to adhere to a faith; I do not accept that argument, and would not want to deny people that right.
    5.30 pm
    I shall explain what the Bill is about and quickly say why the new clauses and amendments are flawed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that their intention is important and that if we really wanted to accept them, we could amend them in the Lords. He said that it was easier to draw up amendments in government and that the number of Government amendments on the amendment paper is an argument for that. The Bill is not about faith schools. Nowhere does it say anything about them; it will not introduce a single additional measure to establish more faith schools. It does not change decision making; it does not change anything; it does nothing to promote more faith schools.
    In recent months, the Government have rightly said that we want to promote more faith schools, but we have not taken legislative powers to enable us to do so. We want

    897
    to make a level playing field for existing powers. Prior to 1997, there were only Christian and Jewish voluntary aided schools; there were no Muslim, Sikh or Hindu schools. I shall come on to that later, but it is the reason for the Government saying that we want to promote more faith schools. In meetings with Labour Back Benchers and with the public, I have said, as Secretary of State and on behalf of my whole team, that I am not about to spend one minute of my time or one ounce of energy going out to promote more faith schools. Nor, as Secretary of State, am I likely to take one decision that will encourage more faith schools. However, to my dying day, I will defend the policy of making sure that our legislation can be accessed, without religious or any other kind of prejudice, by every single citizen and every single faith.
    That is the nature of our debate. May I make it clear, particularly to Labour Back Benchers, that the Government rightly said in our manifesto that we will encourage faith schools "where parents wish it", and that we want to promote more faith schools? Our starting point is that it cannot he naturally right in a rich multicultural, multi-faith society that only Jews and Christians have managed to get faith-based schools. We would not look at the leadership of the country, find that it did not include many people of Afro-Caribbean and Asian minority faiths, then turn round and say, "They cannot have wanted it". We would say that the structure must work effectively, and it is in that sense that the Government have promoted the wish for more faith schools. I shall draw attention to a particular way in which we have done so in a few minutes.
    Mr. Laws: I am grateful for the tone of the Secretary of State's comments, and for the way in which she dealt with faith schools and higher standards. She focused on the issues of choice and freedom, but does she acknowledge that page 37 of the White Paper "Schools—achieving success" says that the Government are seeking a system in which the best schools lead and create pressure for improvement? It says that they will deliver a better system by
    "Expanding the number of Beacon schools, faith schools, and City Academies."
    The Government have therefore argued that raising standards involves increasing the number of faith schools.
    Estelle Morris: The Government have always made it clear that having a mission and, as I said at the outset, a shared value base makes a good school and spurs it on to success. The hon. Gentleman read out a list of schools in the White Paper; their inclusion suggests that schools find that shared mission and shared value in different ways. Some have found it through the specialist school movement, others through the beacon school movement, but some find it through being a faith school. If other schools want to find it through being a faith school, I do not want to deny them that route to a sense of mission and purpose.
    Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Estelle Morris: In a few minutes, when I have made some progress.
    There is nothing in the Bill that will make a difference to the current position. I shall tell the House how the decision will be made, as no one has asked about that and
    898
    it is so important. If members of a faith want to start a new school, they will not come to me or to any of my successors. They will go to the local school organisation committee, on which are represented schools, the local authority, parents, governors and churches, which are likely to be Roman Catholic and Church of England churches.
    The committee has a statutory obligation to consult. It will consult and make a decision. It will not ask us in the Department, it will not seek our permission and I will not authorise the decision. It will he nothing to do with me. That is what I mean when I say that we are not giving our energy or our time to promoting more faith schools. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough would appreciate the fact that we have said to local people, "You decide whether you want to admit to the family of local schools a new school of a voluntary aided nature."
    I have emphasised that for two reasons. First, it is important for people to know that the Government do not intend centrally to create, authorise or designate more faith schools. Secondly, and probably more important, I know that people feel—I say this in the most sensitive way—that we have given the green light to members of various faiths who are at the more fundamentalist, more extreme end of their faith. Every faith has such members, and people feel that we have given them the green light to open schools. Whether that happens will he up to the local school organisation committee. Every new school must go through the school organisation committee, where the decision will be taken.
    Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in the vision that she has rightly set out, one of the defence mechanisms needed against fundamentalism is to ensure that the direction is that schools must be inclusive? That is what we are arguing about today.
    Estelle Morris: I agree, but I argue against the idea that the admissions policy is the best or only way to make a school inclusive—that is why I am so against the new clause—and that it solves the problem that the nation faces. That is the thrust of my comments.
    Mr. Savidge: My right hon. Friend encapsulates a great problem for many of us who are members of the Labour party and Members of the House. We hear that the Government will encourage more faith-based schools. We do not remember being consulted about that as members of the Labour party, and my right hon. Friend seems to be saying that Members of Parliament will never be able to vote on the issue. Whether or not we increase religious segregation is an important matter, and we ought to have some opportunity to debate it.
    Estelle Morris: I am reminded that the subject was in our manifesto, which I quote:
    "We will encourage more church and other faith-sponsored schools, where parents wish it."
    That is the manifesto on which I stood and on which my hon. Friend stood. [Interruption.] I know that the House wants me to read more from the manifesto, but I shall resist the temptation.
    Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Estelle Morris: I shall first say why I believe the new clauses are wrong, then I shall give way to my hon. Friend and fellow Birmingham Member.
    Hon. Members should be clear about what they are voting about this evening. New clauses 1 and 18 are roughly similar, as has been said. It is a matter of timing for new schools and old schools. Essentially, the new clauses would prevent schools admitting children according to the faith of the child or the parents. We have spoken at length about giving that power to the LEA and I do not intend to go over that again. Hon. Members will make up their own mind whether they think the local education authority is the right body to exercise that power. The new clause does not state
    "in agreement with the local admission forum",
    but
    "after consultation with the admission forum".
    The authority would consult the forum, but would not be obliged to reach agreement with it. Indeed, the LEA could make the decision without the agreement of the admission forum or even the school organisation committee.
    I have two other serious concerns about the new clause. First, every single hon. Member knows what an admissions round at primary school transfer is like. My advice bureaux are full of people who did not get their first choice and we all write a lot of letters about such matters. What could happen in the middle of the admissions round? A school that does not reach its quota of faith-based applicants cannot say merely that it will do so next time. It would have to go back to the LEA, which would then have to consult the admission forum. The LEA would have to make a decision for every single school. The matter would then go back to the school, which would have to re-do its admissions round. That would be a disaster.
    The new clause would also extend the right for schools to admit by faith. At the moment, the only schools that can admit on that basis are voluntary aided. The new clause would give the local authority the right to authorise any maintained school, whether or not it is voluntary aided, to admit between 20 and 75 per cent. of pupils by faith. Whereas the right to admit by faith currently belongs to 7,000 voluntary aided schools, the new clause could make it belong to 24,000 maintained schools.
    Mr. Dobson: My right hon. Friend may recall that when I introduced the new clauses, I said that it was quite possible that they were faulty—[Laughter.] They might be almost as faulty as the Bill, which requires 43 Government amendments on Report and will, no doubt, require an abundance of further amendments in the House of Lords. She should not try to foot-fault us, because she has the ability to do something next time there is a set or even a match.
    Estelle Morris: I take my right hon. Friend's point, but it is very dangerous for politicians to table amendments and then say in the middle of the debate, "When you vote, don't for a minute think that you're voting on the amendment that is printed in black and white in front of you; we really didn't mean that, so please vote on something else." My affection for my right hon. Friend
    900
    knows no bounds, but in terms of persuading people to take the risk that he proposes, I thought that he would want to get as many hon. Members as possible to vote for the new clause but in effect, he has just said, "Blimey, don't so many of you vote for it that it's passed, as it's not what I want to do."
    Mr. Lansley: I should declare an interest, as both my eldest daughters attend a Church of England school. I am entirely with the Secretary of State in her arguments about wanting to leave those schools free to set their own admissions arrangements. Does she agree, however, that if we leave schools with that right, it is important that they exercise it openly and transparently? They should ensure not only that the arrangements are inclusive wherever possible, while meeting parental preferences, but that the appeals system for admissions, whose amendment we are considering, is independent, so that the admissions criteria for Church of England schools are not operated by a cosy club in ways that lack proper integrity.
    Estelle Morris: There are schools in each of the sectors that do not operate their admissions policies as openly as they should. It is not the thrust of my argument to say that Church schools do everything well. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are some that have an admissions policy that must be skewed—indeed, we have seen examples—to get the sort of intake that they achieve. I do not defend such practices, but I urge us not to judge the whole system on that basis.
    Lynne Jones: I shall support the new clause, but I am interested in whether my right hon. Friend is willing to consider delegating the matters with which it deals to the local schools forums.
    Estelle Morris: No. One of the arguments against the new clause is that it does not provide for local consultation and would give power to the local education authority without agreement. I do not want to accept the new clauses, and I would not accept them if they were amended to provide for delegation to local school forums.
    5.45 pm
    I want to explain my main reason for rejecting the new clauses. If they were accepted, we would stand less chance of attracting faith schools that are currently in the independent sector to the maintained sector. The number of pupils who are educated in faith schools in the independent sector has risen significantly in the past year. Paragraph 393 of the Ofsted report states:
    "The number of pupils being educated in Muslim independent schools has increased by 40 per cent…in Jewish schools numbers are up by a quarter to nearly 9,000; and in evangelical Christian schools they have risen by around a fifth".
    Since 1997, the Labour Government have admitted 13 non-Christian schools to the maintained sector. All but four were transferred from the independent sector. Those four were two Jewish primary schools in Hertfordshire, a Jewish primary school in Redbridge and a Greek Orthodox school in Croydon. The Sikh schools and the Muslim schools were all transferred from the independent sector.

    901
    I shall put my cards on the table. I want these schools to be in the maintained sector rather than the independent sector. I want them to be in the framework of accountability and their performance data to be placed in the public domain, as happens in the maintained sector. We do not all agree about that, but it is a strong argument. I also want faith schools to have to make available to their pupils the equal opportunities for boys and girls that schools in the maintained sector are obliged to provide. That is vital.
    If we accept the new clause, I believe that an independent school that has to decide between remaining in the independent sector and being able to admit according to faith, on the one hand, and joining the maintained sector and running the risk of being instructed by an LEA that it can admit only 20 per cent. by faith— I accept that that is an extreme example—on the other, would remain in the independent sector. That would be a loss. Such a school would not close or cease to exist; its pupils would not transfer to multiracial, multicultural schools where, as if by fluke or magic, we have managed to get a good balance of colour, creed and race.
    Forty per cent. more Muslim children attended independent schools this year because they had no choice. They wanted a faith-based education and they had to go to the independent sector because we had not made such provision in the maintained sector. It does not matter what I or any hon. Member thinks about what we would do for our children. In a multicultural age, when we show tolerance, I have no answer for a black constituent in Yardley, or someone in inner-city Nechells or Aston who asks, "How come if you're a Christian or a Jew you can exercise a right to voluntary aided, faith-based education, but if you're a Muslim or a Sikh, you can't?" If parents want faith-based schools, I want to make them available in the maintained sector. I therefore object to the new clauses in the name of tolerance, although, ironically, they were tabled in its name.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I respect the sincere views of my right hon. Friend. She speculated about why people choose the independent sector and she suggested that they do that because the option of faith-based state schools is not available. However, many Muslim children who grow up in inner-city areas find that they are not allowed to attend the faith-based school—whatever Book—that they wish to join because it does not admit anyone who is not, for example, Catholic or Church of England. That is an equally valid reason for choosing the independent sector.
    Estelle Morris: That point has been made by a number of hon. Members; it is a truism. I am not sure whether the argument has been put forward today—I have certainly heard it in the many debates that I have had about faith-based schools—that it would be terrible to exclude a child because it had brown hair. Of course that is the case. Life is never quite as simple as that, though. In defending the right of a Church or a faith to admit by faith, as I do, I entirely accept that the reverse of that principle is that someone may not be admitted to the school next door to their house because they are of a different faith. I would be silly to argue that that was not so.
    902
    Politics, like life, is always about weighing up someone's rights against someone else's freedoms. Those hon. Members who support new clause 1 have weighed up those rights and freedoms and come down on the side of giving the person living next to the Catholic school the right to go there, no matter what. I have come down on the side of giving the right to the Church to select by faith. I do not disparage the view of those hon. Members. I do not say that my view is better, but it is the view of the Government at the moment.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Estelle Morris: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies).
    Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is an opportunity for new faith-based schools to be voluntary controlled, rather than voluntary aided? This would combine the opportunity for inclusion with the delivery of a religious ethos. Indeed, 40 per cent. of Anglican secondary schools already work in this way. Will my right hon. Friend at least contemplate encouraging faith-based schools to be voluntary controlled rather than 100 per cent. voluntary aided?
    Estelle Morris: If they want to do that, fine, but I am not going to force them to do so. That is the main thrust of the point that I am making. What would happen in those circumstances—I know that the Local Government Association supports this view—is that the admissions criteria would change, as my hon. Friend rightly suggests. I have been speaking for far too long already, but the one thing that I hope to get over is that I defend a school's right to admit by faith to maintain the value base of that school.
    I welcome the fact that the Church of England has an inclusive admissions policy. Inclusivity is essential and, as I said earlier, it does not always have to be achieved through an admissions policy. I am not standing here being critical of the fact that Roman Catholic schools, Muslim schools, Sikh schools—or whatever—have achieved inclusivity. I am not going to force them to do so, but I welcome schools that have achieved inclusivity either through an admissions policy or through other arrangements.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Estelle Morris: I want to make some progress, but I may give way later.
    If we were to adopt new clause 1, we would be in real difficulty. I can quite understand the arguments. The inner-city school at which I taught for 18 years was multicultural; I think it was 70 or 80 per cent. non-white. Many of the schools in Birmingham are 99.8 or 99.9 per cent. Muslim, but they are not faith-based schools. The problem with new clause 1 is that it does not tackle any problems that might exist.
    There are many all-Muslim schools in Birmingham that are brilliant schools. I do not want anybody to think that I am critical of them. They are little gems; they are good schools that give a good quality of education to their children. But we cannot start from the premise that we have an education system in which schools are

    903
    all-Muslim, for example. Let us not forget that the reverse of that is illustrated in leafy Solihull, which abuts my constituency, and where the schools are 100 per cent. white and Christian. Do those schools present the same problem as the 100 per cent. Muslim schools? We have heard less talk about them than we have about the 100 per cent. Muslim schools. [Interruption.]I am not saying that this has been suggested by hon. Members who have spoken today, but nationally—people have come to talk to me about this—some people have shown far more concern about Muslim faith schools than they have ever shown about Christian or Jewish faith schools. I am not attributing such sentiments to any of my colleagues, but some people in our country have voiced those views.
    Under new clause 1, we would have to change the intake of all maintained non-faith-based schools that happened to be 100 per cent. Muslim. I do not know how we would do that. Would we bus children in? Would there be a black/white quota in a maintained school that was not a voluntary faith school? Once hon. Members go down the road of trying to get a school to admit children of more than one faith, they are out of the argument about faith-based schools and into something far more complex.
    Glenda Jackson: I am having difficulty following this part of my right hon. Friend's argument. There is nothing in the new clause that would preclude the possibility of a faith-based school having an admissions policy. The only addition that we would like is that 20 per cent. of the intake should be either from another faith or from no faith. No one is attempting to reduce the autonomy of faith-based schools, but we are concerned that too much exclusivity can lead to real divisions in society.
    Estelle Morris: With great respect to my hon. Friend, another provision in the new clause would mean that a school could find itself being allowed to take in only 25 per cent. of children from its own faith. It does not matter what I think; what the Churches say to me is that if they were reduced to that 25 per cent. point, they would feel that their commonality—the essence of what they feel their Church is all about—would go. If Church schools have an inclusive admissions policy, that is great, and I am not prepared to take that away from them, because that is how they feel.
    Mrs. Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main flaw in new clause 1 is that it suggests that the use of selection criteria is a way of creating inclusivity? Many schools in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in mine do not have any religious basis; none the less, 100 per cent. of their pupils are drawn from a single denomination or religion. The question of inclusivity is about the practice in those schools, rather than the religion or the selection process.
    Estelle Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have been really worried about the debate on these issues over the last few months. What happened in Oldham and Bradford last summer was terrible. This is our nation, and every one of us wants far more cohesion than we have ever seen before. Every hon. Member with a multiracial constituency in a multiracial city goes home at the weekend and worries about the things that they hear, and about the lack of cohesiveness there.
    904
    My worry is that there are real issues out there about social cohesion; we, as a nation, have to face up to some very difficult issues. This is about fragmented communities, and about whole streets in which there is a feeling of alienation from what—whether we like it or not—is the majority culture. My fear is that the debate since last summer has not been about that. I say this guardedly, but the debate has been more about faith schools than about social cohesion. Let us not make faith schools the scapegoats for the lack of cohesion in some of our cities.
    If we want to tackle this problem, we must address issues of urban development, housing allocation policy, employment and sheer racial discrimination. An Asian family in my outer-ring white constituency told me that they wanted to move back to Small Heath because they do not feel at home in my constituency. These issues are so complex. There is an argument to be had, and I would never say that schools do not have a role to play. They have a key role, but getting rid of faith schools will not solve the problems that I know Parliament wants to solve; it is about more than that. Please let us not make the admissions policies of faith-based schools the scapegoats for all the ills of what should be a multicultural society.
    I want to tell the House how the school system should progress. This is a tougher job than one of fiddling about with admissions policies. This is about saying to children growing up in a very complex world, in which they have to experience all the pushes and pulls, that they should be proud of their historic culture and community, although that can sometimes vie with that of the nation in which they live.
    There is a tribal instinct in all of us to be a little bit chauvinistic, although we want to encourage flexibility. We see all the competitiveness between different nations, groups and communities. Against that background, we have to teach tolerance to our children. It is more difficult for this generation of teachers, and for us as a generation of politicians, to teach that tolerance and flexibility in a society that is, by nature, more multicultural, but we have to do it. It will be a hard slog and I do not have all the answers.
    All the factors that I have mentioned are involved, including citizenship on the national curriculum. I am immensely proud of that Government initiative, which will be available to everybody from September 2002. Regardless of whether the school is a faith school, we must ask teachers to find ways to let children mix. While the children are learning art, sport, music or drama together, regardless of whether the school is in a cluster or a partnership, teachers must provide an inclusive education. This debate must be about more than a child being able to say, "I am in a school that is only 20 percent. Roman Catholic because of its admissions policy, so I know that I am tolerant." The challenge that faces us as a nation is much more than simply changing admissions policy.
    6 pm
    Kevin Brennan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Estelle Morris: No, I want to make progress.
    For all those reasons, I do not support the new clause. In such a sensitive area, change must be secured by agreement. Even if the new clause were accepted, it would

    905
    not have the agreement of the Roman Catholic Church or many minority faith Churches, although I sense that it would have the agreement of the Church of England. We would be accepting a new clause that flies in the face of the wishes of certain major religions in this country, without consultation and without plans being published. No manifesto, Green Paper or White Paper has made such provision.
    The concordat afforded by the Education Act 1944 is important to me. I know that it is not set in stone, but if someone wants to change it, they should do so properly by putting forward their plans and reasons, and discussing such change. They should consider the real nature of the problems and confront the challenges that we face. With the greatest respect, they should not go for the easiest solution, which is to change in name the admissions arrangements of a faith school and pretend that we have conquered some of the real dilemmas that we face.
    Mr. John Gummer: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Estelle Morris: No
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Estelle Morris: If I give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I will have to give way to many other hon. Members.
    I have no less respect for my colleagues at the end of this debate than I have had throughout it. Ours is an honourable difference of opinion. If, in the name of inclusion, we accept the new clause, we shall make some people feel more excluded. In the name of tolerance, we would take away a freedom for Churches that has existed in this country for centuries. In the name of cohesion, we would ensure that some schools remained in the independent sector, rather than joining the family of schools in the maintained sector. This has been an incredibly constructive debate, but, for all those reasons, I trust that the House will not support the new clause.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in the debate, and I begin by nailing an inaccuracy that has been perpetrated throughout—that we are discussing a 25 per cent. new clause. It is a 100 per cent. new clause that would make it unlawful for any school to admit a pupil on the grounds of attendance at religious worship by the child or his parents or the faith of the child or his parents. Schools would have to secure local education authority approval to admit not only 25, 50 or 75 per cent. of children on the basis of religious faith, but even a single child.
    It is misleading—not deliberately so, but misleading none the less—for the proponents of the new clause continually to suggest that all that is required is that such schools be 25 per cent. inclusive. If hon. Members were representatives of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic or Muslim faiths, would they go to the trouble of setting up a school if they were not sure that they were permitted to admit pupils of their faith
    I and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is no longer in his place, know that many Church schools are inclusive.
    906
    Some are perhaps 10, 15 or 20 per cent. Inclusive—indeed, Church of England primary schools in villages in my constituency are 100 per cent. Inclusive—but that does not solve the problem of those who want to set up new schools. If, in so doing, they are to invest time, energy and enthusiasm, and the pennies of the poor, they will want a guarantee that they may provide for people of their faith, as well as for those of others.
    It was interesting to listen to the remarks made by the Secretary of State and, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The right hon. Lady used the phrase "their schools", but the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon who is also no longer is his place, said that they are not "their" schools, but our schools. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that a few hon. Members want every faith school swept away. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon nodded vigorously at that assertion. Let us be absolutely clear: there are hon. Members, some of whom sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who want to end not only exclusivity in Church schools, but Church schools altogether.
    Mr. Gummer: Is not a key issue in the debate Britain's remarkable concordat, which—unlike in most countries—enables faith schools and non-faith schools to work together in the maintained sector? The Secretary of State argues that that is unique and remarkable. To overthrow it because of some passing thought is a very serious step to take, given how successful we have been.
    Mr. Turner: My right hon. Friend is right, with a single and important exception. For the Liberal Democrats, that is no passing thought, but a long-standing hostility to Church involvement in education in this country.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am tempted to ask the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on what basis he concludes that our support system for Church-based schools is uniquely successful and that those of all other countries with political systems similar to our own are not.
    Mr. Turner: It is clear that there is a great divide between this country and many others, such as the United States of America. In the US, those who wish to be educated in the Roman faith have to attend an independent school—the equivalent of a non-maintained school—because that country has only secular schools. We are very fortunate to have Church schools within the state, so, to put it bluntly, one does not have to be wealthy to attend a Church school.
    Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman says that "we" enjoy such benefits, but we as a nation do not, because children can be excluded.
    Mr. Gummer: That is a silly point.
    Mr. Turner: I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I shall take the point seriously.[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will allow me, I will take her point seriously. Some people wish to establish schools for the benefit of adherents to their own faith. I believe, as I think many others do, that if those

    907
    people are to incur the trouble, expense and commitment of their time involved, it must be in order to benefit the whole country, not just those fortunate enough to gain admission.
    Glenda Jackson: It was established earlier that 90 per cent. of the costs were met by taxpayers. I do not know where the "pennies of the poor" come in.
    Mr. Turner: They come in by meeting the other 10 per cent., and they have met a great deal more in the past.
    Mr. Graham Allen: As the non-religious father of a child at a Church of England school, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is taking account of the Education Act 1944 when referring to Protestant and Catholic schools? Following 11 September, Oldham, Bradford and the social disintegration in certain cities last year, many Labour Members fear that if we allow a big expansion of faith schools they will be seen as places in which to hide—that, rather than being part of a socially inclusive policy, they will be places where people barricade themselves inside the school gates, beyond the mainstream of society. Surely that is exactly what we do not want.
    Mr. Turner: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman's view, but I did not hear him use the words "Muslim" and "Sikh". I wonder whether he is one of those referred to by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who have mentioned the possibility of Muslim and Sikh schools. I suspect that that is the hidden fear of some, mostly not Members of Parliament, who oppose the extension of faith schools.
    Mr. Allen: My worry is that those who are probably at the greatest risk of social exclusion will not be included in mainstream schools.
    Mr. Turner: That is exactly why I support proposals to include schools of all faiths in the body of maintained schools.
    I was talking about the Liberal Democrats' long-standing hostility to the involvement of the Church in education. In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that he had
    "a fundamental objection to the state paying for the promulgation of a faith within a school…We should not be encouraging schools to be run for faiths, but promoting the coming together of faiths."— [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 January 2002; c. 340–1.]
    That is the hon. Gentleman's view, and it seems to be the view of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, whom I think I heard say "Yes, yes." Nevertheless, those who adhere strongly to a faith, and indeed many who adhere less strongly, want their children to be brought up in that faith. Why should they not have that opportunity?
    Mr. Laws: I know that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has not been a Member for long, but surely he is experienced enough, and sufficiently well versed in political issues, to know that the new clause is supported by many Liberal Democrats who are strongly committed to religion and to religion in schools. That is because they are concerned about the liberty of those whom the line that he is taking would exclude from good schools.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Turner: Of course I accept that, but I take a different view, and unlike the Secretary of State in her response to those whose views are different from hers, I think that I am right and that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
    The trouble is that the new clause and the speeches—especially that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—say different things. I do not decry what was said by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. That speech, however, suggested that this was a modest, even moderate proposal that would allow no more than a tweaking of the admissions policies of a minority of schools that currently accept 100 per cent. of pupils from the same faith. That is not the case. The new clause would have a much deeper more dangerous consequence: anyone who runs a faith school now—not to mention anyone proposing to establish one in the future—would have to obtain approval from the local authority before being legally entitled to admit a single child on the basis of the faith involved. That is what subsection (1) means.
    I do not know whether supporters of the new clause envisage the establishment of bin Laden academies throughout the country, with the approval of school organisation committees or otherwise; but I do not think that the admission of pupils from other faiths would make such schools less fundamentalist, because I do not think that those from other faiths would apply for admission to schools with those unacceptable characteristics. The new clause is directed at, and would damage, the sensible, moderate, involved Church schools that are so successful in our community. For that reason, it should be resoundingly defeated.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He may not have been here for long, but he made an excellent speech. I also congratulate the Secretary of State. It is said that the best speeches come from the heart; she certainly spoke from the heart, but she also spoke with a deep knowledge of and commitment to the subject.
    As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I want to put the Church of England's view. The Church has an historical partnership with the Government, and with local education authorities. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the concordat of 1944. The Church is concerned for the quality of education in all schools, and remains committed to providing education in line with its historical tradition, in all parts of society including areas of need.
    The vast majority of the Church of England's 4,700 schools are neighbourhood schools serving their local communities. The Church welcomes opportunities for other faith communities to sponsor schools in the maintained sector, and believes that those too should be inclusive. It therefore believes that it has a distinctive contribution to make to the nation's education.
    Parental demand for places in Church schools is high. Many of the secondary schools are over-subscribed. Last year, there were on average 1.6 applications for each year 7 place.
    Kevin Brennan: Whatever sympathy one may have with the philosophy behind the new clause, might it not

    909
    have an unintended practical consequence? Might not popular Church schools be forced to take on people who do not belong to the faith in question while, in effect, excluding those who do but who come from less well-off backgrounds, who would be creamed off by the comprehensive sector?
    Mr. Bell: The world is full of the law of the unintended consequence, and I think that the new clause falls into that category.
    The heavy demand for places has resulted in some Church secondary schools' having an exclusively Christian intake, but the Church has adopted a national policy of seeking to ensure that all Church schools admit children from other faiths and from no faith. That is to enrich the educational experience of all the pupils, whatever their background.
    Developing more Church of England secondary schools will help to ease the overall pressure on places and promote greater inclusivity. In that context, the Church is committed to providing an education on the basis of faith that creates the opportunity for a genuine encounter between different faith groups. Its approach is different from that of schools that do not have a distinctly religious character.
    For those reasons, the Church would resist the imposition of a percentage quota of children to be admitted for diversity in new religious schools. A quota, be it 20 per cent. or some other figure, is too prescriptive. It may not be realistic in areas where the make-up of the local community does not support such a quota.
    Mr. Chaytor: The Church of England would resist a specific percentage quota but given its commitment to open Church schools to pupils of other faiths or of no faith, would it be prepared to accept a band within which pupils of other faiths could be admitted?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. However, we are dealing with this Bill and these new clauses, and my comments are directed to them.
    The proposal for a quota fails to address the more widespread issue of how communities can become segregated as a result of housing policies or demography, an issue that relates as much to community schools as to schools with a religious character.
    Lord Dearing's report entitled, "The Way Ahead: Church of England Schools in the New Millennium" referred to an appropriate balance in admissions policy between open and foundation places. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in depth to admissions policy and admissions officers. It is a matter for local government, not for national prescription.
    For those reasons I ask the House to reject the new clauses and the amendment.
    Mr. Gummer: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills was right when she referred to the historic compromise that is the basis on which our schools operate. It is important for the House to understand that for many people the religious content of education is the most important part of education. It may be that some do not believe that it is. I have been fortunate enough to be
    910
    able to afford to choose the schools to which my children went. They went there because of the centrality of the faith that was taught there. It would be deeply intolerant to say that that choice should be available only to the faithful who are well off enough to make that choice. It is because I believe that that is a proper part of a tolerant society that I want to speak against the new clause.
    It is clear that for some hon. Members the only good is a particular kind of multiculturalism and multiracialism—a system that ensures that no one shows any difference from anyone else. I can understand that, but I beg them to accept that for others that is not the paradigm. Many of us believe that people who are secure within their own faith find it easier to reach out to very different people than do those who are insecure in their background and faith. There are very good examples of that. Some of the greatest proponents of tolerance in intolerant societies have had the strongest adherence to their faith.
    An important point was made by one Labour Member, who pointed out that by the accident of geography many schools almost end up being exclusively of one faith. Would it not be odd if we allowed schools that were faith based by accident, but excluded schools that were faith based on purpose? Schools that are faith based on purpose often seek to use their faith to extend an understanding of the brotherhood of man through an acceptance of the fatherhood of God. Those schools can often do more than any other in a community to extend the very tolerance that we seek.
    To say that it is not acceptable to have a faith-based school is fundamentally contrary to the freedom that we have had in this country for centuries. It says to the whole nation that it is not proper for those with an income below what is required to pay for the education of their children to hold their faith so dearly that they want it to be the basis of that education. I find that a most intolerant position. I know that it upsets the hon. Member for Camden but she must understand that many of us feel that her position is the intolerant one, not ours. We are asking people to be allowed to have a choice even though they are not very rich. That should appeal to her, rather than cause her to object.
    Glenda Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman is as ill informed about the name of my constituency as he is about religious history in this country. I represent the seat of Hampstead and Highgate. Many Catholic educational foundations in this country had to provide their own education facilities for children because the prevailing Church of England view at that time was that they should be excluded from British society. Therefore, the argument that religion always informs and enlarges human understanding and is pledged to the greater brotherhood of man is wrong. That is by no means the history of religion in this country.
    Mr. Gummer: The fact that I referred to the hon. Lady's constituency by the borough in which it is situated is not an entirely wicked thing to do. Her partial view of history runs totally against the fact that all major social advance in this country has been carried through by those who have been motivated by their religious faith. To deny the influence of Wilberforce, to attack Salisbury, to say that the Churches have not had a fundamental levelling effect shows her ignorance of history. I would not like to have been responsible for her education.

    911
    This country is what it is because of the witness of men and women of faith. They have upheld the concept of the brotherhood of man because of their belief in the fatherhood of God. To deny children the right to go to a school where that is the central tenet upon which all depends is a very sad denial of freedom.
    Mr. Roger Berry rose—
    Glenda Jackson rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Lady because she is particularly determined to get in.
    Glenda Jackson: I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of wickedness, but he certainly does not need me to point out his overweening arrogance. Does he really claim that the advancement of the human situation is entirely and exclusively due to those who have practised a particular religious faith? That is clearly absurd and discounts the extraordinary cruelties and incredible prejudices that have been exercised in the name of various religions. It seems that his argument for the fundamental excellence of a religious education is as ill founded as his knowledge of the name of my constituency.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Glenda Jackson: Short interventions.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for that, although I was not intending to make that particular point. I wanted to say that there is a danger of language getting into excess, and it would be better to calm it down.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady rightly says that many people do many things in the name of religion that we would not support. I merely said that many of the major changes in this country of which she would approve were effected by people whose motivation came from their faith. To deny that is to deny a fundamental element in British history.
    Mr. Goodman: Is not what the hon. Lady said a confirmation that, as some of us claimed earlier, the motivation of some of those behind the new clause is an apparent hatred of faith schools and of religion?
    Mr. Gummer: I departed from my usual emollient way of speaking precisely to flush that out. I know perfectly well why so many of those who will vote for the new clause will do so: not from the moderate, reasonable motives set out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or because they want to give a little bit of help to the difficult areas where inclusiveness is awkward, but in pursuance of their long-standing hatred of those who stand for something that they believe so deeply that they consider it the centre of their lives, want it to be the centre of their children's lives and do not want to exclude from it those who cannot afford to pay to make that choice.
    Mr. Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I really ought to give way to a Liberal.
    Simon Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that others will vote for the new clauses who share his
    912
    faith, if not his denomination, and his view that there should be a right to have faith schools, but believe that it is wrong that any faith school should be able to insist that all its pupils be of its particular faith. That is a perfectly reasonable and moderate view.
    Mr. Gummer: It would be a perfectly reasonable position if it were not an exclusive one, but the hon. Gentleman is proposing not that some schools should be faith-based and admit a range of members of other faiths but that it should be illegal for a maintained school to have a fully faith-based intake. That, to me, is intolerance. One of the sadnesses is that the Liberal party has a three-line Whip on this. [Interruption.] As I understand it, the Liberals are under strong pressure to vote for the new clause—I put it as delicately as I can. That is a most illiberal proceeding from a party that once believed that people should be allowed to choose for themselves and not be bossed about by a lot of politicians deciding what is best for them.
    Simon Hughes: This is a real debate. The difference between us is that, for many of us, the experience is that people have not been able to have that choice, because schools have chosen to exclude people of other faiths who want to attend them. All we are asking is that, if there is not a situation in which all the places are taken up—which is covered elsewhere in the new clauses—schools that take money from the state should be required to admit some pupils from faiths or denominations other than their own.
    Mr. Gummer: But the hon. Gentleman cannot say that and still deny that he wants to have a society in which no school may choose both to be part of the maintained sector and to have 100 per cent. of pupils from its own faith. I call that intolerant. It is divisive and unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is insisting that his view of what is best should prevail against the view of, for example, the Roman Catholic Church or most Muslims.
    Mr. Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made a reasonable point and I want to explain to him why I think it is very serious. First, he is setting his view against that of very large sections of law-abiding and reasonable people who want the opposite. Secondly, whether he likes it or not, he is excluding from the experience of a faith-based school all those whose parents cannot afford to pay for it. To me, that is intolerant, too.
    Ian Lucas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Berry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way to any of the hon. Gentlemen, because the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey intervened in a very courteous way and I want to explain to him the third reason why I

    913
    feel that he is wrong. He is wrong because he is suggesting that we should not have wider rather than narrower choice in our society. I want people to have more choices, so although I do not like the fact that some children go to schools where there is no religious education at all, I have to accept that if people really want to make that choice, they must be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman must not therefore say that those of us for whom faith is the most important thing in life and education cannot choose it for our children unless we can pay for it.
    Mr. Burnett: I strongly support the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I hope he will agree that it is also true that to foist an arbitrary quota of 25 per cent. on schools is in any event utterly inappropriate in certain localities.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must be right, but it is also inappropriate for another reason: it applies a mechanistic system in place of choice. The trouble with choice is that it means trusting people. "Trust the people" was a very famous phrase. We have to trust the people to make decisions for their own children. I happen to believe that parents should do that, and that, as far as is humanly possible, we should do nothing to take that choice away.
    I find it very odd that something that for many parents is the most important part of that choice should be restricted, and especially by a House that contains a predominance of people who do not take that view. This is a real issue. In a world in which the majority do not much care about these matters, it is an important part of democracy to give freedom of choice to those who do. It is part of the reticence of democracy that becomes more important when the vast majority think differently.
    Mr. Willis: How does the right hon. Gentleman square that position with the fact that, for all the years when he was in the Government—and indeed the Cabinet—they consistently denied the Muslim faith the right to have its own schools?
    Mr. Gummer: That is a travesty of what happened, and although I did a lot of jobs in government, I never had a job in an Education Department. If the hon. Gentleman had ever done any of those jobs, he would understand how these issues are decided. Moreover, if it would have been better to do that in the past, it must surely he wrong to say that in the future we should stop it. If he is saying that we should have done it earlier, why is he supporting the new clause, which would prevent it?
    I recognise that there is a real problem when a particular faith has less connection with the historical fabric of a society, when we are trying to create a multicultural society. We know that. It is foolish to pretend that that is not so, but we have to take the risk. I am afraid that that is one of those things we have to do.
    If Muslim parents want their children to go to a Muslim school, I do not believe it right for any of us to say that they may not, yet that is what the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to do. [Interruption] It is
    914
    no good the right hon. Gentleman accusing people of repenting when he will not allow Muslims to have all-faith schools. It is perfectly reasonable—
    Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I wish to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall be happy to give way when I have finished my point. In that way, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be able to put his point with the sharpness for which he is known.
    If Muslims are to have choice, they must he able to choose the school that they think that they want. We must not say that they can have a Muslim school, but that 25 per cent. of its pupils must be non-Muslim. That is not what Muslims are asking for. They are asking for faith-based schools that are 100 per cent. Muslim. In a free society, they must be able to have that.
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Had he bothered to read some of the letters that have been sent, he would have realised that Muslim representative organisations want their schools to be inclusive. They do not necessarily want them to be 100 per cent. Muslim.
    It sticks in the craw to listen to any Tory talk about giving Muslims the opportunity to have Muslim schools. There was not the faintest chance of that happening when the Tories were in government. The opportunity for them to have such schools has arisen only since this Labour Government came to office. We are saying that we want equality, and that we want all religious schools to be willing to accept 20 or 25 per cent. of pupils from other faiths, and from no faiths. That sort of proposal is a function of central Government from which we should not resile.
    The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the famous concordat of 1944 was based on the 50: 50 contribution—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going to excess with his intervention. That is quite enough.
    Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras protests too much. Some Muslim organisations want to have the sort of mix that he describes, but others do not. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has the right—and I believe that he thinks he has the duty—to tell Muslims what they shall have. I am saying merely that I believe in a free society, and that people should be able to make this choice for themselves.
    The real difficulty for me is that the party that is most against centralisation—the party that is always talking about local choice and that always wants decisions to be made at the lowest level possible—is busy saying that the one decision that people cannot make concerns the matter that for some people is the most important thing in life. That matter is the religious nature of the school to which they send their children.
    People do not have to go to faith schools, and parents do not have to make the choice to send their children to such schools. If too few parents make that choice, faith schools will not be available. We suggest that people should be allowed to choose in big matters, not merely in

    915
    small ones. There is an attitude to choice that suggests that it should be peripheral. I believe that people should be able to make choices about the important things in life. For some people, religious education is the most important thing in life, and so the choice for them is very important.
    Kevin Brennan: Would the right hon. Gentleman extend his belief in freedom of choice to allowing people to set up a humanist school, in which there would be no religious worship or daily service?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that many schools behave in that way, even if they do not adopt that name. A school in my constituency is exactly as he describes. I do not agree with it, but I support its right to make the choice that it has made. Indeed, I had to fight the Government to prevent it from being closed down. That was because the Government did not like the progressive form of education that it was offering. The hon. Gentleman therefore cannot teach me anything on that issue.
    Simon Hughes: I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to be careful, as he has slipped occasionally into criticising those who support the new clauses. The new clause proposes only limited admission control; it has nothing to do with any argument about the right to found schools of any faith. No hon. Member has argued that there should not be a right to found faith schools. There may be a debate about that, but it has not taken place today, and it is not part of the case being set out by the proponents of the new clauses.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman kindly brings us back to the key point in the debate—that choice should not be partial. It is not for him to say, "We will allow you choice, but only within the parameters that we consider decent."
    Those who oppose the new clause are saying something different. We are saying that the glory of a tolerant society is that individuals can make choices that are extraordinary and huge. They can choose about big things that really matter, and which make a difference.
    When I stood up for Summerhill school in my constituency, I was able to say to the then Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who is now Secretary of State for the Home Department, that although I did not like the school, that I would not send a child of mine to it and that I did not like the way it ran its education, I was willing to fight to the death for its right to teach in the way that it did. I was also willing to fight for its right to exclude people who wanted to choose a different kind of education.
    Why should that choice be available only to those rich enough to pay for it? That is grossly unfair. Does the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey want the proposals to be extended to those who pay for their education? If not, his position is very peculiar. It is that only the poor shall be forced to go to schools with the mix proposed in the new clause, and that the rich will be excluded from that requirement.
    That seems to me to be wholly intolerant, and reminds me of the Society for the Suppression of Vice, which wanted to suppress vice among those with an income of
    916
    less than £500 a year. The new clause would achieve something similar, as it would suppress faith schools for those who are not rich enough to pay. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is being even less liberal than I thought him to be.
    It is interesting that the party with the most liberal name should have become the party with the least liberal policies. Liberal Democrat Members think it is wicked to consider abortion wrong, and they now think it wicked to suggest that 100 per cent. of pupils at a faith school should be of one faith.
    Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have been trying to avoid being provoked by him for some 20 minutes, but matters have reached a critical point.
    Liberal Democrat Members of course understand the argument about choice presented by the right hon. Gentleman. However, is not his a rather short-sighted and partial view of choice? Let us assume that a new faith school has been built in a town in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and that it has just gone to faith status. Let us assume, too, that a child who went through the primary system with his friends now wants to go on to the new school, which is only 30 yards down the road from where he lives. In my scenario, the school is of high quality, but the child is prevented from going to the school that he prefers, with his friends, because that school will not take any pupils who do not belong to the faith that it represents. What would the right hon. Gentleman say to that child and his parents when they came to see him at his constituency advice centre?
    Mr. Gummer: First, I have had to help a number of my constituents with regard to choice of schools. In my area, it is often true that not everyone is able to go to the school of first choice. Sometimes, I have to tell Roman Catholic children who cannot go to the Roman Catholic school that there is not enough space. The new clause, therefore, will not resolve that problem.
    Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that propinquity is so important that it overshadows people's right to decide the nature of the school that they want to run. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) does not accept that it is right for people to be able to make such choices. The choices that are made by people might upset the hon. Gentleman, or me. For example, some schools in my constituency do not, in my view, honour the faith status with which they were endowed. They have become so inclusive that it is difficult to tell the difference between them and schools with no faith base. I am sorry about that, but that is a decision for those schools to make. I have to accept that, if I want the right to make choices as I want, others must be able to do the same.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way to the pressure to interrupt me, because I want to tell him that the danger to tolerance comes when those who would be tolerant are asked to accept something that they themselves do not like and do not want. We are in danger of becoming a society that is tolerant of everything that we accept but that is unwilling to be tolerant of things that are inimical to us.
    I recognise the damage and the danger. That is why I have changed my mind about several social and moral issues. I used to believe that we should be much less

    917
    tolerant of activities and actions of which I disapproved. I do not believe that now. I have come to that conclusion because we are in significant danger of having a cosy tolerance within limits, whereas we need the difficult tolerance of allowing people to make big choices that really matter and which for them are central and basic and which we must defend.
    Mrs. Mahon: I speak in support of the new clause introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) because I want to put children and their education for the future at the centre of our lives. The most important thing we can do is to help them to live together in understanding—not segregated and attending different schools. We shall then have a more cohesive and decent society.
    I also want to speak up for the 40 per cent. of people who admit to no religion. By and large, they have been excluded from the debate until now—and possibly from our manifesto.
    I am the child of humanist, socialist parents. I went to a Church primary school because it was the only school in the village, so I had early experience of how it feels to be treated differently in school-because my parents were different. For many, many years I was quite intolerant of Church schools.
    I then went through another phase. Like the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I have found that I changed my mind as I went through life. However, during the past 10 or 15 years, I have turned back to my other views
    In 1989, the UK signed up to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which states:
    "The child shall have the right to freedom of expression: this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds."
    That is a strong basis for education.
    Like the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, I want a level playing field, but perhaps mine would be different: I want all our schools to be secular. Newfoundland has just got rid of its Church schools. That is a good thing and will enhance integration. I realise that that course is not possible for us, but my right hon. Friend's proposals will help us to progress to greater integration.
    I challenge the notion that religion is a precondition for morality. It is not. A child brought up without religion can be a moral human being who knows the difference between right and wrong. We must challenge the notion that religion and morality are necessarily the same.
    My experience of life shows me that many agnostics, atheists and humanists are often more tolerant than religious people. Many of my non-believer friends do not believe in capital punishment and do not want to drop bombs on civilians. However, I have many friends who are Christian or Muslim or from other faiths who hold the opposite view. We should not assume that just because people are religious they are superior to us. If we extend the number of faith schools, we are making the assumption that their religion makes them superior.
    I want to address the argument that faith schools have a reputation for delivering better education—especially in the secondary sector. There is selection in faith schools:
    918
    by their very nature they select. By selecting, they cream off pupils. They take less than their share of deprived children and more than their share of children from middle-class backgrounds.
    I am from Halifax. I went through the whole saga of the Ridings school. Anyone who wants to study selection should go to Halifax. At the top of the pyramid are two grammar schools which select. Then there are two opted-out Church schools which also select. We are left with two secondary modern schools and the Ridings school. That is how selection works.
    Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: No, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal took up an enormous amount of time and I want to speak briefly.
    In October, I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by about 80 hon. Members, pointing out that faith schools are not only about selection but about the exclusion of children.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras touched on another issue that I want to raise. I want to sing the praises of teachers in community schools. Their moral values are no less than those of someone who opts to teach in a religious school. We should praise those teachers for their teaching about humanity and human values. When they talk about inclusivity, we should praise them—not denigrate them.
    I have three more points. First, more faith schools will be damaging to racial and religious relations. About 8 per cent. of the people of Halifax are Muslim: not one of them has asked me to support them in setting up a separate Muslim school. I have held many discussions with them about education. Like all immigrant populations, they realise that education is the way to get on and to achieve integration. They are trying to better themselves and their children through education. I have never been asked for a Muslim school in Halifax and I am pleased about that. Incidentally, we were not consulted about the inclusion of the manifesto commitment on faith schools so I did not feel that I had to defend it during the general election.
    I ask hon. Members to read Lord Ouseley's report: "Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Vision 2001". The report was commissioned before the Bradford riots and was published just after they took place. It asked several questions, one of which was:
    "Why is community fragmentation along social, cultural, ethnic and religious lines occurring in the Bradford District?"
    The conclusion was that the answer lies partly in education.
    The young people of Bradford spoke for themselves about what had gone wrong. They complained that there was polarisation of communities along racial, ethnic and religious lines; that there was limited or non-existent interaction between schools; and that there was "virtual apartheid" in many secondary schools.
    In his conclusion, Lord Ouseley noted:
    "What was most inspiring was the great desire among young people for better education, more social and cultural integration … Young people realise that being taught in religious ghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multi-cultural society."

    919
    Those are the words and conclusions of those young people. They are not mine. Why cannot we listen to those voices?
    Mr. Andrew Turn rose—
    Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
    Mr. Savidge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Mahon: I have already said that I would not take interventions. I have almost finished my speech.
    My second point is about Northern Ireland. We cannot smooth over it and pretend that it does not exist. Anyone who witnessed little girls running the gauntlet of hatred as they tried to go to school—some of them for the first time—must reflect on the wisdom of segregation based on faith. We cannot ignore that problem.
    My third point relates to the Cantle report, which makes it clear that separate education leads to lack of cohesion and integration. The report notes:
    "The development of more faith-based schools may, in some cases, lead to an increase in mono-cultural schools."
    Of course it will. It says that it will be a big problem for the future, so it is irresponsible to promote the idea any more. Faith schools are a big mistake.
    7 pm
    I recognise that I am in a minority in the House in saying that I want secular education in all our schools. Obviously, we will not get it with the new clauses and the amendment. Faith schools are about division and I have had personal experience of that. They are also about selection. They encourage parents to lie about attendance at church. Only 8 per cent. of adults attend church in this country. People who do not agree with faith schools and do not want any more of them often ask me why the rest of us should pay to indoctrinate children in only one religion when our churches are empty. They ask why the churches are not doing their job. If their religion is so good, let them fill the churches.
    Religious schools discriminate against everyone who is not of their faith. I disagree with the letter sent to the Secretary of State from the Muslim Council of Britain. The letter makes my point for me. It states that the council does not mind including a few children of different faiths, provided that they operate within a Muslim ethos. That will exclude any other ethos and it will not produce the healthy, well-educated and well-balanced child of the future. It will lead to more divisions.
    I will support the new clause in the Lobby. I urge The Prime Minister to listen to this debate and to those of us who have spoken against having more faith schools. Let him, for once, listen to us, especially after 11 September. The last thing that we want is more division and segregation in society.
    Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a well respected journalist and Muslim, recently wrote these words of wisdom. She said that many people think that
    "traditional multiculturalists believe that equity means that funding Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools must also mean state funding for Muslim and Hindu schools where there is sufficient demand … we need a different approach—to fairly represent the society we live in without breaking it up further into minority groups aided and abetted by the State."
    920
    She is completely against state funding for religious schools, saying
    "there should not be state funding for state schools of any religion".
    I totally agree.
    In my life, I have gone on a journey through various points of view, some based on my early experiences, but in the past 10 years I have come to believe that in 2002 we must try to work towards a secular state education system that is bothered about education and not indoctrination.
    Mr. Goodman: I speak largely on behalf of my Muslim constituents in High Wycombe, who are a disadvantaged community whose views should be heard with respect. My Muslim constituents have told me—before the election and since—that they see Church of England and Catholic schools in the Wycombe area, but no Islamic schools. Whoever they may have voted for at the election, most of them want a Muslim or an all-girls school in the constituency.
    The Bill would make it easier for faith schools to be established. The Secretary of State was careful to say that that was not the intention, but it is none the less clear that that would be the effect. What effect would the new clause have on the desires of my constituents? Subsection (2) is the most important part of the clause. It makes it clear that in the last resort, even though it is "after consultation", the local education authority
    "may by regulation authorise"—
    "authorise" is the key word—
    "that …a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination."
    I am not sure why those figures are given. Those who have supported the new clause did not explain them, but perhaps we may learn the reason in due course.
    Mr. Willis: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. The new clause was drafted to include percentages recommended in the Cantle report.
    Mr. Goodman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing that up at least. [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is saying that that is still not an explanation. He may be right, but I want to return to the new clause.
    If my Muslim constituents had a school that was maintained on the same basis as a Roman Catholic or Church of England school, under the new clause the local authority could in the last resort say that only 20 per cent. of its pupils could be Muslim. In the eyes of my constituents, a school with only 20 per cent. Muslim pupils would not be a Muslim school. I appreciate that Church of England schools are different, but my constituents are not thinking of those schools.
    I fully accept what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said about his motives in introducing the clause. He said that he was not carrying on any vendetta against faith schools. However, the most important thing about the clause is its effect and I believe that in many parts of the country local authorities would tell people who wanted to set up a Muslim school, "We're sorry, but only 20 per cent. of your pupils can be Muslims." I may wrong, but I believe that to be the case.

    921
    My Muslim constituents do not oppose Church of England or Roman Catholic faith schools. They are happy that they are there. Were they following this debate closely and I hope that some of them will —
    Mr. Dobson: Is it the case that some of the hon. Gentleman's Muslim constituents would like to go to schools of other religions?
    Mr. Goodman: Some of them do go to such schools. If the right hon. Gentleman is asking me what my constituents want, the majority of my Muslim constituents—this includes the majority of those who voted for the Labour party at the election as well as those who voted for me—want a Muslim school.
    The new clause would affect not only any future faith schools but those that exist at present. It simply states that "after consultation" the local authority could authorise those percentages in "a maintained school". That must mean any maintained school and not merely any such school that might be established.
    Mr. Laws: I appreciate the careful and well-argued way in which the hon. Gentleman is developing his case. How much flexibility does he believe his constituents should have to determine the character of schools, both existing and new, in his area? Would he be willing for them to determine not only the religious nature of the school but whether it should take boys and girls or one sex only? Would he be willing to give his constituents any further powers or impose any further constraints on them as to the type of individuals or nationalities that might be accepted?
    Mr. Goodman: I made it clear to my future constituents at the election that I would be happy to have either an Islamic or a girls' school in Wycombe. I would not want 100 per cent. of the pupils in a Muslim school to be Muslim, but that is my personal view. I should like members of other faiths to be taken as a mix, but the important factor is what parents want and schools can manage, rather than what I as a politician lay down by diktat to my constituents. That is how the Conservative party's view is rather different from that of the Liberal Democrat party. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to return to new clause 1.
    The principal point is that, under new clause 1, local authorities could tell existing faith schools that only 20 per cent. of their pupils could come from their religion. As I say, some Church of England schools would have no difficulty with that, but existing Roman Catholic and some Church of England and existing other religious schools would be placed in great difficulty by new clause 1. That is the key point.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: To illustrate that point, I have a child at the London Oratory school and also a child at Our Lady of Victories school, both of which are in central London. Both schools are hugely over-subscribed and, sadly, have to exclude many Catholics. If new clause 1 were accepted, even more Catholics would be excluded from those schools and
    922
    would have to go to schools that did not share their values. That would be unfair on those children and their parents, would it not?
    Mr. Goodman: My understanding of new clause 1 is not exactly that that would happen, but my hon. Friend is certainly right to say that it could happen. Throughout the country, many pupils and parents would be adversely affected in exactly the way that he describes.
    For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the new clause. There is some clumsiness in its drafting. If I understood the Secretary of State correctly, under the new clause, if some religious fanatics happened to take over a local authority, they could insist, by diktat, that a maintained school should become a faith school. Those hon. Members who support new clause 1 have been somewhat careless, even though one of them is a former Secretary of State, but I shall leave that matter aside. In conclusion, there is no substantial motive to vote for the new clause, and I hope that the House will overwhelmingly reject it.
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I represent a constituency where a large number of people from many different faiths live. I was born in India, and I have the experience of being a pupil in religious schools. I am not happy about the concept. I do not hold any religious views, but it is not a good concept. This is an interesting debate, and I have listened to many hon. Members speak about faith education and religious schools, but they have mostly talked about Christian or Muslim schools; not much has been said about the large Hindu and Sikh communities. I find from personal experience that there is not much support in the Sikh and Hindu communities for faith schools.
    I am able to support many of the good things in the Bill. We have taken enormous strides in improving the provision of primary education since 1997. I am delighted that the Government are willing to put the necessary investment into education. It is with those improvements in mind that I broadly support the Bill, as it seeks to shift the focus to secondary school education. A frequently heard complaint—which, as a teacher, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills no doubt understands—is that schools and individual teachers often find the current legislation restrictive. That is the reason why I welcome the recurring theme of flexibility in the Bill.
    I believe that teachers will welcome reform that removes imposed initiatives that can result in excessive work loads, and instead allows the freedom to create a less prescriptive curriculum framework. Although the Bill sets down the core and foundation subjects for key stage 4, it will allow changes to cater for the need to respond to the future shape of the post-14 curriculum.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that we are debating the new clause, not the Bill in general. He must confine his remarks to the new clause.
    Mr. Khabra: I was about to come to new clause I, but I wanted to assure the Minister that I support the Bill. However, one aspect of policy that I do not feel able to

    923
    applaud is the support for the expansion of faith schools, which troubles me greatly. I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who are seeking to address the admissions policy of faith schools.
    I will set aside for the moment the more philosophical arguments put forward, including the thought-provoking ones outlined by Richard Dawkins in his open letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. First and foremost, the research does not seem to support the confidence in expanding faith schools as a means of improving standards.
    The Conservative think tank Civitas, which one might have expected to support the expansion of the role of the Church in education in fact argued in its report, "Faith and Education", that
    "Church schools are not as good as the Government thinks."
    The work by John Marks, director of the Civitas education unit, calls into question an automatic policy of expanding Church schools, pointing out that standards in faith schools are inconsistent, and I tend to agree with him.
    Church schools may or may not intentionally select middle-class pupils, but they tend to end up with fewer children from poor families. A recent study carried out in Wales concluded that, when the different levels of free school meal entitlements had been taken into account, differences in performance between Church and other schools
    "were not statistically significant".
    The key to improving standards is surely to consider the nature of the teachings used in schools, rather than the faith-based element of any establishment.
    Even if the empirical evidence on results did not throw into question the desire to expand faith schools, the possibly damaging effects outside the classroom should give pause for thought. I am not suggesting that all faith schools encourage segregation, and I am aware that there are some notably good faith establishments in the country, but the fact is that we do not live in a single-faith country, never mind a single-faith world. In my opinion, the policy will be divisive and will risk bringing down education standards in many areas. Furthermore, it is likely to cause social friction between and within communities.
    Mr. Savidge: I should like to cite the experience north of the border, where Aberdeen is the only one of the four big cities that has integrated schools; the others have religious segregation. Aberdeen does not suffer from the religious discrimination, division and dissention that can still sadly blight the life of Scotland.
    Mr. Khabra: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's view. A large part of who weare—our views, our aspirations and, unfortunately, our prejudice—is formed in childhood. Prejudice is more often than not due to ignorance, and faith schools are likely to create more ignorance among children who are not able to think for themselves; nor are their parents.
    Dr. Kumar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the multicultural and multiracial society has progressed over the past 30 or 40 years has been a great achievement? We have made society more harmonious. The creation of faith schools is likely to lead to
    924
    segregation and not to the integration that has been the hallmark of our society. Does he agree that there are serious dangers with faith schools?
    Mr. Khabra: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Ethnic minority children, in particular, have achieved greater success in education when they have gone to integrated schools. I came to this country in 1959. In the late 1960s, the National Front mounted a campaign to have ethnic minority children taught in segregated schools, but the advantages of integrated education for those children are great. In a segregated school—whether we call it a faith school or not—100 per cent. of the children will be from an ethnic minority community, and they will not receive the education that they should receive and that would enable them to fit into society when they finish their education. That is the great danger for ethnic minority children.
    Faith schools will not provide an opportunity for children of many different faiths to work together, learn together and live together. Under the Conservative Government, schools were able to opt out of public control, and I remember that the official policy of the Labour party was to oppose opting out. I do not understand why the Labour party's policy has changed in favour of more private provision of education. We were against private education in principle, and I do not believe that people from poor families will benefit even from faith-based schools.
    Education should remain the responsibility of the local education authorities and should not be handed over to private interests that are sometimes dominated by religious extremists. We might think that faith-based schools will be able to provide similar opportunities to children from other faiths, but that will not happen for ethnic minority children. We are trying to compare the current situation with what happened a century or two ago when Christian and Jewish schools were established. The situation is completely different now and we should not fall into the trap of accepting this new idea of faith schools.
    We should pursue a pluralistic and secular approach to education. Religious schools will intentionally encourage people towards particular religious beliefs. Have we not learned enough from the madrassah schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Have we not learned from the attacks of 11 September in New York and Washington? We are following a dangerous path and I hope that hon. Members, and the Minister in particular, will reconsider their position and take this opportunity to amend the Bill.
    Faith schools will lead to children having less tolerance for children of other faiths. Such schools have the mission to provide education to the children of their faith and they are not directed towards achieving the standards of education that we need in a modern society and a modern economy.
    Ms Ward: Surely my hon. Friend accepts that the legislation introduced by the Government and reinforced by the Bill, which he said he supports, will maintain high standards. The fact that a school is a faith school and promotes a certain faith—whatever it may be—will not diminish the quality of education that it provides. Surely he cannot suggest that it would.
    Mr. Khabra: I am not sure about that. The Bill will extend the provisions to other faiths and there will be

    925
    more faith schools. Many applications will be made and it is a tragedy that money from public funds will support such schools. My hon. Friend does not know what will happen. She presumes that standards will be maintained, but I do not agree with her.
    Ms Ward: It is not a presumption. The standards that have been set and enforced by the Government are designed solely to ensure that all schools of whatever faith offer a high quality of education. We cannot use arguments about standards to oppose faith schools or the expansion and extension of them.
    Mr. Khabra: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I seriously doubt whether the new faith schools will be able to maintain the standards that we expect.
    If schools are based on religion, why should they not support the ideas of a certain faith? That is what they are meant for. They will teach more religion, and what teachers will they employ? We will not be able to control the religious fanatics who might teach in such schools.
    Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that however a school constitutes itself—whether as a faith school or not—it will be covered by legislative requirements concerning Ofsted, equal opportunities, the national curriculum and health and safety? Legislation spreads to all schools in all communities and applies to how they are run and how they meet the needs of children. Legislation applies to all schools, including any new faith schools.
    Mr. Khabra: Although my hon. Friend suggests that many restrictions will be placed on the new faith schools, supervisors will not be present in the school at all times to monitor those—the mullahs or others—who teach religion. Such schools will not necessarily stick to the rules and regulations required by the law.
    Mr. Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is entirely wrong? In its provisions for powers to innovate, the Bill will allow schools to disapply the national curriculum and every other piece of legislation that they want to disapply so that they can carry out what they think is right. That will give those schools exactly the opportunities that he has described.
    Mr. Khabra: I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    As I said, why should faith schools not support the ideas of a certain faith? However, that will lead to an increase in segregated education, and that is a reactionary move that is particularly damaging to the interests of ethnic minority children. Inspectors' reports show that Hindu and Sikh children do better than the Muslim children who are taught in segregated schools. That is because communities with more liberal ideas about education are more interested in obtaining a good education for their children.
    7.30 pm
    If we provide an opportunity for religious people to have their own schools, we cannot stop them teaching
    926
    what they want about their faith to their children. Such schools will lead to segregated education, which will damage the interests of ethnic minority children. There is a provision for state schools to give a religious education. They can provide whatever religious education a child might need, so why do we need more faith schools? There is no need for schools to be run or owned by a religious organisation.
    The idea of a faith school is a reactionary one. It has the capacity to hinder the progress of the good education that is suited to modern society, the economy and possibly even scientific progress. In some American schools, topics such as evolution cannot be taught, are sidelined or are wholly dismissed. I hope that we never reach that stage. There is always an opportunity in faith schools and private schools to ignore what is required by the law. The national curriculum might mean that they have to teach certain subjects, but they might not be inclined to put their best efforts into that if it is contrary to everything that their faith tells them to believe.
    We do not have to look as far as the dreadful attacks on New York and Washington to see the dangers of prejudice and the misunderstanding between cultures. We need only to look at the reports on last summer's riots in the north of England or the dreadful scenes in Northern Ireland where children were verbally abused or spat at on the way to school. Have we learned nothing from that experience?
    Opinions were expressed after the Bradford riots that segregated schools can be a prime cause of racial hatred. It was also suggested that communities were fragmenting along racial, cultural and faith lines and that segregation in schools is one indicator of that trend. I am usually inclined to argue on the side of parental choice, and of course I would argue in favour of parents choosing to send their children to whatever school they like. If parents want to send their children to faith schools, and the demand is certainly there, some may ask why such schools should not be allowed. I believe that when society as a whole is at risk of being damaged, questions need to be asked. The danger of division through intolerance is an adequate ground for objecting to the provision in the Bill.
    There is much to commend in the Bill and it is a shame that such worthy ideas as devolving more powers to head teachers have been overshadowed by the discussion and comment on faith schools. Like many other hon. Members, I am concerned about the idea of extending faith schools. Schools and religion are too uncomfortable a mix and the Government should not involve themselves in such a way.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I want to speak to new clause 2. It has rightly been selected and has important implications. I support the purposes of new clause 1 and new clause 18, which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) eloquently addressed. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the contribution by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), whose powerful points I support. Although I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) said, I cannot join him in praising the Bill. I think that he had to get that comment in to excuse his views to Members on his Front Bench. Indeed, I also agree with the sentiments put so clearly by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) in his intervention.

    927
    I am especially pleased that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall referred to the views of Professor Richard Dawkins. He is my constituent and, like me, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, which I want to declare as an interest. I am grateful to the NSS for advice on the issues covered by new clause 2.
    Kevin Brennan: As a member of the National Secular Society, does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that he secured his place for today's debate by using a prayer card?
    Dr. Harris: I am not sure that I am guilty of that, because the prayer card is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). I have views on the use of Prayers to obtain a seat, but I do not want to try the patience of the Chair, so I shall stick to new clause 2.
    Hon. Members may not be aware of what the new clause is about. It would repeal sections in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. They are not set out in the Bill, so it is useful to clarify what it would do. It would repeal sections 58 and 60. The former states:
    "Where the number of the teaching staff of a school to which this subsection applies"—
    basically, religious schools—
    "is more than two, the teaching staff shall include persons who—
    (a)are selected for their fitness and competence to give such religious education as is required in accordance with arrangements … for religious education in accordance with the school's trust deed or with the tenets of the school's specified religion or religious denomination, and
    (b)are specifically appointed to do so."
    It is curious that there is a provision on our statute book to ensure that certain teachers are appointed and promoted on the basis of their ability to teach religion according to the religion of the school in which they teach. Religious education is supposed to be non-denominational, non-directional and non-proselytising. It is not clear why the reserved teacher status is necessary. Surely when we teach subjects, including religious education, in any school, we want the best teacher for that syllabus.
    Section 60 has even worse implications. Subsection 5 states:
    "If the school is a voluntary aided school"—
    a religious school—
    "(a) preference may be given, in connection with the appointment, remuneration or promotion of teachers at the school"—
    that is, the hiring or firing—
    "to persons—
    (i)whose religious opinions are in accordance with the tenets of the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to the school under section 69(4), or
    (ii)who attend religious worship in accordance with those tenets"—
    in their spare time, presumably—
    "or (iii) who give, or are willing to give, religious education at the school in accordance with those tenets; and
    (b) regard may be had, in connection with the termination of the employment of any teacher at the school"—
    the sacking of a teacher—
    "to any conduct on his part which is incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets, of the religion or religious denomination so specified."
    928
    It does not require a teacher to act illegally, unlawfully, or inappropriately, or to breach of the norms of a teacher's employment contract; a teacher just needs to be out with the tenets of that religion. That relates to what maths teachers, French teachers and science teachers do within the law in their spare time if that goes against the tenets of the religious controllers of voluntary-controlled or voluntary-aided schools.
    New clause 2 would eliminate those sections of the 1998 Act. It is necessary for three reasons. First, the sections unlawfully discriminate against employees on religious grounds. Secondly, they militate against the best interests of pupils because they sacrifice best teachers to the ones deemed religiously appropriate. Thirdly, they are unnecessary in the context of the exemptions provided in the European Union employment directive due to be introduced by December 2003.
    I should like to set out why I feel that the provisions, and especially section 60, which the new clause would repeal, are discriminatory. Section 60 allows for employees, as it happens, in the state sector, who are funded by taxpayers' money—salaries are 100 per cent. funded by the taxpayer; the 10 or 15 per cent. contribution from the Church is for capital costs—to be discriminated against on the grounds either of religion or of perfectly lawful, appropriate behaviour that goes against the tenets of the religion concerned.
    We do not need to go too deeply into that, but some people will be aware that certain religious organisations have very strong views about the inappropriateness of homosexuality—a practice that is lawful and private and none of an employer's business. The exemption under the EU framework directive could make it legal for a school to invoke section 60(5) in order to terminate the employment of such teachers. Indeed, teachers currently work in that danger.
    The provisions are also discriminatory in that teachers of faith can teach anywhere. They can apply for any job in any school—religious and non-religious—but a secular or atheist teacher cannot teach in some schools and is therefore deprived of certain opportunities. The legislation in effect gives the small number of teachers who teach from a religious perspective privileged access to a large number—100,000-odd—of publicly funded jobs. That number would become even larger if more faith schools emerged from the Government's proposals. That amounts to institutionalised discrimination, as there is no counterbalancing body of community schools where teachers who are not committed to some faith are favoured over teachers who are religious. I am not of course advocating achieving equality by spreading discrimination.
    The job prospects of many excellent teachers who are non-believers in any religion are therefore reduced, and the disadvantage that they will suffer may increase with every new faith school that is opened. With such a high proportion of teaching posts—as well as, perhaps, new teaching posts—concentrated in faith schools, it is possible that teachers in some localities, especially rural ones, will have difficulty in obtaining employment unless they are or claim to be of the requisite faith.
    Secondly, the provisions militate against the best interests of pupils because what matters to the education of our children is having the best teacher at that subject and not the church attendance of a teacher. How religious

    929
    in any school does one need to be to teach mathematics, French or science? Does one need a working knowledge of Genesis to teach geology? I will go no further than to say that I doubt that that is a requirement.
    Given that there is such a short supply of teachers—and, I would imagine, a specific shortage of faith-based teachers given the small proportion of the population who are members of the Church of England, for example—there is a worry that teachers who are not as good as others will be appointed, especially if the number of faith schools increases.
    Angela Watkinson: Let us imagine that the new clause is agreed and denominational schools are obliged to accept applications from anybody, irrespective of faith. Supposing that of those interviewed the best person for the job happened to share the school's faith. How do you then—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must use parliamentary language. When she says "you", she is addressing the Chair and not the hon. Gentleman.
    Angela Watkinson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How does the hon. Gentleman think that the school could be protected from challenge by applicants who are unsuccessful and do not share the school's faith?
    Dr. Evan Harris: I am asking that a situation obtain which obtains in every other circumstance—in the state sector, certainly. One would hope that under the provisions of the EU employment directive, which I hope the hon. Lady's party supports, although I think it is still considering it, appointments could be challenged in an employment tribunal. Clearly, the school might consider it a bonus if the best candidate were also of the same faith, but I am arguing that the best candidate should not be rejected and that a good teacher should not be sacked or overlooked for promotion simply because of their beliefs or whether they attend church or mosque in their private time. The provisions are inappropriate and I cannot understand how they can be defended.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Mark Hoban: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about teachers in faith schools. I do not know whether he has attended a faith school. I have, and I know from experience that teachers at that school were a combination of those who supported that faith and those who did not support it—some were practising Catholics, others were not. The school's duty was to balance the needs of supporting and sustaining the religious faith of its pupils with achieving the best examination results—as well as other factors. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the new clause relates to a very narrow example of how faith works in schools? There are much broader issues, which he seems to have ignored so far in his speech.
    Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the same trap as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) in arguing that the job of a religious school is to promote its religion. As I understand it, the job of religious schools is to promote an ethos and not a particular religion. That point was made eloquently in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, whom the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who is no longer in his place, quoted. I believe that one can promote an ethos without determining what teachers do in their spare time with regard to their private religious beliefs.
    There is a worry, as far as the Dearing committee's proposals for the Church of England's expansion are concerned, that there are not sufficient Christian teachers. Church of England schools constitute about one quarter of all schools, but Church of England membership, among which one might imagine the majority of Christian teachers in Church of England schools might count themselves, represents only 3 per cent. of the population. Some teachers in community schools will be members of the Church of England, so that reduces the pool even further.
    The education officer of the Church of England London diocese has admitted publicly in the Church Times that it is unrealistic to expect to fill staff vacancies in Church schools by relying on practising Anglicans or even any Christians. Indeed, a Roman Catholic school has had to appoint its first non-Roman Catholic head. There are other examples, which I shall not go into, of concerns among the religions community that the position is unsustainable.
    My third objection to the proposals is that they are unnecessary given the exemptions in the EU framework directive, which will come into force by December 2003. Effectively, it bans discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion, age, sexual orientation and disability. It is due to be brought into force in this country by that date, in terms of religion at least, and the Cabinet Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are consulting on how to do that. Some occupational exemptions are relevant and those should provide the protection that hon. Members might feel is required for certain posts in schools. The directive states that discrimination
    "on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristics constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportional."
    One must ask whether teaching mathematics in a state school would lead to a genuine and determining occupational requirement to go to church on Sunday in one's spare time or whether what one really needs is someone who is good at teaching maths.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman refer the Tory party, whose members are sitting alongside him, to the American constitution, which states:
    "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust in the United States."

    931
    If that is true of the United States, which is regarded as a liberal and democratic regime, why cannot it be true in this country?
    Dr. Harris: I leave that question on the record for those who oppose the new clause to answer.
    In the directive, the second occupational exemption to the general rule against discrimination states:
    "Member states may maintain national legislation in force at the date of the adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation…in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos…
    Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos."
    That exemption renders unnecessary the stringent provisions of section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act, which deals with people being hired, fired and overlooked for promotion on the grounds of lawful and appropriate private activity. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that sections 58 and 60 are not required in the context of those occupational exemptions.
    Mr. Savidge: May I illustrate the hon. Gentleman's point with a historical anecdote from 1860, when Aberdeen was not quite as religiously tolerant as it is now? We eventually combined our two religious universities; one was Presbyterian, the other Episcopalian. We sacked the professor of physics because he was thought to have the wrong theological views on infralapsarianism or supralapsarianism; he was James Clerk Maxwell.
    Dr. Harris: That is a fascinating historical example of the sort of thing that may arise. I worry that an expansion of faith schools, particularly in communities where strong religious views are held, may lead to more peril for employees. I am concerned about the Government's view of the EU framework directive. Paragraph 13.12 of their consultation document states:
    "a religious organisation may be able to demonstrate that it is a genuine requirement that all staff—not just senior staff or people with a proselytising function—should belong to the religion concerned, so as to ensure the preservation of the organisation's particular ethos."
    I am concerned that, under section 60, no caretaker's job is safe in a religious school if it is felt that, to maintain the ethos, everyone employed by the school is required to be of a certain religion.
    I have heard nothing about new clause 2 from the Secretary of State, so I urge the Minister, when he replies to the debate, either to provide reassurance or to try to justify the strong provision of section 60 against the need for freedom of belief, freedom of activity and freedom of thought.
    Ms Ward: I start by declaring that I am a product of the faith school system. I was educated at numerous Catholic primary schools and a Catholic convent school. I find incredibly offensive the suggestion of some hon. Members that people who attend faith schools, whatever their faith, whether Catholic, Anglican or anything else, leave school prejudiced, intolerant and unable to accept or understand the views of others. My experience and that of many people who have attended faith schools and Catholic schools is that, when we left the school gates, we returned home to a community. We lived in a street and played with the local kids who might, or might not, have gone to the same school, followed the same religion and decided to go to the same church. As children, we got involved in a range of extra-curricular activities and mixed with children of different faiths, nationalities and backgrounds. It is wrong to believe that our faith schools create intolerant communities.
    Mr. Willis: I take great offence at the hon. Lady's remarks, as, I am sure, does every other Member who has spoken in our debate. Not once have I heard a Member make the points that she says we have made; quite the opposite. Most hon. Members, and certainly those who tabled the new clause, want faith schools to extend their boundaries and open up to others. That is exactly the opposite of her point, and I hope that she withdraws her remarks.
    Ms Ward: I certainly do not intend to, as I believe that those who argue for the dilution of faith schools are arguing that there is something wrong with people who are products of the faith school system. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) is not in the Chamber, but he referred to prejudice and intolerance; I take great exception to that, and I know that others will too.
    Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Lady share my experience, which is that faith schools, particularly in London, tend to have an ethnic and religious mix, provide a tolerant and open society within the school and do a much better job of educating children about the diversity of religious beliefs on the planet than non-faith schools?
    Ms Ward: I agree. My experience of Catholic schooling is that one of course receives an education based on religion, but one also gains an understanding of other religions—perhaps not in the same depth, but the opportunity exists. We should take the opportunity to encourage faith schools, not just to educate children in their own religion, but to create and promote tolerance and understanding. However, in doing so, we should not weaken the faith school system. New clauses 1 and 18 seek to weaken the status of faith schools.
    I listened carefully to the views of Members who have spoken, and accept that some do not support faith schools and wish that we did not have them. If times were different, and if history could be rewritten, perhaps we would not have faith schools in a wholly secular society. However, we are where we are. Historically, we have had schools of faith, but unfortunately schools of limited faiths. Now we have an opportunity to do something about that.
    Mr. Colin Challen: I am one of those who would like a secular schooling system. As a

    933
    secularist, I accept and respect other people's views and beliefs. Surely, it is the role of the state as a secular entity to ensure that all those views and beliefs are protected? Perhaps we can only achieve that through legislation.
    Ms Ward: I respect my hon. Friend's views, and respect people who follow different faiths. However, he has a choice; he, or anyone in his position, can decide not to send their children to a school with a particular faith or denomination—[Interruption.] I am afraid that I disagree with hon. Members who argue against that; in the vast majority of cases, and certainly in secondary education, people can choose not to send their children to certain schools.
    8 pm
    We have already heard this evening that where a primary school is the only rural primary school in the area, and may be a Church of England school, it opens its doors and welcomes children from all faiths and no faith. I see no reason why that should change; it should be encouraged wherever possible. However, I strongly object to the idea that that should be written into the Bill, and that there should be a quota. We have heard much about the figure of 25 per cent., but under new clauses 1 and 18 the figure need not be 25 per cent. The percentage of pupils of a particular faith at a faith school could range between 20 and 75 per cent. It would be determined by the local admission authority with only consultation rather than by agreement. That would be wrong.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am not sure what the position is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but does she not recognise that there are inner-city constituencies in which it is normal to find that a Church school, particularly a Roman Catholic school, is almost entirely white, and that because of the area in which it is situated, the neighbouring school is largely Asian and black. That situation is neither desirable nor sustainable.
    Ms Ward: My hon. Friend may well be right about the circumstances of those schools, but in many cases that is not dictated by the fact that one is a faith school. Schools may have a catchment area or, in the case of primary schools, an intake based on the area that they serve. The local community may be predominantly white or Asian, as is the case in some parts of the country.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), I have looked around the Chamber and I cannot see any hon. Member who represents a more characteristically inner-city constituency than I do. I have a considerable number of faith schools, of which many are Roman Catholic or Church of England. They are not all white, as he characterised them. Although the level of education in my constituency is good and getting better, parents of all religions fight to get their children into the faith schools because they are known to be of a very high standard.
    Ms Ward: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We know that in many cases the faith schools have a strong ethos,
    934
    which is attractive to parents. They also, but not exclusively, produce very good results. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that such schools are not exclusively white. In my community, the Catholic schools have children of Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Irish origin, and children from India, where Catholicism is one of the fastest-growing religions.
    I do not believe that faith schools are wrong to have a strong ethos. That encourages people to want to attend and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so articulately said, it encourages a common bond among those who attend the school. We should encourage such an ethos, but we should also encourage faith schools to diversify and work closely with other schools—schools of other faiths and of no faith. I would encourage faith schools that consider it appropriate in the areas that they serve to increase the intake of children of other faiths or no faith. I hope that the guidance from the Government will encourage opportunities for schools to work together.
    If new clause 18 were introduced, fewer independent schools in the faith sector would decide to move into the maintained sector, because the provision that would restrict the number of pupils of a particular faith in the faith school concerned to 75 per cent., or even 20 or 25 per cent., would not encourage them to do so.
    Many parents who believe strongly that their child should be educated in a faith school but who cannot get their child into a faith school in the maintained sector in their own community feel forced to go to the private sector. Many of them cannot afford to do so. We should not continue to discriminate against parents who feel so strongly about their faith by failing to encourage independent faith schools to come into the maintained sector.
    We should expand the number of faith schools right across the alternative, ethnic and minority faiths that exist in the United Kingdom. I have a significant Muslim community in Watford. I know that over the years there have been many representations from some within the community who want a school that clearly reflects their faith. I also know that there are alternative views, and I respect that. People should have the choice. If the demand exists for a Muslim school in Watford, the local community must decide. We must have the opportunity to discuss the matter as a community, but we will not have such an opportunity if there are not more faith schools in the maintained sector.
    Kevin Brennan: On equality and people from less well-off backgrounds getting into faith schools, does my hon. Friend agree that somebody who supports a secular and comprehensive system should vote against the clause, as it would institutionalise the creaming off by faith schools of the most talented pupils in our comprehensive schools, and probably exclude the children of the faith of the school from the poorest backgrounds?
    Ms Ward: I did not say at the outset that I supported secular education. I said that had we been in a different position many centuries ago, we might not have the faith school system that we have now, and that there are those who believe that we should have had a secular system.
    Finally, I want to raise the issue of Hindu schools in the context of new clause 18. At present, we have no Hindu schools—none in the maintained sector, and as far

    935
    as I am aware, none in the independent sector, despite a considerable demand for the establishment of one in part of north-west and north London. If a Hindu school decided that it wished to be a maintained school, Hinduism would be the only mainstream religion to be discriminated against by the 75 per cent. quota introduced by new clause 18. Every other religion that has been discussed this evening—Catholic, Church of England, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Greek Orthodox—already has at least one school in the maintained system. If new clause 18 were introduced, the Hindus could challenge it on the ground of discrimination, as theirs would be the only religion to be faced with a quota system for its schools. I would be interested to hear how my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would deal with that situation.
    Mr. Dobson: If my hon. Friend has been listening to the debate, she will know that the Church of England proposes the establishment of 100 additional secondary schools to which new clause 18 would apply, so I do not think that she can single out the Hindus. As far as I can see, she is erecting a problem that does not exist. So far, I have not heard from anyone from any Hindu group who wants a Hindu school. Every Hindu group with which I have had connections has said that it does not want a Hindu school and is happy with the system as it is.
    Ms Ward: I can tell my right hon. Friend that that is not the case and that representations are being made for a Hindu school. I accept that the more Muslim and Sikh schools that exist in the maintained sector, the more that demand will grow, but none the less, the demand is already there. My right hon. Friend referred to the 100 additional Church of England schools, but he misses my point, which is that the Church of England already has schools in the maintained sector, while the Hindu religion has no such schools. If it decided to enter the maintained sector, it would be the only mainstream religion to be discriminated against in terms of the whole of its religious education being controlled by a quota of a maximum of 75 per cent. I believe that that would be open to challenge in the courts.
    You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not support new clauses 1 and 18. I believe that it is right that we should extend the opportunities for an increase in the number of faith schools to more religions and that they should be encouraged by the Government's guidelines to work closely with other schools of faith and no faith, in the belief that religions promote in society the basics of good citizenship, values and standards. Of course, that is not to say that that is exclusive or that those who do not follow a faith do not have those values, but I believe that those are the core elements of all our main religions in this country and that it is for the good of our society that we see those values extended and promoted.
    Mr. Hoban: It will perhaps come as no surprise that I concur with much of what the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) has said, as she and I had a similar education. It was not exactly the same, however, as although we both attended Catholic primary schools, I attended not a Catholic convent but a Catholic comprehensive school.
    We have heard many hon. Members refer to the ethos of a school, and I want to spend some time talking about the nature of that ethos in the context of the new clauses.
    936
    The ethos of a school is not something that one can bottle, sell and spray in a new school. An ethos is created by the people who participate in the school—the teachers, pupils, parents and management—and by the curriculum that they follow. I feel that the new clause ignores the importance of creating an ethos that comes from the pupils who are admitted and the values to which they subscribe. A school's ethos depends on the shared set of values of the people who participate in what it does.
    8.15 pm
    I am not sure that a school can have the ethos of a faith school if it admits only 20 per cent. of its pupils on the basis of the faith that they share. I do not believe that that is possible. Some schools may decide that they can create the ethos of a Church or other faith school while accepting such a low proportion of pupils from a particular faith. However, it is important that it is the responsibility of the school and its parents to decide the appropriate mixture of admissions. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of Members of Parliament to tell schools how they should develop the religious composition of their pupil intake. Nor indeed—I refer back to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—should we tell schools how to appoint or select their teachers on the basis of faith. For a school to be a genuine faith school, it must not be merely a brand with no brand values. We need to ensure that the values of those who participate in the school reinforce the values of the faith that it is meant to represent.
    That is why it is right for us to oppose new clause 1 and allow schools the right to develop their own character to reflect the faith that they are there to work alongside. The Secretary of State described very well the situation of a Catholic school in terms of the relationship between the school, its pupils, the Church and the community. That characterisation illustrates the point well, as there is a mutually sustaining relationship between a faith school and the community that it serves.
    I object to new clause 18 because, in particular, I do not think that it is right to deny to Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims the right to set up schools that support their faiths. It is wrong simply to draw a line in the sand, as the new clause proposes, and prevent people in those religions from setting up schools that have the right to determine their admissions policies and characters. Indeed, as somebody who has benefited from a faith school and a faith education, I find that proposal especially offensive. We should allow other religions to set up schools. New clause 18 would do nothing to promote the equality of esteem in which we should hold all religions—it would simply reinforce the status quo and not address the concerns that hon. Members who support the new clauses have so far expressed.
    I should like to pick up on some of the comments about inclusivity and the assertion that faith schools are not inclusive. Faith schools can improve inclusivity in other ways than by changing their admissions policy. Recently, I spoke to a group of Muslims in my constituency who would like a Muslim school to serve the people of south-east Hampshire, although they recognise that to be inclusive, they would have to reach out to other faith groups and promote dialogue on moral and religious issues so that both parties to that dialogue could

    937
    understand the values of others. I believe that that would create a great deal of the tolerance and understanding that we need in the aftermath of the events of 11 September.
    Mr. Berry: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that that dialogue would be much more productive and much easier within the same school?
    Mr. Hoban: I accept that there is a point to that argument, but somebody who is confident in their own religion and has been educated within it will have a much stronger position—a position that allows one to argue from a point of view not of hostility, but of informed comment and discussion—than they would gain in a school of no faith at all.
    Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments that we have just heard display a lack of comprehension of the strength that faith schools can bring to the understanding of different religions? My experience is that faith schools are better than any others at building cross-religious understanding, but I think that there is a lack of understanding of that point in the Chamber.
    Mr. Hoban: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. I met the Muslim community in my constituency as part of an evening in Ramadan to which a canon from the Anglican cathedral in Portsmouth had been invited to discuss interfaith issues. Those discussions do not tend to take place in a local pub or café. On the occasion that I mentioned, they happened during a meeting of a religious group in an exclusive place. By demonstrating that they could start a dialogue in the Jamaat, Muslims showed that they could also do that in their schools. I therefore do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry).
    Brian Cotter: I simply want to attest to the fact that the perception of Catholic and other Church schools is sometimes wrong. I attended Catholic schools and I studied many different religions as well as Karl Marx and his manifesto. I was encouraged to do that, and I have ended up on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Such an education did not therefore do me much harm.
    Mr. Hoban: I shall leave others to ponder the long-term effects of the hon. Gentleman's education.
    Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman asserts that interfaith dialogue is easier between two faith schools, but not a shred of evidence has been produced to support that. It is a great insult to the majority of non-faith maintained schools that promote interfaith dialogue to suggest that they cannot do that as well as faith schools.
    Mr. Hoban: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but I am not yet convinced by it. Those who speak with confidence about their faith can enter into dialogue more comfortably than those who have no deep understanding of a faith. I accept that some non-faith schools promote a dialogue. The original point was that faith schools can be exclusive, but faith schools can be inclusive by encouraging dialogue between different faith schools.
    Mr. Burnett: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Does he agree that the new clauses
    938
    discriminate against faith schools, but not non-faith schools? The central tenets of the faiths that we have discussed today are understanding, co-operation, generosity and tolerance.
    Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is right. Faith schools can be shown to be inclusive because the faiths share the values that he mentioned. They can be inclusive by reaching out to other faith schools.
    Let us consider social inclusivity. The Catholic school that I attended was in Durham. Its catchment area was more socially inclusive than that of the nearest state comprehensive school, which served a predominantly middle-class area. My Catholic comprehensive school served not only the centre of Durham but the former coalfield communities around the city. Although faith schools may have a single religion, they admit pupils of other religions and can be socially inclusive.
    Mr. George Osborne: Another example of a faith school that has a wide catchment area is the London Oratory, which accepts pupils from all over London.
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that his children attended that faith school. I understand that its catchment area covers children who do not live far from here. Faith schools' catchment areas can be incredibly wide and attract pupils from diverse backgrounds.
    Mr. Challen: Does not that comment support new clause 1? If faith schools can attract such diversity, they will have no problem in achieving a target of 25 per cent.
    Mr. Hoban: What happens when faith schools are oversubscribed? That applies to many of them. If the new clause was accepted, many more parents who want their children to attend a faith school would be disappointed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made a thoughtful speech and referred to circumstances in which a local education authority could be taken over by religious fanatics who would change the character of the schools. Perhaps many of us believe that that is far-fetched.
    Chris Grayling: They might even go Labour.
    Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend must know what was in my mind. I know of a local education authority that would probably want to use new clause 1 to change the character of schools. Southampton city council is along the coast from my constituency. An article that was conveniently timed to coincide with Christmas stated that the manifesto that Labour councillors were due to draw up would oppose Church schools
    "as a matter of socialist principle."
    They could use new clause 1 to effect their policy and significantly change the character of the 11 existing Church of England and Catholic schools in Southampton by implementing the rule in new clause 1 to allow only 20 per cent. of pupils to be selected on the basis of their faith.
    A genuine threat exists to the many Church schools. I have shown that through the example of Southampton's Labour city council. I also fear for Church schools in

    939
    areas that the Liberal Democrats control if new clause 1 is accepted. With honourable exceptions, many Liberal Democrat Members have opposed allowing Church schools to define their character.
    Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members who have expressed anxiety about the intolerance of one religion towards another demonstrate intolerance of religion per se?
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful for that point. I do not want to probe too deeply the motives of the hon. Members who have tabled the new clauses and spoken in favour of them. Perhaps they show an intolerance of others' views that they have not so far expressed openly.
    New clause 1 puts faith schools at risk. New clause 18 would preserve the status quo and prevent those of other faiths who wished to set up new faith schools from doing that. It would also prevent the expansion of Church of England secondary schools.
    New clause 1—together with new clause 2, about which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon spoke earlier—is aimed at changing significantly the ethos of faith schools and interfering in how they are run, but it is not the role of Parliament to tell schools how they should admit pupils and select staff.
    8.30 pm
    Geraint Davies: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that more and more purely selective faith schools could lead to social segregation, intolerance and a distortion in local education choice. In my constituency, there are examples of people who have had to move house to move away from a faith school because they have no faith, to he near to one of the better schools. That happens in any case, but the more faith schools we have, the more such distortions will occur.
    I recognise the need to balance the right of schools to have their own separate identity and ethos—if there is local demand for that—with the choice for local children in terms of access to the best schools. I represent a multicultural constituency, and it is not apparent to me, by any stretch of the imagination, that local Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or, indeed, Christians want their own schools. Religious people often do not want religious schools; they might, however, want schools that simply have a leading ethos—a Christian ethos, for instance—rather than an overwhelming, 100 per cent. religious environment.
    The key issue that I want to bring to the debate is the distinction between two categories of faith schools. It is a distinction that has not been brought out so far, and it is critical to the shaping of the social and educational future of this country. The two types of faith school available are those that are voluntary aided and those that are voluntary controlled. I have already tried to make this point in interventions on the Secretary of State and other of my hon. Friends.
    I shall outline the difference between the two types of school. In voluntary-aided faith schools, the governing body is controlled by the relevant religion, the governors are the employers of the teachers, and the diocese or religion can dictate 100 per cent. preference in terms of
    940
    selection. In exchange for that, it has to pay 15 per cent. towards the capital costs of the school, although that will subsequently be reduced to 10 per cent. Nearly all Catholic secondary schools are voluntary aided. In the Anglican tradition, nearly 60 per cent. of Church of England secondary schools and 20 per cent. of primary schools are voluntary aided.
    In contrast, we have the voluntary controlled faith schools. I believe that, in promoting more and more faith schools, the Government should introduce regulations—or at least issue guidance—to demonstrate that they would prefer faith schools to be voluntary controlled. In such schools, there is a clear religious ethos—they are faith schools—and a number of governors are of the religion in question. That religion is also represented on the appointments panel, so that the head teacher and senior staff reflect the religion and ethos of the school.
    The admissions policy of voluntary-controlled schools, however, does not require the intake to be 100 per cent. based on their religion. Instead, it reflects the normal local education authority procedure. That means that such schools reflect the community that they serve. In a largely Muslim community, for example, the majority of children in such a school might be Muslim. Through natural migration and parental choice, individual schools can develop a religious leadership and ethos without it being completely of one type—in many cases, that means one racial type as well as one religious type. About 40 per cent. of Church of England secondary schools are voluntary controlled. They welcome children of other denominations, but their leadership is clearly Church of England. Eighty per cent. of Church of England primary schools are voluntary controlled, rather than voluntary aided.
    The plan for the extra 100 faith schools must embrace other denominations, and if they were voluntary controlled, the Churches would take a leading role in running them while allowing them to remain accessible to local children. In the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, he mentioned a village in which there were two secular schools. He said that if that were changed to one secular school and one faith school, that would reduce the choice available to local children, in that only one school would he available to them if they did not support that faith.
    However, if the faith school in that example were voluntary controlled, as opposed to voluntary aided, that would not be the case. Local people could use either school, because there would be open access. However, in such a scenario, members of the community with that faith would naturally migrate to the school that denominated itself religious with open access, and that leadership would be reflected in those who chose to apply. Anyone could apply, but, in practice, the same choices would remain and such problems would not arise. They would arise, however, in a voluntary-aided school.
    The distinction between voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools is critical to the shape of education choices and possible social segregation. Many of my constituents, be they Christian, Hindu or of another denomination, might want to attend a school that has a religious ethos, but is not overwhelmingly religious. For example, some 90 per cent. of students in a voluntary-controlled Church of England school in Tower Hamlets, of which the Bishop of Blackburn's wife happens to be the head, are Muslim.

    941
    That shows that the complexion of faith schools can alter through demographic change in the local catchment area. The students of that school are clearly happy to attend, and it is no surprise that the Bishop of Blackburn takes the Anglican view that the Government should introduce regulations to prevent 100 per cent. religious preference in any given school. There is support for Anglican schools as well as support for more general inclusion.
    Hon. Members have referred to the difficulties in Oldham and Bradford. Oldham has a voluntary-aided Anglican school that is 100 per cent. Anglican and 100 per cent. white, but Bradford does not. In Bradford, the issue is housing segregation. There are complicated problems, which relate to segregation and society, and it is too simplistic to say that they all derive from the schooling system, but, given the congruence of faith and ethnicity in schools, the segregation of schoolchildren clearly does not always help communities to gel.
    On voluntary control versus voluntary aid, no particular demand exists for a big increase in the number of voluntary-controlled Catholic schools. The demand comes from Anglicans, who have asked for an extra 100—they are happy with the principle of voluntary control.
    I press the Government to signal strongly that, in welcoming new faith schools, they have a clear preference for voluntary-controlled schools. Such a system would preserve status: it would not change all-Catholic schools or, for that matter, any others, given that we are discussing new schools. It would enable Anglicans to do what they want, ensure local access for local people to the school of their choice and enable Sikhs and Hindus, for example, to attend Muslim schools alongside Christians. It would also enable the establishment of new Muslim schools and schools of other religious traditions.
    Mr. Hoban: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments for some 10 minutes. Is he for or against the new clause?
    Geraint Davies: My position is clear. The Government should state a preference for voluntary-controlled schools, which offer completely open access, rather than voluntary-aided schools. That is the way forward. I do not support the new clause. I fear that we are in danger of manufacturing artificially defined quotas that in time will not reflect local demand that will change as the ethnicity and demography of communities change. Whatever figure is chosen—50 per cent., 20 per cent., 70 per cent.—may become the wrong figure as a result of such change.
    I am making what could be seen as a much more radical suggestion. I suggest that a school should reflect the community that it serves—that, while having a religious leadership, it should allow admission according to the normal conditions of local education authorities. Such an arrangement would give a child living next door to a school whose religion he or she did not share a good chance of going there.
    It is clear from this debate, and from the wider debate in the country, that the problem we are discussing is enormous and prompts enormous concern. Some may think that examples drawn from Bradford, Burnley or Northern Ireland are not relevant, but we all know that they have
    942
    some bearing on our discussion. The Government could accommodate ethos, culture, religious leadership and new faith schools without requiring everyone to belong to one faith, which would inevitably lead to discrimination at the margin.
    The Government should regulate to make such schools voluntarily controlled, or at least signal by means of guidance their support for the establishment of schools on that basis where there is local demand. If schools end up representing one faith 100 per cent., that is fine. One of the deficiencies of the new clause is its failure to provide for the possibility of growth and contraction of that proportion according to local demand.
    As has been pointed out, Lord Denning has said that the Church of England wants more inclusion in the 100 new faith schools. The Muslim Education Trust and the Archbishop of Canterbury want it as well, and the MORI poll implies that others want the same. There should be a balance. Religions should have the right to establish new faith schools if there is local demand, but children should have the right to choose between local schools.
    The Government should make it clear that voluntary control is the preferred option. After all, our children's education will shape the society of the future. I feel that we should celebrate Britain as a community of communities by establishing more faith schools, but also making them voluntary controlled.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: I support the aims of the new clause, but profoundly disagree with the proposals for compulsion and quota, which strike me as both inappropriate and, probably, counterproductive. I expect that I am among a minority of Liberal Democrats who do not support the proposal in its current form.
    I ought to make my position clear. Many have opposed the new clause from a religious standpoint, but I do not. My background is extremely eclectic. I was born a Baptist, went to Methodist Sunday school, converted to Quakerism, married a Roman Catholic and, in a spirit of British compromise, brought up my children as Anglicans and sent them to a non-denominational school. My late wife was Indian as well as Catholic, and most of my in-laws are Hindus. I therefore hold no brief for any particular denomination. Indeed, my background has encouraged my belief in the virtues of inclusivity, provided it is achieved in the right way.
    I was given a good example on Tuesday night, when I was invited to give prizes at a local Catholic secondary school for girls. It is an independent school, so the Bill does not apply to it, but the principle is the same. Although the school's ethos was clearly Catholic, many of the girls receiving prizes were Hindus and Sikhs. The head of the science department, sitting on the platform, was a Muslim lady—as was advertised by her shawl and headscarf—and was clearly proud of that background.
    8.45 pm
    It was clear that that school believed in inclusiveness and actively promoted it. It worked because the Church, the priests and the nuns who were there believed in it. Such a system could not be made to work in an environment where compulsion and obligation applied.
    Two specific issues have reverberated in this debate. One relates to what freedom of choice is in this environment. The point has been made in several effective

    943
    interventions that there is no absolute principle of freedom of choice, because when one person exercises their freedom of choice to go to a denominational school, if the school is over-subscribed, that may subtract from the freedom of choice of someone else. However, those two freedoms are not the same; they are not symmetrical. They are different in seriousness.
    It is a major commitment to send a child to a religious school, particularly as we live in a highly secular society. Often, parents have a strong wish to send their child to such a school. One cannot compare that with the sense of grievance that an atheist may feel because their child cannot get into the Catholic school next door.
    As an MP, I have yet to encounter a non-believer who has a grievance because their child cannot attend a religious school. If people did have that grievance, I am sure that I would know about it. My constituency is very education-conscious. It is at the top of the Government's league tables. On the top of the top of the league tables are the denominational schools. People care passionately about schooling. I am sure that if people had that grievance they would have come to me. However, I am aware of the strong wish of people of faith to send their children to denominational schools in Twickenham. As it happens, my council, which is a Liberal Democrat council, provides additional Catholic and Anglican schools under the private finance initiative to enable that choice to be made.
    The issue of freedom of choice is complex. Absolute fundamentalist principles cannot be applied to it, but it is important and it works in favour of the faith schools system.
    The second issue is divisiveness. Perhaps in a London suburb, one does not experience religious conflict in the way one does in a northern mill town, but I draw on another example. If any city in Britain approximates to the conditions of Northern Ireland it is Glasgow. I lived there for some years. I was active in political life and in the big debate there about the future of faith schools.
    Many people argued in similar terms to those of the new clause. They said that faith schools should be phased out or diluted. They were afraid of divisions in society. I lived in Glasgow when the Northern Ireland troubles were starting. People argued that unless we got rid of faith schools, blood would run in the streets of the city
    At first sight, those people had a compelling case. The city was divided 50:50—there were Catholic and non-denominational schools. There is a lot of intolerance. I have been to lots of old firm games. At the end where Union jacks are waved, one can listen to religious ditties on the sex life of the Pope for several hours, which are designed to offend the people at the other end of the ground. Indeed the religion that is taught is far from liberal. My late wife taught in a Catholic comprehensive. She was regularly reprimanded for trying to introduce Cromwell and Karl Marx to the history curriculum, and told to stick to the saints. It was not a liberal tradition that was at stake.
    None the less, many of the predictions did not materialise. There has been no religious violence in Glasgow in the wake of the Irish troubles—London has experienced such violence. It has not happened in Glasgow for a good reason: in many ways it is a very integrated society. People are integrated through residential accommodation, work and personal relationships, and there is no tangible sectarian divide.
    944
    I was initially critical of the faith schools, but I came to believe that they perform an extremely important social function. As the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, they have provided a valuable mechanism for social inclusion. The Irish immigrant working class found a way, through the city's faith schools—I believe that the same is true of Liverpool and other cities—of getting into the professions and becoming part of society. Many of the arguments about social division are unfounded.
    Dr. Kumar: The hon. Gentleman eloquently argues the case for faith schools in Glasgow, but there we are talking about one religion, Christianity, so the gap is not so wide. Now we have to think about Muslim schools, Sikh schools, Hindu schools—not one religion, but several. The gap between those is much wider. My fear is that, given what is happening in some parts of northern England, there is a danger of segregation, rather than the partial integration that he describes in Glasgow.
    Dr. Cable: There is clearly a division. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) made the point several times that religious division can combine with racial division, and that would worry me, too, because I believe in racial equality and integration. If the issue is race, it is not only a Muslim/white issue, because there is racial segregation between black and white Christians.
    Do those who believe in applying quotas in a denominational context also believe in applying them in a racial one, simply to reduce racial segregation? In countries where that has happened, notably the United States—it has also happened in India in relation to caste—it has generated an enormous amount of hatred and resentment, and the use of prescription has been wholly counterproductive.
    Caroline Flint: I attended St. Mary's Church of England school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Following his point about racial segregation, does he agree that there is a danger, given the events in the north-west last summer, in treating faith schools exclusively as the problem, while ignoring all the other issues to do with people's confidence about their cultural identity and religion; and that in our multicultural society we should place value on all people's cultural faiths and beliefs and not only those that have dominated this country for so many centuries? Is it not important to consider the wider issues about why dissent between ethnic groups within communities occurs, rather than blaming faith and faith schools in a knee-jerk reaction?
    Dr. Cable: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We were enjoined earlier on not to draw international comparisons, but there is an interesting comparison between this country and France, which has very alienated, segregated Muslim minorities in very large groups, even though the schooling system has been entirely based on secular French republican principles. The problems there have nothing to do with how the school system is configured.
    The hon. Lady made a very penetrating intervention a few minutes ago when she said that many of the objectives of the supporters of the new clause could be better achieved in other ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) corrected her in part, but it is certainly the case that there are many different ways in which the state or LEAs,

    945
    through the inspectorate, control of the curriculum, and requirements for teacher training and qualifications, can exercise influence over the quality of schools. That is a much better way of dealing with the problems.
    The Government are very inventive in generating new categories of schools and rewarding them with status and money. Perhaps in areas where segregation is developing to a dangerous extent in the school system, they could pilot a scheme whereby a faith school that is particularly inclusive could be recognised and rewarded in a positive way. That approach would be much more likely to succeed than one that is based on coercion and quota.
    Clive Efford: I rise to support the new clauses tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). In doing so, I want to make my position clear. Some hon. Members have been disingenuous in suggesting that those who support the new clauses are against faith schools. I am not against faith schools. I spent my early school years in a Catholic school.
    I was brought up as a Catholic and, although I have no faith now, I also spent some time as a governor of a Catholic school in my constituency. I was able to provide a great deal of help and assistance to the school in that period. I was pleased to do so, and would be pleased to help again in the future, if the occasion arose.
    Some of the interventions in the debate seem to me to have missed the point. The debate is about the education provided by faith schools, not faith itself. When people exercise choice and send their children to faith schools, they do so after considering the quality of the education offered by the school, not only the faith to which it belongs. Some very well-heeled individuals bus their children halfway across London to faith schools. They do not do that, in the first instance, because the schools are religious. They do it because the performance of the schools in question is very high. We must bear that in mind during this discussion.
    We have been told that a 25 per cent. quota for faith schools would undermine the ethos of those schools. In an intervention, we were told that the Catholic authorities recommend that 10 per cent. of pupils in Catholic schools should come from non-Catholic or non-religious backgrounds. If the faiths are making it clear that they would accept and welcome pupils from different backgrounds, why should we stand in their way? How can we argue that that is against the ethos of those schools?
    Mr. Goodman: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, for many faith schools, there is a difference between taking 10 per cent. of pupils from different backgrounds, and the much larger proportion—up to 80 per cent., if I read new clause 1 rightly—that is being proposed? In the first instance, the proportion of non-faith children would be a small minority, but some faith schools would not be able to maintain their ethos with minority intakes that are much larger.
    Clive Efford: The new clauses propose that a consultation process be held if the proportion involved goes beyond 25 per cent. Local accountability is a factor, and a point that has been overlooked throughout this debate is that LEAs are accountable to their local communities.
    946
    If an LEA or a school organisation committee acts outside the interests of a faith school or of the community that it represents, people will be able to take account of that in future elections. They will be able to make representations through the faith schools, which also belong to the school organisation committees, to ensure that local accountability is preserved when decisions are taken. I therefore do not think that the fears described by the hon. Gentleman are well founded.
    We have heard that religious schools perform better than other schools. I see no evidence for that contention. Some excellent religious schools perform extremely well, but yesterday's Ofsted report stated that the 25 per cent. of all schools that are religious-based make up 30 per cent. of the top-performing schools.
    I do not suggest for a moment that the secondary school of which I was one of the governors adheres to the policy, but all hon. Members know that selection takes place in many religious schools. Sometimes it takes place before pupils arrive at the door of the school applying for a place. The selection takes place in the churches and religious institutes where the priest—or whoever it might be—gives a pupil a supporting statement to prove that that child is a practising member of the congregation, and that application is being made for attendance at a school on that basis.
    9 pm
    Selection is clearly a factor in the performance of those schools. I reject the idea that, if those schools were to take 25 per cent. of their pupils from the general community around them, it would affect or undermine their performance. I do not accept that. The schools that I know about, which are very good and provide an excellent education for their pupils, would not be threatened by the requirement that they take 25 per cent. of pupils who are not of their denomination.
    The issue of choice has been raised. What we have heard constantly from hon. Members who oppose the new clauses shows that choice means exclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) asked how much choice there is for parents and children who live near a denominational school, but who do not share that denomination. Where is their choice? They can only choose a school outside their community because they are excluded from the nearest school. That is not choice.
    If we really supported choice, we should support the new clauses. They would let parents decide whether they want to send their child to a faith school or to another school. It would then be for the education authority to determine whether the 25 per cent. quota should apply if there were not enough applicants.
    Mr. Hoban: There has been much debate about choice and the geographical proximity of the pupil to the school. Does the hon. Gentleman think that parents in my constituency, who want their child to attend a Catholic school, for example, are denied choice by virtue of the fact that the nearest Catholic secondary school is either 10 miles down the road in Portsmouth or 10 miles down the road in Southampton?
    Clive Efford: I am not clear about the hon. Gentleman's point. If people do not live close to a school of the denomination of their choice, perhaps their choice should be whether they move closer to the school.

    947
    If someone is part of a community, but the nearest school is not of their denomination and applies 100 per cent. religiosity in its entrance policy, that person is excluded from their local school. That is not choice—it is the prevention of choice.
    Caroline Flint: The issue of parental choice is difficult. I have many cases—I am sure that my hon. Friend does, too—of people who apply to their local school, which is non-denominational but still oversubscribed, so the LEA tells them that their children must attend their second or third choice. Arguments about choice are difficult—they also apply to the non-denominational sector: children cannot attend their closest school under the current arrangements.
    Clive Efford: I fully accept that point. My education authority is bordered by one that applies selection in many of its secondary schools, so the problem is acute for me. Many parents turn up at my surgery at the time of secondary transfer because they have not been given their first choice. The child has taken what we call the "Bexley test" and has failed to get into the school they want, so they come back to my area. Those parents have a perception of the quality of the education their child will receive. That is the point of my argument. When schools are oversubscribed—whether or not they are religious—it is because of the quality of the education they offer, not because of their faith.
    I realise that the debate has gone on for a long time and many of the issues that I raised have been touched on before, but I have one brief point to make. I represent a community that has been ravaged by racism. I represent the constituency of Eltham, where Stephen Lawrence was murdered, and I am extremely concerned as to the direction we are taking as regards segregation in our schools.
    I organise a community group which meets regularly. We discuss racism and we tackle the local authority, the education authority and others on what they are doing to challenge it—especially among young people. When some school inspectors attended our meeting, they told us that in many parts of my constituency—as in many inner-city areas—there are exclusively white communities, and almost no ethnic minority pupils in the schools.
    One of the problems was the children's lack of experience of people of other faiths or ethnic minority groups because they were not mixing with such people on a day-to-day basis. The terms that they use for people of other races and their attitude towards them is affected because they do not come across people from different backgrounds in their daily lives. By encouraging more faith schools without encouraging more integration, we would be pouring petrol on the problem.
    My local education authority has done much to deal with the problem and I commend it for that. I do not want the Bill to put into reverse that excellent work, albeit for the best of intentions. That is why I will support the new clause.
    Mr. Leigh: First, I apologise for not attending the earlier part of this debate. I had to chair a Committee Upstairs. I wanted to speak because I feel strongly about this subject.
    948
    This is a difficult issue and I hesitated before speaking as there are many shades to the argument. I always try to reach out to Labour Back Benchers, but I must make an admission that may not make me very popular with many of them. I am a middle-class resident of Westminster and Member of Parliament who sends his child across two boroughs to the London Oratory. I also send a child across another borough boundary—
    Clive Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
    Mr. Leigh: I have hardly started, but I will.
    Clive Efford: Does the hon. Gentleman send his child to the London Oratory because of religion or because of the quality of the education there?
    Mr. Leigh: In these debates, it is important to speak not only in the abstract but from personal experience. Speeches that I have heard in this Chamber over the years have been all the better for being spoken from personal experience. I am trying not to make a debating point but to share my personal experiences as a parent who cares passionately about the education of his children and who, because of the nature of his job, has to live in central London.
    Most state schools in central London are simply unacceptable. That is the honest truth that we have to face. It is not a comfortable point of view, but one must be honest about this and middle-class parents—in fact, all parents in central London—fight to get their children into Church schools. It is distressing to attend parents' meetings, as I have done at Our Lady of Victories, Lady Margaret's, which is a Church of England school—I did not manage to get my daughter into that school—and the London Oratory, and to see literally hundreds of people of all types from all social classes who are desperate to get their children into the schools. We must ask ourselves why.
    I have talked to many teachers and head teachers at those schools. A terrible burden is placed on them every year when they have to reject many excellent children. These are not just middle-class people trying to cheat the system but people from all social classes, and they have one thing in common: they want the best for their children. They are fighting to get them into the Church schools and they cannot. That is the problem.
    Why are those Church schools so good? There is huge objective evidence to show that they are good. The Times Educational Supplement survey showed that one in four of the best schools in the country is a Church school. We know that they are over-subscribed, but they are good. They are so good because of their ethos, which is based on discipline, traditional standards and, yes, on religion. It is based on all those things that parents are so desperate for, so they fight to get their children into those schools.
    The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is sincere about what he wants. As one parent to another I must tell him that the Catholic schools in central London, which are what I know about, are already hugely over-subscribed by Catholics. Many sincere, religious people cannot get their children into them. They are turned away, which is deeply upsetting. Their children have to go to secular schools or to schools

    949
    that do not share their values. If new clause 1 is passed, many more of them would be turned away. That is simply unfair. For that reason, if for no other, I cannot support it.
    Mr. Challen: Does not the hon. Gentleman believe in market forces and the possibility that if there is too much demand, capacity will rise to meet it?
    Mr. Leigh: Church primary schools in central London, or schools such as the London Oratory, cannot expand; physically, there is no room. They are hugely over-subscribed by people who share that faith.
    Brian Cotter rose—
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Leigh: No.
    It has been said that a lot of the parents with children at those schools are insincere. It is true that some people will deliberately go to Our Lady of Victories church, Kensington high street, Sunday after Sunday, although they are not very religious, and make themselves known to the priest because they know that that is how they get their children into a really good primary school. However, those hon. Members who support new clause I should accept that there are many sincere people who want a religious ethos for their children. They have a fundamental right of freedom of association. If they want to send their children to a school with a strong Catholic, Jewish or Church of England ethos, they should be allowed to do so.
    Brian Cotter: I want to add to what the hon. Gentleman says and to correct it a little. It is not only middle-class families who look for schools with an ethos and discipline. I refer to a council estate in Weston-super-Mare where people are very disadvantaged. I was surprised, but they are determined to get their children into a school where prayers are said in the mornings. Lots of people, not just the middle class, seek the ethos and discipline that may be found in Church schools, but may also be found elsewhere.
    Mr. Leigh: That is the point that I am trying to make. I should have thought that Labour Members would be especially anxious to have schools with a broad social mix and that they would want schools in central London and the inner cities to which people of all types want to send their children.
    From my experience, schools such as Our Lady of Victories primary school have a complete social mix. There are people from the poorest families, immigrant families and many people on very low incomes, and people who have recently come to this country from Portugal, Spain, Latin America and all over Europe. There is a great mix of languages. The school is not based in a posh, suburban area. It is not based in the middle of Twickenham, which is a desirable area. I make no criticism of the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). It is in the middle of London, and it draws its children from every social class. Some of
    950
    those people face tremendous difficulties, but they fight to get their children into that school because of its ethos. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is sincere, but if new clause I were passed, the ethos of that school would be so watered down that that beacon of light, which attracts people from all classes from all over London, could be put out. I know that he does not want that to happen, but that is what he is in danger of doing.
    Mr. Goodman: My hon. Friend is speaking in a personal and honest way. Does he agree that a large number of parents who do not believe in any particular religion want their children to be brought up in a context of absolute values? It would be wrong for any hon. Member to sneer at them as hypocrites for wanting that; they are entitled to our respect, as he says.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. There are genuinely religious people who want their children to go to religious schools. There are people who may not be religious but who want to send their children to schools were people believe in the absolute values to which my hon. Friend refers, and they should not be sneered at.
    Mr. David Rendel: The hon. Gentleman seems directly to contradict the rest of his argument. If he is saying that there are people who do not have any particular religious beliefs but who desperately want their children to go to a faith school because of its ethos, the only way he can achieve that is by voting for new clause 1.
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my argument. The reason why many Church schools in otherwise difficult areas are so over-subscribed is their religious ethos. Although many of the people who are trying to get their children into those schools may not be religious, they respect the ethos that has created them. The real danger of the new clause is that many schools in those difficult areas would start to lose that ethos. That may not happen in all cases, but it may happen in enough cases to make us pause and worry. One should not try to destroy the best. One must allow the best to continue, and try to bring others on behind them. I passionately believe in that.
    9.15 pm
    We are perhaps not being honest with ourselves in this debate. There is no doubt that many Church of England schools and Catholic schools, which have been around for a long time, are inclusive. They are deeply embedded in the culture and history of our country and are not narrow-minded. People are tripping carefully around a subtext to this debate, because it is a highly sensitive issue—the problem of Muslim schools. People are not being entirely honest about that. I am happy with the thought of Muslim schools. However, those who want to set up Muslim schools must be as determined as those who run Jewish, Catholic and Church of England schools to be part of the wider community. Those who wish to set up Muslim schools must not force their children into a tiny, religiously based community in which they are cut off from people of other religions. I sincerely mean it when I say that that does not happen in Catholic schools.
    Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Leigh: I know that the hon. Lady feels strongly about this issue, but what I have described does not

    951
    happen in the Catholic schools and Church of England schools that I know. Their teachers are careful to talk to their pupils about other religions, to be fair and not to be dismissive about others' beliefs, and to make sure that their pupils are part of the wider community.
    Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the strength of the established religious schools would disappear if the new clause were passed and a mere 20 per cent. of non-religious children or children of different religions entered them. He is now arguing entirely the opposite case with regard to the possible creation of Muslim schools—that they cannot be exclusive with regard to children who do not share their religion.
    Mr. Leigh: I was not saying that at all. If someone wants to set up a school with 100 per cent. Muslim pupils, that is a fundamental right of freedom of association. We should not deny people that right just because they want to be in the maintained sector. People have a right to set up schools with an ethos in which they believe—there should be a range of schools in the maintained sector as in the independent sector—and we should not deny Muslims such a right. I am simply trying to make the point that, when such schools are set up—I have no doubt that they will be—they should be aware of the vital importance, despite being 100 per cent. Muslim, of integrating with the rest of the community. That is a point with which I hope nobody in the House should disagree.
    Dr. Kumar: Did the hon. Gentleman believe in setting up Muslim schools when the Conservative party was in government?
    Mr. Leigh: I am trying to deal with this point seriously and be fair to all sides. Personally, I have had a worry about Muslim schools for many years, for the reasons that I have been talking about. On the one hand, people have the right to have schools—freedom of association is a fundamental right—but can we be absolutely sure, once the school has been set up, that it will ensure that its pupils are aware of the history of the nation and of the wider community? We have been assured in this debate that times have moved on, that we have a mature democracy, and that people who want to create such schools will do precisely that. I am happy with that. I am simply saying that we should leave the schools that we have alone. Do not mess them around or impose quotas on them. Let parents and teachers get on with running the schools that they want. However, once we have those schools, let us ensure that they are aware of their wider responsibilities.
    Mr. Chaytor: After nearly six hours of debate it is difficult to bring anything new to the arguments but I shall do my best.
    I support the amendments but in the full knowledge that the subject is complex. The passionate debate and the heated views of hon. Members on both sides of the House has demonstrated that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) have done the House and the country a service by confronting the issue. It is not merely about the technicality of school admissions policies, but about the
    952
    much deeper and profounder issues of social exclusion, the cohesiveness of our society—our urban areas in particular—and the fundamental relationship between the Church and the state. No matter what happens tonight, the debate will continue and expand. I look forward to a much broader debate on the constitutional issue of the relationship between the Church and the state in the months ahead.
    Like many hon. Members, I am religiously neutral. I was brought up in a Methodist family and married a Catholic. I have been an atheist and I am probably now a humanist. Who knows where I will be in 10 years' time? I am not sure whether that is a confession or a declaration of interest, but hon. Members have started from their personal point of view.
    Although I am religiously neutral, I will defend to the last the right of people who hold religious views to express them and bring their children up within that philosophy. Religion plays no significant part in my life, but I recognise its overwhelming significance in our cultural history. That is why I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he defined the liberal society as one in which people can tolerate the views of those they find intolerant.
    Mr. Challen: Opposition Members said that many Labour Members hate religion. Perhaps they think that those who support the new clause are atheists. Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that it is possible to be an atheist and to admire religion? It is even possible to be an atheist and to study it, as I chose to do when I went to university.
    Mr. Chaytor: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
    I want to deal with the arguments against the amendments. Some hon. Members have accused them of disparaging all religion. That is manifestly not true. Others have criticised them for wanting to put an end to religious schools or to block the development of more religious schools. That is obviously not true. Some people laid the blame on religious schools for the riots in Burnley, Oldham and Bradford. Clearly there is a relationship, but it is not entirely causal. We need to sweep away the social and cultural issues that have come into the argument and concentrate on education.
    I declare an interest because of the many religious schools in my constituency. There is a private Muslim school, a state Anglican school, a state Catholic school and many Church of England and Catholic primary schools, and one of the Church of England primary schools has an overwhelming majority of Muslim pupils. There is thus a diversity of experience in my constituency. I pay tribute to the leadership and the teachers of all those schools. Some of them perform extremely well and are hugely popular with parents; others have serious difficulties.
    The pattern of achievement in religious schools is hugely varied, especially in primary schools. In the secondary sector, the GCSE A to C point score may well be slightly higher overall for religious schools, but we cannot give any credence to the significance of the GCSE point score of any school without also looking at the proportion of children with statements and of children on free school meals that the school takes. In the secondary

    953
    sector, Church of England and Catholic schools take a significantly smaller proportion of children on free school meals and those with statements than conventional state schools, so we must set any comment about results in the context of intake.
    My support for new clause 1 is based on the educational impact of existing Church schools. I take very much to heart the comments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I accept that in some parts of the country there is tremendous pressure to get into religious schools, because many parents deem the alternative unacceptable. I sympathise with parents in that predicament, but the point is that that in itself cannot be allowed to continue. It is almost as if the hon. Gentleman and others support the status quo as somehow acceptable. The overwhelming majority of Labour Members do not find the current structure acceptable, because the privileges of the minority are obtained to the disadvantage of the majority. The structures must change.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of my own experience. I went to a Church of England cathedral school, which had a very diverse pupil population—there were pupils from all social groups. Obviously, it was predominantly Christian, but there were Jewish and Catholic pupils. It was a great grammar school and had a tremendous ethos—it still does. Unfortunately, it was forced to go private because it was so concerned to maintain its ethos and not have it watered down. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is not a case of the privileges of the minority being won at the expense of the majority, but of opportunities being closed off, and that there could be many circumstances in which the consequence would be the same? Now one can go to that school only if one has the money to do so.
    Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman is opening up an argument that is probably more relevant to the next but one set of amendments, which deals specifically with selection. I do not want at this stage to go into the history or ending of direct grant grammar schools; suffice it to say that if the hon. Gentleman is arguing that there was a loss of educational opportunity for the majority when direct grant grammar schools and other schools such as cathedral schools went private in the 1970s, I ask him to consider the levels of achievement of children between 1970 and 2000. He will find that, as the system of comprehensive education has developed year on year, so the levels of achievement have increased. That could not have happened in the days when cathedral or direct grant grammar schools were in the state system.
    I want to move the argument on. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) that the freedom to choose for one set of parents is quite separate from the loss of choice of another set of parents. The importance of freedom of choice is paramount to the extent that it does not impinge on the denial of somebody else's freedom of choice. That to me is the heart of the issue. On any analysis of the structure of secondary education—it is important that we draw the distinction between the operation of faith schools in the primary and secondary sectors—the crux of the matter is that one persons' freedom of choice is another person's denial of choice. The existing structure of faith schools is the central cog in that mechanism. Those are my objections.
    954
    There are issues concerning selection, admissions policy, dubious practices and lack of transparency in the way certain faith schools recruit their pupils. There are questions about the role of parents and whether pupils are admitted because of their parents rather than their inherent aptitude, ability, suitability or character. We could spend a lot of time discussing all that, but it would be a distraction.
    9.30 pm
    To return to achievement in faith schools, it is true that there are many high-performing faith schools with strong academic results. However, if we look at their achievement in promulgating faith, it can be argued that they have been a disaster. As those schools have become more entrenched in our secondary school system, the number of practising Christians has declined year on year. Passionate supporters of faith schools must consider carefully the fact that the amendments would strengthen the role of religion by making it more inclusive.
    Some long-standing members of the Church of England who were brought up in its faith and culture are almost in denial about the faith crisis in Christianity. The situation in the Isle of Wight, Gainsborough and Suffolk, Coastal may be different from that in the textile towns of east Lancashire and west Yorkshire. However, I urge hon. Members to look at what happens in most of our urban areas on Sunday, and consider how many people choose to practise their faith on Sunday and how many choose to go to the hypermarket. That is a central issue; the current structure of faith schools has served to undermine the credibility of the religious values that they wish to propagate.
    Mr. Goodman: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that most faith schools would be made stronger if local authorities insisted, as the amendments allow, that they reduce the proportion of pupils of that faith?
    Mr. Chaytor: I am arguing that most faith schools would be stronger and that the faith itself would gain strength and wider support if the schools were more exclusive and less inclusive—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the other way around."] I am grateful for the correction. The various practices in admissions procedures, in which hypocrisy is entrenched, are part of the reason for the growing cynicism about religion in our society. I am neutral on religion. I do not oppose my party manifesto, which calls for an extension of faith schools; I am content to support diversity of school management. If it is a choice between Arthur Andersen and the Church of England, I go for the Church of England every time—[Interruption.] No, it is not a close-run thing; I would certainly choose the Church of England.
    In our debate, we have not separated out the Church's different educational roles; we have not separated its role as propagandist, with which I am extremely uncomfortable, from its role as simple contractor, with which I am content. Again, I cite the Church of England school in my constituency, where a majority of pupils are Muslim. There are many similar examples across the country. I am happy for the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Jewish religion, Methodism and the Muslim faith to manage and run a school, as long as their prime focus is the delivery of high-quality education, not simply the promulgation of the faith.

    955
    My argument, which I do not think has been put this evening, is that for those who believe in Church schools, there is an advantage in supporting the new clause, because it can strengthen the role of Church schools. I ask them to consider seriously what has happened to the levels of membership of their religion over the past quarter of a century.
    I was surprised to find that the Labour party manifesto included a reference to encouraging 100 new faith schools. I do not suppose that I was the only one who was surprised by that, but I am not opposed to it, as long as all religions have an equal chance of taking on the responsibility of running a school. Given that there is not an enormous number of confirmed Christians out there, waiting to go to Church of England schools, it is inevitable that if there are to be 100 new Church of England schools, unless the proportion of hypocrites in the population increases dramatically, those schools will have 20 per cent. or more pupils who are not practising Christians.
    In one sense, the reality of Christianity in the country and the commitment in the manifesto make the substance of the new clause inevitable. However, if there were any attempt to develop 100 new Anglican schools, 100 new Catholic schools, 100 new Muslim schools, and 100 new Sikh schools, there would be serious consequences for social cohesion. I suspect that the vast majority of hon. Members would be extremely uncomfortable if those schools were entirely restricted to the members of that faith.
    The new clause is the only way in which the Labour party manifesto can be implemented without serious social consequences. There is a choice for the Government: to crash ahead with the expansion of exclusive faith schools, with the consequences that we are all concerned about, or to go into reverse and try to hold back the tide and stifle the expansion of state schools, which would be a denial of what was said in the manifesto. The new clause is complementary to the manifesto, because it is the only way in which the pledge to encourage more faith schools can be satisfactorily implemented.
    Mr. Rendel: I draw the attention of the House to a personal experience of mine, following the example of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Some years ago I was lucky enough to be asked to become part of the audience during the recording of a version of the "Question Time" television programme.
    On the panel that evening there were four members, of whom one was a Member of the House and a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. As a result, there was some discussion of the Irish situation. After the panel had expressed their initial views, members of the audience were asked to give theirs. I suggested that perhaps it was time that we thought of desegregating the schools in Northern Ireland. I believed then that the fact that the two communities—the two faiths—were to a large extent being educated separately was one of the reasons why so many young people in Northern Ireland at that time were being brought up to think of members of the other community as the enemy, to be hated and to be opposed in everything that they did.
    I am sad to have to tell the House that the response of the members of the panel to those few remarks was that although they accepted the general point that
    956
    desegregation of the schools in Northern Ireland would in the long term introduce a much happier community in that sad country, it would simply take too long. There was no way that they could go with that policy because they needed to alter the situation and to bring peace and happiness back to that country in a much shorter time than changes to the education system could achieve.
    That was 20 to 25 years ago. During that time, a whole generation of young people have grown up in Northern Ireland still with that same segregated system. We can see today some of the results. It is one of the great sadnesses of my adult life—I am sure that the same is true of many hon. Members—that so many young people in Northern Ireland from both communities have been shot or bombed since that time and, indeed, that the same has happened to a number of people on this side of the Irish sea. The amount of wealth and opportunity that has been wasted by the continuation of that struggle is a great sadness to us all. If we could only have found a way of avoiding it at the time, even if it had taken a generation to do so, would it not have been better to start so many years ago and to have a better situation now?
    I believe that we have a duty to ensure that our schools include a wide variety of faiths where that is possible. As has often been said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, we have nothing against faith schools—there is no reason why we should not have schools that are run by and based on a faith—but I think that it is important that we should include members of different faiths in each of those schools, in order to ensure that people do not grow up in the sort of bigoted way that has, sadly, so often prevailed in Northern Ireland. I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument that we can simply introduce one or two lessons a week in civics, politics or democracy—or whatever one wants to call it—and thereby teach young people tolerance in the way that they can be taught tolerance out of their own experience, if they grow up with members of other faiths and communities, where they can come to learn that the humanity that binds us all together is so much greater and more important than the divide between different religions and communities.
    Glenda Jackson: I rise briefly, essentially to rebut the arguments that have emanated from the Opposition Benches stating that the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled the new clause is based on some sort of hatred of religion and that those of us who support their proposals share that hatred. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    May I give the House the benefit of some of my personal experience? I went to a Church of England infant and junior school and can clearly remember when the moment in the day came for a Church of England religious observance. We all went to those schools; they were the only ones in the small place where I lived. At the time of day to which I refer, children who were of a Catholic or Jewish faith or of no faith at all were allowed to leave the room. We were often extremely envious of them, because they could play and we had to pray. I do not think, however, that that necessarily marked our attitude to them as human beings.
    Hampstead and Highgate has a large number of faith-based schools, certainly in the primary sector. Without exception, they are committed to inclusivity. I

    957
    have one faith-based school where I think that 56 different languages are spoken. I do not think that anybody ever bothers to ask the children what their religion is. All that that school is concerned with, like all the primary schools in my constituency, is ensuring that every child has the best possible education. I have one faith-based secondary school in my constituency, and yet all the secondary schools there are over-subscribed. Where I have difficulty in understanding why my own Government have problems with accepting the new clause is that—
    David Maclean: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 405.

    Division No. 157]

    [9.44 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Austin, John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Barrett, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

    Bennett, Andrew

    (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Berry, Roger

    Laws, David

    Best, Harold

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Breed, Colin

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    McCafferty, Chris

    Bruce, Malcolm

    McDonnell, John

    Burstow, Paul

    McWilliam, John

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Mullin, Chris

    (NE Fife)

    Oaten, Mark

    Carmichael, Alistair

    O'Neill, Martin

    Caton, Martin

    Öpik, Lembit

    Challen, Colin

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Chaytor, David

    Price Adam

    Clapham, Michael

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Clelland, David

    Rendel, David

    Clwyd, Ann

    Russell Bob (Colchester)

    Cohen, Harry

    Sanders, Adrian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

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

    Doughty, Sue

    Soley, Clive

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Efford, Clive

    Stunell, Andrew

    Flynn, Paul

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Thurso, John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Tyler, Paul

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Webb, Steve

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Heath, David

    Willis, Phil

    Hermon, Lady

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Holmes, Paul

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Illsley, Eric

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Tom Brake

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    958

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

    Alexander, Douglas

    (Norwich S)

    Allen, Graham

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Amess, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Coaker, Vernon

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    (Swansea E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Collins, Tim

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Connarty, Michael

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Conway, Derek

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cooper, Yvette

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Cotter, Brian

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cousins, Jim

    Bacon, Richard

    Cran, James

    Baird, Vera

    Cruddas, Jon

    Baldry, Tony

    Cummings, John

    Barker, Gregory

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Baron, John

    (Copeland)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Beard, Nigel

    David, Wayne

    Bell, Stuart

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Benn, Hilary

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Benton, Joe

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bercow, John

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    (B'ham Hodge H)

    Blackman, Liz

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Blunt, Crispin

    Dobbin, Jim

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dodds, Nigel

    Borrow, David

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Boswell, Tim

    Dowd, Jim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Drew, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Brady, Graham

    Ennis, Jeff

    Brazier, Julian

    Etherington, Bill

    Brennan, Kevin

    Fabricant, Michael

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Farrelly, Paul

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Browne, Desmond

    Fisher, Mark

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bryant, Chris

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Burgon, Colin

    Flint, Caroline

    Burnett, John

    Flook, Adrian

    Burnham, Andy

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Burt, Alistair

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Butterfill, John

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Cairns, David

    Foulkes, George

    Cameron, David

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Francois, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gale, Roger

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Galloway, George

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gardiner, Barry

    Casale, Roger

    Garnier, Edward

    Cash, William

    Gibb, Nick

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Godsiff, Roger

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Goggins, Paul

    Chope, Christopher

    Goodman, Paul

    Clappison, James

    Gray, James

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Grayling, Chris

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Greenway, John

    959

    Grieve, Dominic

    Lidington, David

    Grogan, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Linton, Martin

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Loughton, Tim

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Love, Andrew

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Luff, Peter

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Luke, Iain

    Hammond, Philip

    Lyons, John

    Hanson, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hawkins, Nick

    MacDonald, Calum

    Heald, Oliver

    MacDougall, John

    Healey, John

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Hendrick, Mark

    McKechin, Ann

    Hendry, Charles

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hesford, Stephen

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Heyes, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hill, Keith

    McNulty, Tony

    Hoban, Mark

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hodge, Margaret

    McWalter, Tony

    Hoey, Kate

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hope, Phil

    Malins, Humfrey

    Horam, John

    Mann, John

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Maples, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Martlew, Eric

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Hunter, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Hurst, Alan

    Meale, Alan

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Merron, Gillian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Miliband, David

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Miller, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Mole, Chris

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

    Moran, Margaret

    Joyce, Eric

    Morgan, Julie

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Moss, Malcolm

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Mudie, George

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Key, Robert

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kidney, David

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Norman, Archie

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Norris, Dan

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    O'Hara, Edward

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Organ, Diana

    Lammy, David

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Laxton, Bob

    Ottaway, Richard

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Owen, Albert

    Leigh, Edward

    Page, Richard

    Lepper, David

    Paice, James

    Leslie, Christopher

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Letwin, Oliver

    Paterson, Owen

    Levitt, Tom

    Perham, Linda

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Picking, Anne

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Pickles, Eric

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pickthall, Colin

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Plaskitt, James

    960

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stringer, Graham

    Pond, Chris

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pope, Greg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Syms, Robert

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prisk, Mark

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Rammell, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Randall, John

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Todd, Mark

    Robathan, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Tredinnick, David

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Trend, Michael

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Truswell, Paul

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ross, Ernie

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruffley, David

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Ryan, Joan

    Vaz, Keith

    Salter, Martin

    Viggers, Peter

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sawford, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Watkinson, Angela

    Sheerman, Barry

    Watts, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    White, Brian

    Simmonds, Mark

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Simon, Siôn

    Whittingdale, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Singh, Marsha

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wilkinson, John

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Willetts, David

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wills, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Winnick, David

    Southworth, Helen

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Woolas, Phil

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Worthington, Tony

    Spink, Bob

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spring, Richard

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Wyatt, Derek

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Ian Pearson.

    Streeter, Gary

    Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 18

      No REQUIREMENTS OF ATTENDANCE AT A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP (No. 2)
      '(1) It shall not be required, as a condition of a pupil being admitted to a maintained school, that:

      (a) he must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;

      (b) his parents or guardians must attend or abstain from attending a place of religious worship;

      (c)the pupil, his parent(s) or guardian(s) belong to a particular faith or denomination.

      961

      (2)The local education authority after consultation with the admission forum may by regulation authorise that, notwithstanding (1) a maintained school may admit between 20 per cent. and 75 per cent. of pupils who have a particular faith or denomination.

      (3)Where the local education authority is informed that there are sufficient applications to a particular maintained school to fill the available places, the local education authority may after consultation with the admission forum authorise an increase up to 100 per cent. in the numbers of pupils admitted who are of the particular faith or denomination of the maintained school in question.

      (4)This section shall only have effect in respect of schools established after the coming into force of this Act.'.—[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 86, Noes 409.

      Division No. 158]

      9.58 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Keetch, Paul

      Allen, Graham

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Barrett, John

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Laws, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Best, Harold

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Breed, Colin

      McCafferty, Chris

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      McDonnell, John

      Bruce, Malcolm

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Mullin, Chris

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Oaten, Mark

      (NE Fife)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Öpik, Lembit

      Challen, Colin

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Chaytor, David

      Price, Adam

      Clapham, Michael

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Clwyd, Ann

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Rendel, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Sanders, Adrian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Doughty, Sue

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

      Efford, Clive

      Soley, Clive

      Fisher, Mark

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Flynn, Paul

      Stunell, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Thurso, John

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Tyler, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Heath, David

      Webb, Steve

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Hermon, Lady

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Willis, Phil

      Holmes, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Tom Brake

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      (Swansea E)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Amess, David

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      962

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Conway, Derek

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bacon, Richard

      Cousins, Jim

      Baird, Vera

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      Barker, Gregory

      Cummings, John

      Baron, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Barron, Kevin

      (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beard, Nigel

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Bell, Stuart

      David, Wayne

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benn, Hilary

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bercow, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

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

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blunt, Crispin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dobbin, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Dodds, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brady, Graham

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brazier, Julian

      Ennis, Jeff

      Brennan, Kevin

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Fabricant, Michael

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Browne, Desmond

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burden, Richard

      Flint, Caroline

      Burgon, Colin

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnett, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burt, Alistair

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Butterfill, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Foulkes, George

      Cairns, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Cameron, David

      Francois, Mark

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gale, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      Garnier, Edward

      Casale, Roger

      Gibb, Nick

      Cash, William

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Goggins, Paul

      Goodman, Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Gray, James

      Clappison, James

      Grayling, Chris

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Greenway, John

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      (Norwich S)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hammond, Philip

      Cohen, Harry

      Hanson, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Collins, Tim

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      963

      Heald, Oliver

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Healey, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      MacDougall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hendry, Charles

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McKechin, Ann

      Heppell, John

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heyes, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hill, Keith

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hoban, Mark

      McNulty, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hoey, Kate

      McWalter, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Horam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mann, John

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Maples, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hurst, Alan

      Martlew, Eric

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Meale, Alan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Merron, Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Miliband, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Moffatt, Laura

      Joyce, Eric

      Mole, Chris

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Moran, Margaret

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Morgan, Julie

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Key, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Khabra, Piara S

      Mudie, George

      Kidney, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Norman, Archie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Norris, Dan

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Lammy, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Lansley, Andrew

      Organ, Diana

      Laxton, Bob

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Leigh, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      Lepper, David

      Owen, Albert

      Leslie, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Letwin, Oliver

      Paice, James

      Levitt, Tom

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Paterson, Owen

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Perham, Linda

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Picking, Anne

      Liddell Grainger, Ian

      Pickles, Eric

      Lidington, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Plaskitt, James

      Linton, Martin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lloyd, Tony

      Pond,Chris

      Loughton, Tim

      Pope, Greg

      Love, Andrew

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Lucas, Ian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Luff, Peter

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Luke, Iain

      Prisk, Mark

      Lyons, John

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Rammell, Bill

      964

      Randall, John

      Swire, Hugo

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Timms, Stephen

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooney, Terry

      Todd, Mark

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Touhig, Don

      Ross, Ernie

      Tredinnick, David

      Ruffley, David

      Trend, Michael

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ryan, Joan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Salter, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Vaz, Keith

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Viggers, Peter

      Sheridan, Jim

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simmonds, Mark

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Simon, Siôn

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Singh, Marsha

      Watts, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      White, Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe)

      Whittingdale, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Southworth, Helen

      Willetts, David

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wills, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winnick, David

      Spink, Bob

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woolas, Phil

      Steen, Anthony

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wyatt, Derek

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Ian Pearson.

      Swayne, Desmond

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, The House is now in an impossible position. With less than an hour to go, by my calculation, we still have 16 groups of amendments to consider, including eight new clauses, 35 Government amendments and about 70 other amendments. While we have been considering this very important Bill, Government Members have taken up almost 200 minutes, as opposed to 160 minutes for the Opposition. How can we tell the world that we have considered the Bill properly when so pathetically little time is left? May I, through you, ask the Government—there is still time for them to do this—either to allow us tonight to sit for as long as is necessary to do justice to the Bill, or failing that, to give us more time to consider it on another occasion, so that we can do our job properly?
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be prepared to

      965
      consider a manuscript amendment? There are precedents for that. It seems to me that this is a mockery of parliamentary democracy. This is an extremely important Bill, and unless we do something, many issues of real significance will not be discussed at all. I could have a manuscript amendment with you within two minutes. I hope that you will be prepared to accept it.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the points that have been made.
      Under the present circumstances, the answer to whether I can accept a manuscript amendment is no.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: Why?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just about to say why, if the hon. Lady will let me. The House has agreed a programme motion, and I am a servant of the House, so I must abide by that decision. That is the good reason why I cannot accept a manuscript amendment. We must proceed with the agreed programme.
      I can also tell the shadow Leader of the House that he has made his point and put these matters on the record. However, there is nothing that I can do to intervene in these matters. I think that the right hon. Gentleman raised the point of order originally to put certain matters on the record.
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Forth: No
      Mr. Speaker: Then, as far as I am concerned, it was not a point of order.
      Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you ask the Clerks to bring forward the record of the occasion when the Single European Act was guillotined through the House of Commons in 1985? The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) voted for that legislation to be guillotined through in far less time than has been allocated to this Bill.
      Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I could ask the Clerks for that information, but I will not, because we have a programme motion before us.
      Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Is it really a point of order?
      Mr. McLoughlin: I seek clarification from the Chair. You said that you could not accept a manuscript amendment because there was a programme motion. I am somewhat confused, therefore, about how the occupant of the Chair yesterday was able to accept a manuscript amendment, given that there was a programme motion before the House. Is there one rule for the Government and another for the Opposition?
      Mr. Speaker: No. I am even-handed in these matters, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this House has agreed to a programme motion.
      Mr. McLoughlin: What about yesterday?
      Mr. Speaker: Well, today is another day. This House has agreed to a—[Interruption.] Order. Please allow me to speak. There is a programme motion before us, and we must go through the procedure of that motion.
      Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman that he is eating into the time available. There has been a complaint that there is not enough time allowed by the programme motion, and yet the hon. Gentleman is eating into it.
      Chris Grayling: I simply seek clarification from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. A number of the clauses that are due to come up in the remainder of the debate were not debated in Committee, and I fear that there may not be time to debate them tonight. Can you clarify the status of those clauses as a result of that?
      Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to continue along these lines.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: No, Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask you two things. First, I was going to ask you to remind the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that sinners can come to repentance. Secondly, I was going to ask whether you would be kind enough to refer the whole question of programme motions to the Select Committee on Procedure, because the present situation is manifestly unsatisfactory. Would you at least undertake to do that?
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has long experience of the House, and he knows that it is within his power to bring these matters before the Procedure Committee. There is no need for me to do that.
      Mr. Forth: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Leader of the House is with us—and I am delighted to see him in his place—will you extend to him the courtesy of allowing him to let us have the Government's thoughts on where we now find ourselves? Is the Leader of the House prepared to use his legendary ingenuity to find ways in which we can debate the Bill properly? As you rightly pointed out to the House, Mr. Speaker, a programme motion is in operation. However, the events of yesterday were not dissimilar to the circumstances prevailing today. Will you allow the Leader of the House the latitude to present to the House—and to you—a solution to the problem that we face?
      Mr. Speaker: The House has agreed a programme motion. I would not encourage the Leader of the House to come forward and interfere with that motion.

    New Clause 3

      MODIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT LAW
      '(1) In section 81 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as amended by Schedule 21 to this Act there is added at the end of sub-section (1) "or as he considers necessary to ensure that persons employed to work in schools to whom those provisions apply have the benefit of the rights conferred by school enactments as if the governing bodies of those schools were their employers."
      (2) In Paragraph 3 of the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order 1999 S.I. 1999/2256. There is added
      (a)after sub-paragraph (1)(e)
      "(f) in the case of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 references to a relevant transfer includes transfers from one governing body to another
      (b) in the Schedule "Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991.".'—[Mr. Willis.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker:With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 20—Responsibilities for the National Assembly for Wales—
      'Any reference made to the Secretary of State in relation to responsibility for teachers pay and conditions shall be taken to mean the National Assembly for Wales when these functions are exercised in Wales.'.
      Amendment No. 90, in clause 35, page 21, line 38, at end insert—
      'only in those circumstances in which a school has been designated as a "failing school" or when inspection has highlighted serious concerns about the leadership or governance of the school.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
      Mr. Willis: Before I speak to new clause 3, I must tell the House that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) wishes to speak to new clause 20. I understand that, with the leave of the House, he wishes to call a Division on that new clause.
      New clause 3 is a small but important provision that would affect a significant number of members of the teaching staffs of schools that could be involved in a closure or merger. At present, if two community schools were closed to be merged as a single school, TUPE would not apply. Both sets of staff would be made redundant and would thus be assimilated in the new school, or have to apply for jobs there.
      However, if one of the schools was voluntary aided, meaning that its staff were employed by the school's governors rather than by the local education authority, its staff would be covered by the TUPE regulations, while the group of staff in the controlled school would have no rights under those regulations. That is clearly unjust.
      In fact, it is so unjust that a case was brought by the National Union of Teachers—Askew v. the London borough of Ealing—in the Court of Appeal. The judgment was simple: the judge said that what had happened was not unlawful under current legislation, but made clear the necessity for the Government to change the law to give all teachers—of whatever school—the same rights under TUPE.
      968
      I hope that the Government will give the new clause a positive response, as it aims to give all teachers—whether in community schools, voluntary-aided schools or any school maintained by the state—exactly the same rights as regards employment, redundancy and transfer of undertaking. [Interruption.] Although Conservative Members do not seem interested in the employment rights of individual teachers, I hope that they understand the importance of ensuring that all teaching staff have that protection.
      When the Secretary of State was approached about a change to the law, there was an understanding that the Education Bill would include changes to the TUPE arrangements, thus affording protection for teachers in situations such as I described. I do not intend to put new clause 3 to a vote; I seek only an assurance from the Government that they will deal with the problem. If the new clause is flawed, they could table an amendment in another place before the Bill completes its passage.
      Adam Price: I support new clause 20, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and other hon. Friends. It is not a wreckers' amendment but a reformers' amendment—very much in the spirit of the Bill. In its provisions for Wales, the Bill would allow Wales to follow its own course and to devise an education policy that meets its needs.
      In previous debates, I have been generous about the Bill and indeed about education policy in Wales. When I described Wales as a left-wing teachers' utopia, I did not realise how prescient I had been until I read in the Western Mail this morning that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, is to sign a memorandum of understanding
      "committing Wales and Cuba to work together in the field of education".
      That is not so much a case of "They shall not pass" as of "They shall pass"—in ever higher numbers and with better grades.
      Wales does well from the Bill. We welcomed many of its provisions, especially its sweeping enabling powers. There is one omission, however. The part of the Bill that deals with teachers' pay and conditions introduces a new framework for the determination of teachers' pay. We have tabled the new clause to close the lacuna in the devolution of education policy. All the clauses in that part of the Bill are devolved, but a veto is effectively being placed on the National Assembly for Wales as regards teachers' pay and conditions. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from Ministers as to why powers over pay and conditions should not be devolved.
      Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me as a Member who represents a border seat within Wales, that different terms and conditions for teachers in Wales and in England would act to the detriment of recruitment that benefits Welsh children?
      Adam Price: I would understand the hon. Gentleman's argument if it were not for the fact that it is built into the logic of the Bill that a local, decentralised system of pay agreement is to be allowed. There will certainly be no uniformity within England. We are also well aware that devolution of the power over pay and conditions would

      969
      allow us to ratchet pay and conditions up. In Scotland, the McCrone Committee proposal that teachers' work loads should be cut considerably, their pay improved considerably and their conditions improved has been implemented in the Scottish teachers' agreement. That is why we need the devolution of that power—so that we in Wales can have the same standards as are being introduced in Scotland.
      If the Government are not prepared to take that step in one go, they could make arrangements to allow greater consultation with the School Teachers' Review Body. Clause 115 gives the Secretary of State alone the power to appoint members of the STRB. Why is there not a seat for a representative appointed by the National Assembly for Wales? Clause 117 allows the Secretary of State
      "to submit evidence and make representations".
      Why is the Assembly, which has its own distinctive education policy, not allowed to do so?
      Clause 117 also lists relevant bodies that must be consulted by the STRB in coming to its conclusions. The list includes local education authorities and school governing bodies, but it does not include the National Assembly for Wales, which is responsible for education policy. It is disgraceful that the Assembly will be connected with the STRB only by virtue of the fact that the Secretary of State must consult the Assembly. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State to pass the views of the Assembly on to the STRB.
      The STRB stated in its most recent report, which was published a few weeks ago, that it was well aware of the views in Wales. It states:
      "We consider that it is still possible"—
      despite the views of teaching bodies in Wales—
      "at present for one Review Body to make recommendations covering both England and Wales. In the future, much will depend upon the extent to which policies between England and Wales diverge".
      They have diverged massively in the Bill. Surely it is not the responsibility of the voluntary members of the STRB to decide whether Wales should have a separate review body; it is for this House to decide and that is why we tabled our new clause.
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales pointed out that the Scottish situation is different because Scotland has a separate education system. In Wales, the curriculum, the inspection system, financing, governance and organisation of schools are all separate. The only thing that remains conjoined is teachers' pay and conditions.
      The continued yoking together of pay and conditions in England and Wales does not make sense if we are serious about allowing a genuinely distinctive policy. The Government have said that they are in favour of allowing divergence and distinctiveness in education policy. If we are to have a fully comprehensive education policy in Wales, in both senses of the word, we need devolution of the power over pay and conditions as well.
      Mr. Graham Brady: As we continue with the pretence of scrutinising the Bill, I am keen that we should have an opportunity to vote on some of the later new clauses, which are of enormous importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House
      970
      and to many people outside, although apparently not to the Government, who are not prepared to give us the time to deal with them adequately. I shall therefore be brief in speaking to amendment No. 90.
      10.30 pm
      Amendment. No 90 would limit the Secretary of State's power to interfere in staffing decisions in foundation and voluntary-aided schools. It is a simple amendment that would limit the Secretary of State's powers under the Bill to failing schools or schools where people are concerned about leadership. It would protect the status of foundation and voluntary-aided schools as the employers of their staff and their independence in taking those decisions. I want to hear the Minister's response, although I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. I hope that we shall make rapid progress so that we can, at least briefly, deal with some of the other important new clauses.
      The Minister for School Standards(Mr. Stephen Timms): I wish to speak to Government amendment No. 31. Under clause 118, our intention is to define the term "school teacher" to ensure that all those working in schools who are currently legally covered by pay and conditions orders continue to be so covered. Without the amendment, it might be argued that head teachers would not be covered, so there is a need to include them separately, as under the amendment.
      I also wish to speak to Government amendment No. 32. The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised this matter in Committee. I undertook then to reflect on whether a specific requirement for consultation on orders made under clause 121(4)(a) should be incorporated into the primary legislation. Amendment No. 32 secures that, and I believe that it meets hon. Members' concerns in full, so I hope that they will welcome it.
      New clause 3 contains some technical flaws, but the principle behind it is clear. It is intended to modify the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, so that they apply to school staff involved in all transfers between maintained schools, whether or not a transfer between different employers is involved. TUPE should certainly cover transfers of undertaking between different employers, but it is unnecessary to go further than that to cover transfers or reorganisations between schools where the employer remains the same.
      I wish to say two things to help the House and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. First, the current arrangements for dismissals in community, voluntary controlled and community special schools, which are set out in schedule 16 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, require employing local education authorities to terminate the contracts of employees where their governing bodies have made determinations that they should cease to work at their schools. That requirement ensures that the employing LEA does not have to consider, in line with normal employers' duties, alternative employment options elsewhere in the authority area, including inquiries with other schools or services, in attempting to avoid redundancies. I understand the concern about that arrangement.
      The provisions of schedule 16 will be moved to staffing regulations under clause 34. We shall consult on the content of those regulations. In doing so, we shall give

      971
      attention to the drafting of the staff dismissal provision, so that governing bodies will be required to give LEAs notice of impending redundancies. We shall make it clear that LEAs will be subject to the same duties as they are for their other staff and have to consider alternatives to redundancies before resorting to terminating contracts. That will be a significant change in the regulations, which will, in part, meet the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.
      Secondly, I will give further thought to the doubt that now surrounds some transfers of staff to and from maintained schools, following the Askew judgment. That judgment was clear, but its terms and explanation raised some questions. The Bill may already clarify the employment position sufficiently to ease the problem, but I am prepared to consider it further.
      I must say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that it was a great disappointment to Government members of the Committee that its Conservative members consistently declined to take up the extra time that we were keen to offer. Evening after evening, we offered additional time so that we could scrutinise the Bill further, but our offers were repeatedly declined.
      Amendment No. 90 would leave foundation voluntary-aided and foundation special schools to their own devices in deciding their arrangements for staffing. I accept that it is a probing amendment, but it does not provide a sensible way to proceed on such an important issue. The staffing of schools accounts for the greatest cost by far of their funding and it is important that resources are managed and spent wisely in accordance with good practice and appropriate professional advice. The regulations and statutory guidance on staffing provisions, which the amendment seeks to disapply, will ensure consistency, a basic level of good practice and appropriate professional advice. Details of the likely content of the staffing regulations have already been provided to members of the Committee and they are now in the Library of the House.
      It is important that all schools are subject to those arrangements to ensure that matters are handled appropriately and consistently. In particular, suddenly applying the arrangements in the way that the amendment envisages when schools fall into failure would not make much difference in the short term, and it is help in the short term that failing schools need most. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is better to have arrangements that help schools avoid falling into failure in the first place. That is what we envisage.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made an important point about new clause 20. It seeks to devolve teachers' pay and conditions to the National Assembly for Wales. We have not had any request for that to be done either from the Assembly or from the trade unions for the reasons that he gave.
      Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend not find it strange that the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who is a member of Plaid Cymru, should seek to introduce in this House something that the
      972
      National Assembly has not requested? Is that not a peculiar position to take for someone who is supposed to be in favour of devolution?
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an entirely proper point. I agree with him. A similar point was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in Committee.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Timms: No, because I need to make progress.
      The Committee debated the arrangements for teachers' pay in Wales on a probing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. I reiterate that the question of whether teachers' pay in Wales should be a devolved matter was settled in the devolution arrangements made under the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the subsequent transfer of functions orders. Responsibility for teachers' pay and conditions was not transferred to the Assembly.
      The establishment of a new School Teachers' Review Body for Wales, which would probably need to be provided for if we were to accept new clause 20 in principle, might have a marginal impact on the work load of the existing STRB for England and Wales, but it would of course create a substantial new work load and increased running costs for the Assembly. No doubt, for that and other reasons, the Assembly has shown no desire to determine teachers' pay in Wales under its own pay machinery.
      Adam Price: Will the Minister consider giving the Assembly the right to submit its representations to the STRB under the terms of the Bill?
      Mr. Timms: The STRB currently consults the Secretary of State and that position was settled in the Government of Wales Act 1998. I do not think that there is any case—in fact, there has been no such call from the Assembly or the trade unions—for those arrangements to be changed.
      On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will feel able to withdraw his new clause and that the House will accept the Government amendments.
      Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      SELECTION BY APTITUDE
      '(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows.

      (2)Clause 99 (General restriction on selection by ability or aptitude) is amended by leaving out subsection (4)(b).

      (3)Clause 102 (Permitted Selection: aptitude for particular subjects.) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Grammar schools: Access to parental ballots and information

      '(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 59) is amended as follows—

      (2) In section 105(2) procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements, paragraphs (b) and (c) are omitted.

      (3) Section 106(1) (eligibility of parents to request or vote in a ballot) is amended by inserting "primary" before "schools".

      (4) In section 106 subsection (2) is omitted.

      (5) Section 106(3)(a) (proportion of parents required to request a ballot) is amended by leaving out "20" and inserting "5".

      (6) Section 106(3) paragraph (b) is omitted.

      (7) Section 107(3) (information provision by the authority or body on intentions or proposals following a successful petition) is amended by leaving out subsection (c) and inserting—

      "(c) a statement by the authority or body on intentions or proposals for a non-selective education system which may include information on options, costs and planning assumptions in the event of such a result.".

      New clause 9— Permitted selection: aptitude for particular subjects—
      'The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended by omitting section 102.
      New clause 12—Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots—
      'After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there is inserted—
      "106A Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots
      Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held, and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.".
      Mr. Willis: New clause 4 is simple and, if the Minister readily agrees to it, we will not need to divide the House. However, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) might want to press new clause 12 to a vote.
      Before the Labour party came to power in 1997, it made a strong commitment to the British people in the run-up to the general election. Several hon. Members, including The Prime Minister and the then shadow Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), stated that selection would not be extended under a Labour Government. We expected them to move swiftly and directly to end selection in our schools.
      Nothing happened in 1997, but in 1998 the Government introduced their first major education Bill, which became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. We eagerly went through that to identify the clauses that would end selection in schools. There was, however, no mention of selection other than the introduction of ballots for grammar schools. The Conservatives opposed that because they thought that it was a tortuous way of getting rid of grammar schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I opposed ballots because we thought that they would be a bureaucratic nightmare and that no one would meet the conditions. Indeed, there has been only one ballot, for Ripon grammar school, which was so heavily rigged—
      Mr. Brady: Ha!
      Mr. Willis: Let me explain why. Half the people who could vote had their children in private schools where they
      974
      were being groomed for the 11-plus so that they could get into the grammar school. All the kids who went to the state local schools could not get in because of the kids from the private schools. The ballot was lost and a significant amount of money was wasted. Those were the rules of engagement.
      Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman knows that we oppose new clause 4. As I want to press new clause 12 to a vote, perhaps we can find some common ground. Does he agree that the ballot arrangements caused the remaining grammar schools immense uncertainty? In areas such as Trafford, which I represent, or Kent, where my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has his constituency, attempts have been made to close those schools. That happened last year and it is happening again. Although there is not the requisite number to trigger a ballot, the process causes schools enormous uncertainty, which is an intolerable burden. I hope that when we press for a vote on new clause 12, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support us in relieving schools of that burden.
      Mr. Willis: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman so much co-operation, but I am sure that he will feel able to support us when we call for a vote on new clause 4, in which case we will consider carefully what he said.
      Mr. Robert Key indicated dissent.
      Mr. Willis: Perhaps that degree of co-operation is not fully established.
      10.45 pm
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best way to draw a line under the matter would be to change the regulations, so that in places such as Kent we can have the ballot, and once and for all put an end to this mess and get rid of the corrosive evil that is selective education?
      Mr. Willis: Of course when the hon. Gentleman fought a general election for the first time in 1997 he expected a Labour Government to do exactly that. Indeed, our party still believes that democratically elected local authorities—which I do not believe the Government intend yet to abolish, although they may do so before the end of this Parliament—should be able to make such decisions. Sadly, of course, that is not so. Until we start to return power and democracy to local people through local government, we will not be able to meet those aspirations.
      Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
      Mr. Willis: I am sorry, but I will not give way again because I know that the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) want to speak.
      I apologise for digressing a little. I do not want to table a new clause that would get rid of grammar schools. All I want to get rid of with new clause 4 is what the Government introduced in the School Standards and Framework Act.

      975
      We were promised no selection, but instead of dealing with grammar schools, the Government said that they wanted to introduce more selection, not by ability but by aptitude. The debate was tortuous. The then Minister for Schools Standards tried to persuade the Committee and the House that there was a significant difference between the two, but we were never able to see it. Someone thought that it was better to have the ability to fly a plane than the aptitude for doing so, but I could not work out the difference if it crashed. In reality, the Government wanted to allow 10 per cent. of students in specialist schools—that was their new idea—to be selected by aptitude.
      I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to her place.
      Estelle Morris: Just for you.
      Mr. Willis: I know that it is just for me.
      The right hon. Lady has often said, "The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough doth protest too much because most schools have not used the 10 per cent. aptitude provision but ignored it, and that proves the case." I say to her that we have a golden opportunity. Schools do not want the aptitude provision. Only 7 per cent. of schools have used it, and most of them were selecting before. As we have heard—I will not reopen the debate—schools are selecting by faith.
      The new clause would simply get rid of the whole business of selecting by aptitude. The right hon. Lady knows that such selection is nonsense, as does the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. If the Government are to introduce selection, they should at least have the guts to make it by ability. If not, let us get rid of the nonsense. I ask the House to support new clause 4.
      Mr. Brady: I am delighted to have the opportunity, however brief, to speak to new clause 12. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) has made clear his opposition to the remaining grammar schools. At least he has always been both clear and consistent in that. The Government have been clear in their opposition to the remaining grammar schools but not always consistent. They seem to move to and fro on the issue.
      We have not only had the celebrated instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred of the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), saying, "Read my lips: no selection by exam or interview." The Government appear to have reneged on that as they have developed a belief that selection by ability or aptitude in some circumstances can be a route to raising standards in schools.
      The latest twist and turn in the process came just before Christmas when, on 7 December, in an article on the front page of The Times under the headline "Labour ends its 30-year war against grammars", we read:
      "Labour will declare an historic truce with grammar schools today after two generations spent trying to abolish selective education."
      The article continues:
      "Less than four years after the Government gave parents the power to abolish the remaining grammar schools and ruled out the creation of any more, Stephen Timms, the School Standards
      976
      Minister, will trumpet plans to harness their expertise. Allocating £500,000 to link schools in 28 areas of England, Mr. Timms will say: 'The time of a "one-size-fits-all" approach to secondary education has long gone. We now have a mature understanding of the benefits of a diverse system, tailored to meet the needs of every pupil in every town.'"
      We welcomed that enormously. The article also says:
      "Tony Blair has consistently stated his opposition to selection. He once told head teachers that he knew people had been scarred for life by rejection at the age of 11"—
      an obvious reference to his Deputy. There was some concern in the article, but its gist was welcome: the Government, after being ideologically hostile to the remaining grammar schools, had come around to accepting that they are excellent schools which provide opportunity for children in the communities that they serve.
      I am proud to represent one of those communities. I am delighted that one of the partnerships between grammar schools and other parts of the maintained sector in which the Government have recently invested is based partly in my constituency. Altrincham grammar school for girls, the sister school of the school which I attended, is, as the Secretary of State will know, in partnership with her old school, the nearby Whalley Range high school. That is a welcome initiative. If Members will forgive a brief indulgence, I shall point out that the right hon. Lady frequently visits her old school to make announcements and promote Government policy, so perhaps I can ask her to join me on a visit to its partner, Altrincham grammar school for girls. Together we could explore the great advantages of grammar schools in spreading best practice to other parts of the maintained sector.
      Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman has talked about diversity. What sort of diversity is there in my constituency, where we have no comprehensives? We have the two sides of the selective coin—grammar schools and secondary moderns. Where is the choice for my constituents?
      Mr. Brady: We support Government policy in that area. I hope that, as has been the case in my constituency, the hon. Gentleman's constituency increasingly has a blend of grammar schools, specialist schools and others; I hope that there would be few schools which offered no choice or advantages to his constituents. We welcome the increasing diversity of schools.
      Chris Grayling: Would my hon. Friend explain to Government Members that grammar schools select children from all walks of life and all backgrounds, and are genuinely socially inclusive? Comprehensive schools tend to use the system of selection by estate agent, which cannot be fair to pupils in his constituency and elsewhere.
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is right, and I am acutely aware of the problem. If my old school, Altrincham grammar school for boys, had been a comprehensive when I was a boy, I would not have fallen within its catchment area; eligibility would have been limited to the most affluent parts of my constituency.
      I do not wish to detain the House on parochial matters. The vital fact is that we, like the Government, recognise the excellent work that grammar schools are doing.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend realise that even if he wished to detain the House, he cannot do

      977
      so for more than seven minutes, so he may not succeed in developing his argument and will not touch on any other issue? Does he not agree that that is a total disregard of Parliament and what it ought to stand for?
      Mr. Brady: I agree. If my hon. Friend had had the misfortune to witness the Government's mismanagement of the Committee stage, he would be even more outraged than he rightly is now.
      Mr. Chaytor rose—
      Mr. Brady: I shall give way in a moment; I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be a convert to the cause of grammar schools, as the Government appear to be. We, like the Government, recognise the important job that grammar schools in the maintained sector do so well. The latest research published a few months ago by the National Foundation for Educational Research demonstrated the great strengths of the grammar schools in achieving better performance up to GCSE level for middle-ability children and up to key stage 3. I know that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) recognises that.
      Mr. Chaytor: Acknowledging that the benefits of a mature understanding of diversity have been conferred upon us all, does the hon. Gentleman accept, with reference to his earlier point about insecurity related to selective systems, that he should support my new clause 8, which would make it easier for a ballot to take place, whereby the issue could be settled for a number of years? As long as it is more difficult for a ballot to take place, the axe is always hanging over the school. It would help his cause and provide stability and security if the ballot could take place and the issue could be settled.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as he leads me to the central point of new clause 12, which involves stability and how best we can remove the threat that hangs over the remaining grammar schools—a threat that can arise every year. Even when there is no real will in a community to dispose of the grammar schools, it is possible for a small group of parents, frequently politically motivated, to initiate a petition. As soon as that happens, the schools are under threat. An enormous amount of effort is diverted from the educational priorities of the schools. The time of staff, governors and parents and fund-raising efforts are taken up not with helping the school but with fighting misguided attempts to abolish it.
      That is why new clause 12 seeks to provide that once a petition has been initiated, or a ballot has been initiated or taken place, there will be a period of six years during which no further petition can be initiated. That is vital for thousands of children who attend grammar schools. It is essential that they have a period of grace during which their education can proceed without their school being faced with uncertainty and threatened with closure. The importance of the six-year period is that if a child starts at a grammar school in a year in which a threat is faced by the school, he can proceed through the remaining six years of what is likely to be a seven-year period at the
      978
      school, without further threats to the school. New clause 12 provides the stability that the hon. Member for Bury, North described and I hope that he will support it.
      Mr. Chaytor rose—
      Mr. Brady: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I have very little time. I cannot give way now.
      The new clause would protect our existing grammar schools from repeated threats of closure, giving them stability and allowing them to thrive without being under constant threat. It would not do away with the ballot process, but it would improve life for grammar schools and the children whom they serve. That is why I hope that we will have an opportunity to press new clause 12 to a Division. This is a matter of the utmost importance to many thousands of people outside the House, and it will be of great concern to them if the House does not have an opportunity to divide on such an important matter.
      Sadly, as a result of the Government's intransigence and incompetence, we have not had the opportunity properly to debate the new clauses and amendments relating to selection by aptitude and ability. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Liberal Benches to support the new clause. I hope that the Government will take advantage of the opportunity to make real what they claim is the end of their hostility to the remaining grammar schools, and prove that they recognise the value of our grammar schools by giving them a chance to flourish and grow as they should be able to do.
      Mr. Chaytor: The arguments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) depend absolutely on the implementation of new clause 8, which I tabled. Unless a ballot takes place, there will be no point in specifying that six years must—
      It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 420.

      Division No. 159]

      [11 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Barrett, John

      Doughty, Sue

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brake, Tom

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Breed, Colin

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Harvey, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Heath, David

      Burnett, John

      Hinchliffe, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      (NE Fife)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Keetch, Paul

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Chaytor, David

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Clapham, Michael

      Laws, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cotter, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      979

      Oaten, Mark

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Price, Adam

      Thurso, John

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Webb, Steve

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Willis, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Sir Robert Smith and Paul Holmes.

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Caton, Martin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Allen, Graham

      Challen, Colin

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Chope, Christopher

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Atkins, Charlotte

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Austin, John

      (Norwich S)

      Bacon, Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clelland, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Barker, Gregory

      Coaker, Vernon

      Baron, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Collins, Tim

      Battle, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Bayley, Hugh

      Conway, Derek

      Beard, Nigel

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Benn, Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Cran, James

      Bercow, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Berry, Roger

      Cummings, John

      Best, Harold

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Blackman, Liz

      (Copeland)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Borrow, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boswell, Tim

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      David, Wayne

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Brady, Graham

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Brazier, Julian

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bryant, Chris

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Dowd, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Drew, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Butterfill, John

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Cairns, David

      Efford, Clive

      Cameron, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caplin, Ivor

      Etherington, Bill

      Casale, Roger

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cash, William

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      980

      Field, Mark (Cities of London

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Flight, Howard

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Flint, Caroline

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Flook, Adrian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Flynn, Paul

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Follett, Barbara

      Joyce, Eric

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Foulkes, George

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Key Robert

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Khabra Piara S

      Francois, Mark

      Kidney, David

      Gale, Roger

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Galloway, George

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Gardiner, Barry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Garnier, Edward

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Gerrard, Neil

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Gibb, Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lammy, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Laxton, Bob

      Gray, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Grayling, Chris

      Leigh, Edward

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Lepper, David

      Greenway, John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Grieve, Dominic

      Letwin, Oliver

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Levitt, Tom

      Grogan, John

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Lidington, David

      Lilley Rt Hon Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Linton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Lloyd, Tony

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Loughton, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Love, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Lucas, Ian

      Heald, Oliver

      Luff, Peter

      Healey, John

      Luke, Iain

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Lyons, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Hendry, Charles

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      MacDonald, Calum

      Heppell, John

      MacDougall, John

      Hermon, Lady

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hesford, Stephen

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Heyes, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hill, Keith

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Hoban, Mark

      McKechin, Ann

      Hodge, Margaret

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hoey, Kate

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hope, Phil

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Horam, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      McWilliam, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mann, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Maples, John

      Hurst, Alan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Martlew, Eric

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      981

      Meale,Alan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Merron, Gillian

      Simmonds, Mark

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Simon, Siôn

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mitchell, Austin (GtGrimsby)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Moftatt, Laura

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Soames, Nicholas

      Moran, Margaret

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Julie

      Southworth, Helen

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mudie, George

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mullin, Chris

      Spink, Bob

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Spring, Richard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Steen, Anthony

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Norman, Archie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Streeter, Gary

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Stringer, Graham

      Organ, Diana

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Ottaway, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Owen, Albert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Picking, Anne

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Plaskitt, James

      Todd, Mark

      Pollard, Kerry

      Touhig, Don

      Pond, Chris

      Tredinnick, David

      Pope, Greg

      Trend, Michael

      Portilto, Rt Hon Michael

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prisk, Mark

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Randall, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Viggers, Peter

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Watts, David

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whittingdale, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooney, Terry

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Ross, Ernie

      Wilkinson, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Willetts, David

      Ruffley, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      (Swansea W)

      Ryan, Joan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Salter, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Winterton, Nicholas (MacclesField)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wood, Mike

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Woolas, Phil

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wright, David (Telford)

      982

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

      Yeo, Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt you are now considering whether we have time to put new clause 20 to a vote. Would it be in order for me to ask you, when making that consideration, to take into account the fact that it would have the support of three of the parties represented in this Parliament? The new clause relates only to Wales. Thirty-two of the clauses in the Bill relate only to Wales, and 31 relate only to England. We did not have the opportunity to debate the matters relating to Wales in Standing Committee because there was not one Welsh Opposition Member on the Committee. Will you take that into consideration when deciding whether we have time to vote on new clause 20?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Any question of a vote on new clause 20 would arise only after we have dealt with new clause 12. I am afraid that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any succour.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      New Clause 12
      RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO PETITIONS AND BALLOTS
      'After section 106 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 there is inserted—
      "106A Restrictions relating to petitions and ballots
      Where a petition of parents has been initiated, or a ballot held, and no change to admissions arrangements has been agreed, no further ballot may take place within a period of six years from the initiation of the petition.".'.—[Mr. Damian Green.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 293.

      Division No. 160]

      [11.15 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Amess, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Burnett, John

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Burstow, Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Butt, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      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

      Bellingham, Henry

      (NE Fife)

      Bercow, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cash, William

      Blunt, Crispin

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Boswell, Tim

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Brady, Graham

      Collins, Tim

      Brake, Tom

      Conway, Derek

      Brazier, Julian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Breed, Colin

      Cotter, Brian

      983

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Norman, Archie

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Oaten, Mark

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Öpik, Lembit

      Dodds, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Doughty, Sue

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Page, Richard

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Paice, James

      Flight, Howard

      Paterson, Owen

      Flook, Adrian

      Pickles, Eric

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Portilto, Rt Hon Michael

      Francois, Mark

      Price, Adam

      Gale, Roger

      Prisk, Mark

      Garnier, Edward

      Randall, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

      Gibb, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gray, James

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Grayling, Chris

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Greenway, John

      Ruffley, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hammond, Philip

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Harvey, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hayes, John

      Smith Sir Robert(W Ab'd'ns)

      Heald, Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Heath, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hermon, Lady

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hoban, Mark

      Spink, Bob

      Holmes, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Horam, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Streeter, Gary

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Syms, Robert

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Key, Robert

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Thurso, John

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Tredinnick, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Trend, Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Laws, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Waterson, Nigel

      Letwin, Oliver

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Webb, Steve

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Whittingdale, John

      Lidington, David

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Wiggin, Bill

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Wilkinson, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Willetts, David

      Luff, Peter

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Willis, Phil

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Maples, John

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Teller for the Ayes:

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mr. Charles Hendry and

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Mr. Peter Atkinson

      984

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Allen, Graham

      Dobbin, Jim

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Doran, Frank

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dowd, Jim

      Austin, John

      Drew, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Battle, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Edwards, Huw

      Beard, Nigel

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Hilary

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benton, Joe

      Ennis, Jeff

      Berry, Roger

      Etherington, Bill

      Best, Harold

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Blackman, Liz

      Fisher, Mark

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fint, 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

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Galloway, George

      (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Browne, Desmond

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Gillroy Linda

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Burnham, Andy

      Grogan, John

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Hall, Mike (weaver Vale)

      Cairns, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hanson, David

      Caplin, Ivor

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Casale, Roger

      Healey, John

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Challen, Colin

      Hendrick, Mark

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Heyes, David

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Hodge, Margaret

      (Norwich S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hope, Phil

      Clelland, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clwyd Ann

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoyle Lindsay

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes,Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cummings, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      (Copeland)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Joyce, Eric

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham &Heston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Ann (Brentford &Isleworth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S

      985

      Kidney, David

      Pond, Chris

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pope, Greg

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lammy, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Levitt, Tom

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ross, Ernie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Ryan, Joan

      Love, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lucas, Ian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Luke, Iain

      Sawford, Phil

      Lyons, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Sheridan, Jim

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simon, Siôn

      MacDonald, Calum

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McDonnell, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacDougall, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McNulty, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Southworth, Helen

      McWalter, Tony

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mann, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall Jim (Leicester S)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Martlew, Eric

      Stringer, Graham

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Merron Gillian

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Milburn,Rt Hon Alun

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Miliband, David

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Timms, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Tipping Paddy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Todd, Mark

      Mole, Chris

      Touhig, Don

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Truswell, Paul

      Moran, Margaret

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morgan, Julie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Mudie, George

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Wareing, Robert N

      Norris, Dan

      Watts, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      White, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Whitehead, DrAlan

      Organ, Diana

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Owen, Albert

      (Swansea W)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Perham, Linda

      Winnick, David

      Picking, Anne

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wood, Mike

      Plaskitt, James

      Woolas, Phil

      Pollard, Kerry

      Worthington, Tony

      986

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Ian Pearson

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 16
      FURTHER EDUCATION INSTITUTION: HAZARDOUS MATERIAL,&C.

      (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require the governing body of a further education institution in England to prevent the use in the institution of specified equipment or specified materials without the approval of the Secretary of State.

      (2) The Secretary of State may specify equipment or materials under this section only if he thinks the equipment or materials might endanger a person's health or safety.

      (3) The National Assembly for Wales may by regulations require the governing body of a further education institution in Wales to prevent the use in the institution of specified equipment or specified materials without the approval of the Assembly.

      (4) The National Assembly for Wales may specify equipment or materials under this section only if it thinks the equipment or materials might endanger a person's health or safety.

      (5) In this section "further education institution" means an institution within the further education sector.'.—[Mr. Timms.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Question put, That the remaining Government amendments be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 178.

      Division No. 161]

      [11.28 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Challen, Colin

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Bayley, Hugh

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Benn, Hilary

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Benton, Joe

      (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Best, Harold

      Clelland, David

      Blackman, Liz

      Clwyd, Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cohen, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cruddas, Jon

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Cummings, John

      (Newcastle E &Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bryant, Chris

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      David, Wayne

      Burgon, Colin

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Cairns, David

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      987

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lammy, David

      Doran, Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Drew, David

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Levitt, Tom

      Edwards, Huw

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Efford, Clive

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Ennis, Jeff

      Linton, Martin

      Etherington, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Love, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      Lucas, Ian

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Luke, Iain

      Flint, Caroline

      Lyons, John

      Flynn, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Follett, Barbara

      McCafferty, Chris

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      MacDonald, Calum

      Galloway, George

      McDonnell, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDougall, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Linda

      McKechin, Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hanson, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mann, John

      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

      Hesford, Stephen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heyes, David

      Miliband, David

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoey, Kate

      Mole, Chris

      Hope, Phil

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moran, Margaret

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mudie, George

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Organ, Diana

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Picking, Anne

      Joyce, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham &Heston)

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Ann (Brentford &Isleworth)

      Pope, Greg

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      988

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooney, Terry

      Todd, Mark

      Ross, Ernie

      Touhig, Don

      Ruddock, Joan

      Truswell, Paul

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ryan, Joan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wareing, Robert N

      Simon, Siôn

      Watts, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      White, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winnick, David

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Southworth, Helen

      Wood, Mike

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Woolas, Phil

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Worthington, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Amess, David

      Conway, Derek

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cotter, Brian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Cran, James

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bacon, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baldry, Tony

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Barker, Gregory

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Baron, John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Barrett, John

      Dodds, Nigel

      Beith, Rt Hon AJ

      Doughty, Sue

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Flight, Howard

      Blunt Crispin

      Flook, Adrian

      Boswell, Tim

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Francois, Mark

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gale, Roger

      Brady, Graham

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnett, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodman, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gray, James

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grayling, Chris

      Cameron, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      (NE Fife)

      Greenway, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cash, William

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hammond, Philip

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Harvey, Nick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Nick

      989

      Hayes, John

      Randall, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

      Heath, David

      Rendel, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hermon, Lady

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Hoban, Mark

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Holmes, Paul

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Horam, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ruffley, David

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Keetch, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Key, Robert

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

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

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spink, Bob

      Laws, David

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Steen, Anthony

      Letwin, Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lidington, David

      Syms, Robert

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thurso, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trend, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Maples, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Viggers, Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Moss, Malcolm

      Webb, Steve

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Norman, Archie

      Wiggin, Bill

      Oaten, Mark

      Wilkinson, John

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Willetts, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Paice, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Price, Adam

      Mr. Charles Hendry and Mr. Julian Brazier

      Prisk, Mark

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.39 pm
      Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the bill be now read the Third time.
      I shall be brief, as I want to give one hon. Member from each of the main Opposition parties time to speak. It is a pleasure for me to begin this debate, but I shall start by offering some thanks to my ministerial team—my hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of state for Education and Skills, the Minister for School Standard and the Under-Secretary of state for Wales—who took the Bill
      990
      through Standing Committee. I wish to thank also those Officers of the House who, as ever, have helped and guided us, and my officials in the Department.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Estelle Morris: Very well.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady says that she feels pleasure. Should not she feel shame that the Bill has not been properly discussed in this place?
      Estelle Morris: That is a pity. I was just about to thank Opposition Members for—from time to time—engaging in constructive and enjoyable debate. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I was told that on several occasions Opposition Members were offered the opportunity to sit later in the evening, but that on every occasion they chose not to do so.
      Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Estelle Morris: I shall in a moment.
      There have been two days during which to debate the Bill—one of which was extended this evening. To a large extent, the Opposition's use of that time was determined by them. I sat through debate on a string of amendments last night. The Opposition had the choice—
      Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can the Secretary of State get away with misleading the House in such a vile way—[Interruption.]—when the fact is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to choose his words more carefully.
      Mr. McLoughlin: How can the Secretary of State equate what she says with what actually happened today, when the Government spent 198 minutes on a motion and the Opposition Chief Whip had to move the closure so that we could begin to make a little progress? It is outrageous for the right hon. Lady to say what she is saying.
      Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on the matter, but it is a matter for debate not for the Chair.
      Estelle Morris: The Bill is about children out there—
      Mr. Brady rose—
      Estelle Morris: Those children deserve a good standard of education in our schools—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] I am not giving way. If hon. Gentlemen will shut up, I shall give the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) time to respond, but the more I have to give way, the less time there will be for the debate.
      The Bill is important. It builds on the success of the past four years of Labour Government. It means that we can build on the successes in primary education,

      991
      recognised by the Ofsted annual report yesterday and the PISA—programme for international student assessment—report published at the end of last year.
      The Bill recognises that we have a hugely accountable schools service. We know where our strengths lie and the Bill allows us to use our time and energy to provide greater support for those schools that are failing, and to free up the school system so that schools can be the initiators of reform. We have an accountable system and, in coming years, I look forward to being able to build on our success, working on the ideas that come from our best teachers, our best school leaders and our strongest local education authorities so that they lead the next generation of educational reform.
      I am also delighted that we have taken powers in the Bill to free up the curriculum, especially for 14 to 19-year-olds. In future months, I look forward to debates in the House about better opportunities for the many who have failed in the past.
      In essence, the measure will ensure that every child who attends a school in this country has the opportunity to succeed and flourish; to build on their talents; and to be taught in well-led schools by teachers who are well trained, with the chance of professional development. During the past four years, we have made tremendous progress. That progress is recognised not only by Labour Members, but by parents throughout the country.
      I have every confidence that the Bill provides the measures that we need to ensure that we deliver what we are concerned about—not counting up the number of minutes of Members' speeches, but making sure that our teachers and school leaders have the tools to do the job.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      11.44 pm
      Mr. Damian Green: On Second Reading, the Bill was opposed not only by Conservative Members but by nearly everyone else in education, because it concentrates on structures not standards. It will do nothing much to improve the standard of education.
      The Bill has not been improved by the parliamentary process, despite the efforts of Members of all the Opposition parties in Committee, because of the Government's contempt for the House and their attempt to deny debate at every stage.
      What the Secretary of State said about the Standing Committee is a travesty of the truth. What happened in Committee was that, apart from imposing too strict a guillotine on the entire timetable, the Government also imposed intermediate guillotines, which ensured that there was not enough time for debating every controversial clause in the Bill.
      That is how the Government behaved in Committee and they have continued to behave as outrageously on Report. Today, 17 groups of amendments were on the amendment paper. We have dealt with three of those groups and we finished with the first group only because the Opposition Chief Whip moved a closure. The Government were happy and prepared to spend the entire day and night discussing one group of amendments, leaving many important issues entirely undebated.
      The Government will also know that, partly because we have not been able to have a vote on a matter of particular interest to Welsh Members, which was also not debated
      992
      in Committee, the entire part of the Bill dealing with Wales—a significant part—has not been discussed at any stage in this House. That is a complete insult.
      We must now invite another place to consider how well this House has done its duty. At least the Government have failed so far in their plans completely to emasculate their lordships House as well, so we can still invite their lordships to do their job fully and thoroughly, not least because of the areas that we have failed to debate tonight, which cover an enormous range of policies that are deeply important to schools, parents and teachers.
      We have not discussed the Government's proposals on sixth forms or schools' powers to form companies—a radical and revolutionary proposal that the Government welcome and that everyone agrees is one of the most important changes to affect our schools— [Interruption.] The Government seem to think that it is funny that we have not debated it. Also, we did not debate the governance and financing of maintained schools, schools forums or admissions policy. If the Government do not think that admissions policy is important to every parent, they are even more out of touch than I thought. We have not discussed the proposals on school organisation, which would allow the setting up of academies and other new schools.
      Finally, we have not discussed the curriculum, although a huge number of amendments were tabled that would change it. Nothing could be more at the heart of our school system than what is taught and learned in our schools.
      The Government have failed to allow any proper discussion in the House and it is a disgrace. The Secretary of State should realise that in the long run this is not just a parliamentary matter. Clearly, it is serious that the House is held in contempt by the Executive of the day, but it is more than a parliamentary matter. It will affect everyone in the country. We will be piling up problems for our schools and their teachers and pupils because the House will be passing bad and inadequate law.
      Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend also agree that schools are dreading the regulatory impact of much of the legislation. What really matters to head teachers and parents in my constituency is, for example, the impact of the decriminalisation of cannabis on the sixth form life of their schools. We have not even discussed that tonight.
      Mr. Green: The Government could have given the House the opportunity to debate that and many other important measures. They have deliberately failed to do so. The tests that the House and the country will set the Bill are: will it encourage a single extra teacher to stay in the profession; will it cut the red tape that is driving teachers out of our class rooms; and will it improve discipline in our schools? The answer to all those questions is a very clear no.
      Conservative Members would have welcomed moves to give more freedom to schools to improve standards. In our period in office, we gave schools those freedoms. Those are the freedoms that this Government have taken away. The Bill will increase the centralisation of our education system. Every important decision will have to go across the desk of the Secretary of State. That is not the way to run a modern, flexible education system.
      Apart from the fact that the Bill is another turn of the ratchet in making Parliament irrelevant, we now know that not only are the Government holding this House in

      993
      contempt tonight, but that they propose to do so through the institutions of the Bill. The fact is that the Bill will take away the power of the House to pass primary legislation on important details. The Government will deal with all important details by secondary legislation. They have amply shown their contempt for the House, and the Bill shows that even further.
      The Bill was inadequate on Second Reading, and the Government have conspired to ensure that the House cannot fulfil its function of improving it. For the sake of our schools, we must ask the Members of another place to do their best to reduce the damage. The Bill was inadequate; it is still inadequate, and I invite those hon. Members from all parties who care about our schools and our children's education to reject it.
      11.50 pm
      Ian Lucas: An important aspect of the Bill is the introduction of citizenship as a foundation subject. That goes to the heart of the Government's agenda to involve children in these institutions and in society generally. However, I am concerned about a matter that specially relates to Wales. Citizenship is not included as a foundation subject in the national curriculum for Wales. That is a matter of concern, and I should like to flag it up briefly now, because the National Assembly for Wales has the power to incorporate citizenship under the Bill and by the powers that have been devolved to the Assembly. It is important that the Assembly buys into the concept of citizenship and educates our children about our institutions and their duties in society. It is unfortunate that that issue has not been considered in as much detail as it ought to have been. It is important that the Assembly closely considers the issue, and I hope that it will introduce the measures that apply in England.
      11.52 pm
      Mr. Willis: It is interesting that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has had to raise an issue on Third Reading that, frankly, should have been raised in Committee, but we were not able to discuss it then.
      The great sadness for me now is that we were promised in the Green Paper and the White Paper that the Bill would revolutionise secondary education. We were told that this would be the big reform of secondary education, but what we have is a hollow sham of a Bill. At the end of Second Reading, the debates in Committee and, I presume, Third Reading, we still do not know what it actually means.
      In reality, all hon. Members should recognise the fact that this is the first Education Bill that establishes a national system of education, controlled and ordered by the Secretary of State. She will have all the powers necessary to do whatever she wants in future. However, a Labour Government will not always be in power—a Liberal Democrat Government soon will be—and the powers that the Secretary of State will be given under the Bill can be used not in a benign way, but in a pernicious way by other Governments in future.
      When we finish with the Bill tonight, all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and were involved in the debates on Report will know that the Bill's character will be determined by regulation and secondary
      994
      legislation. That is the heart of the Bill, and most people will know nothing about it until it starts to appear on head teachers' desks in the form of regulations produced by the Department for Education and Skills.
      The Bill will totally bypass local education authorities. Perhaps Conservative Members think that a good idea—that is a fair point, which they can make—but the Secretary of State has further neutered the powers of LEAs. They are not allowed to innovate; all they have to do is facilitate. Powers over their budgets have been taken from them and the Secretary of State can determine what they spend on their schools. What is the point of having local authorities involved if the Secretary of State can dictate from the centre what schools will do, how and when they will do it and how much they will have to spend?
      The Bill promises greater diversity. There will be greater diversity—that is correct—but it will be diversity without equality. By the end of this Parliament, 50 per cent. of our schools will be specialist schools, but 50 per cent. of them will not be. They will be something else—presumably still "bog standard" in the Government's terms. That disastrous slur has never been removed.
      Schools will obtain more autonomy, but only those 10 per cent. that the Secretary of State believes should get it. Schools will have greater powers to innovate, but they will not be the schools that need to innovate the most. Only the ones that the Secretary of State chooses will be able to innovate. There will be academies, but the House does not know what form they will take. Companies will be able to run schools and those companies can be traded on the stock market. We know that, but we do not know what else is involved.
      This is a sham of a Bill of which the Secretary of State should be ashamed. Liberal Democrats will certainly vote against its Third Reading.
      11.56 pm
      Adam Price: If democracy in England has been poorly served by the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill, democracy in Wales has been utterly failed. Education has always been at the heart of our concerns in Wales, because we have always had a historical commitment to state education as a means of personal and collective advancement.
      On the whole of Report, we had just six minutes to deal with the clauses relating to Wales. More clauses relate to Wales than there are clauses relating to England, but we did not have a vote on the issues that affect Wales. The Minister also misrepresented the views of the trade unions in Wales on the devolution of pay and conditions. That was absolutely scandalous. We heard from the Secretary of State for Health the other week that he did not "do" Wales. The virus of Taffism has now apparently spread to the Department for Education and Skills.
      We are glad that there are enabling powers in the Bill that will allow us to reject new Labour's policies for education in Wales: no to naming and shaming of schools; no to specialist schools; no to school league tables; no to privatisation. I look forward to the day when we have a Government in the Assembly who will use those enabling powers to give us a policy that is made in Wales for the people of Wales and that will drive up standards for the people of Wales.
      11.57 pm
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The Secretary of State has taken to herself powers that many tyrants have not had. As a result of the Bill, she will be able to dictate. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) accurately pointed out, we shall have to wait for the orders and we shall have little chance to discuss them. In fact, by diktat, the Secretary of State will impose things on schools.
      Anyone who is truly concerned about the quality of education in this country and who has a real concern for parliamentary democracy should leave the House tonight thoroughly ashamed at the way in which the Bill has been steamrollered through by an intolerant, arrogant and appalling Government who do not really care for the quality of education and who do not have a single care for the quality of legislation.
      These proceedings have been an affront to the democratic dignity of everyone of our constituents in whichever constituency we represent on whatever side of the House. No Labour Member can go back with pride to his constituents and say, "We have discussed education; we have improved the Bill; and we have put through the House a Bill that has received proper scrutiny, examination and a thorough discussion so that it will raise standards for you. We can explain why." Labour Members have voted like zombies; they have a supported a Bill that has not been properly examined; they should be ashamed of themselves.
      11.59 pm
      Mr. Gummer: What is going to be taught in the citizenship classes about the democratic system of the House? How will the Secretary of State explain that we did not discuss the key issues of the Bill? How will citizenship be taught by a Government who hate the House of Commons and give us no chance to discuss the issues? A generation has been betrayed by the Secretary of State and the Government. She is establishing a series of classes in every one of which children will learn of the shame of tonight, of the shame of the Secretary of State and of the shame of the Government.
      11.59 pm
      Chris Grayling: Head teachers want a measure that will reduce bureaucracy, ease teachers' work loads and sort out the problems of discipline in the classroom. The Bill will do none of those—
      It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 179.

      Division No. 162]

      [12 midnight

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Beard, Nigel

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Benton, Joe

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blackman, Liz

      Austin, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Barron, Kevin

      Blizzard, Bob

      Battle, John

      Borrow, David

      996

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gilroy, Linda

      Brennan, Kevin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Goggins, Paul

      (Newcastle E &Wallsend)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Grogan, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Bryant, Chris

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hanson, David

      Cairns, David

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Healey, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Casale, Roger

      Hendrick, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heppell, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heyes, David

      Chaytor, David

      Hill, Keith

      Clapham, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hoey, Kate

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hope, Phil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      (Norwich S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clelland, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hurst, Alan

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cousins, Jim

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      David, Wayne

      Joyce, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham &Heston)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford &Isleworth)

      (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dawson, Hilton

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kidney, David

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lammy, David

      Doran, Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Drew, David

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Levitt, Tom

      Edwards, Huw

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Efford, Clive

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Linton, Martin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lloyd, Tony

      Etherington, Bill

      Love, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lucas, Ian

      Fisher, Mark

      Luke, Iain

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lyons, John

      Flint, Caroline

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Flynn, Paul

      McCafferty, Chris

      Follett, Barbara

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McDonnell, John

      Galloway, George

      MacDougall, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      997

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simon, SiÖn

      McNulty, Tony

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Miliband, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moffatt, Laura

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mole, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moran, Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Julie

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Timms, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Touhig, Don

      O'Hara, Edward

      Truswell, Paul

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pearson, Ian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Perham, Linda

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Picking, Anne

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Plaskitt, James

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pollard, Kerry

      Watts, David

      Pond, Chris

      White, Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Price, Adam

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      (Swansea W)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Winnick, David

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wood, Mike

      Rooney, Terry

      Woolas, Phil

      Ross, Ernie

      Worthington, Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wyatt, Derek

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dan Norris and Mrs. Anne McGuire

      Shaw, Jonathan

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Amess, David

      Bercow, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Blunt Crispin

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Bacon, Richard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Baldry, Tony

      Brady, Graham

      Barker, Gregory

      Brazier, Julian

      Baron, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Barrett, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Bruce. Malcolm

      998

      Burnett, John

      Lidington, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Luff, Peter

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cameron, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      (NE Fife)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cash, William

      Maples, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Chope, Christopher

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Collins, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Conway, Derek

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Norman, Archie

      Cotter, Brian

      Oaten, Mark

      Cran, James

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Page, Richard

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Paice, James

      Dodds, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Doughty, Sue

      Pickles, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Prisk, Mark

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Reid, Alan (Argyll &Bute)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Rendel, David

      Francois, Mark

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gale, Roger

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Gibb, Nick

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Ruffley, David

      Gray, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Grayling, Chris

      Sanders, Adrian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Greenway, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Grieve, Dominic

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'dns)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Harvey, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spink, Bob

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Steen, Anthony

      Heath, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hermon, Lady

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hoban, Mark

      Swire, Hugo

      Holmes, Paul

      Syms, Robert

      Horam, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Thurso, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Tredinnick, David

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Trend, Michael

      (Ross Skye &Inverness W)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Key, Robert

      Tyler, Paul

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Viggers, Peter

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Webb, Steve

      Laws, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Wiggin, Bill

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wilkinson, John

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Willetts, David

      999

      William, Roger (Brecon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Yeo Tim

      Mr. Charles Hendry and Dr. Julian Lewis.

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

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

      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
      That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
      Question agreed to.

      Southend General Hospital
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
      12.12 am
      Sir Teddy Taylor: My apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), for raising the subject at this late hour, but I think that you know that it is not my fault.
      This debate is about the future of the South Essex cancer network and the Southend cancer care centre, and the scope of the treatment and surgery that they provide. I hope to obtain assurances from the Minister that the 1 million patient rule will not be applied indiscriminately, thereby reducing the scope of treatment at the hospital and undermining the centre's success.
      The cancer centre deals with patients from a population of about 680,000, which is represented by four MPs. On the basis of comments made at a meeting with the Southend Hospital NHS Trust and consultants on Monday, which was arranged by hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), we are united in our views. I hope that, following my short speech, it will be possible for my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) to speak; the Minister has kindly agreed, subject to your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so long as she has good time to reply.
      The Minister is subjected to many complaints about the health service, as were the previous Government. I hope that she will be reassured to learn that the service provided by the cancer centre is of a very high standard, is greatly appreciated by the community, and is very successful according to published figures. She will know that while other centres in the region do not, according to the Southend consultants, publish figures, Southend tables, compared with those of regions which do publish figures, show that our centre has a high achievement record, both for routine treatments and for involvement in research. What is the problem? Of course, there is no threat to the centre itself, as the Minister confirmed in a written answer, and there is no immediate threat to the treatment of the more common cancers like lung, breast and colorectal, which make up about 50 per cent. of cases. However, other areas of treatment, such as upper gastro-intestinal, head and neck, haematology, urology, and possibly gynaecology, could be subject to transfer to hospitals as far away as Ipswich, Colchester and London.
      What is the basis of the 1 million rule, particularly when it is not applied to sparsely populated areas, where 500,000 is accepted? The argument is that the larger centres will be more successful, on the basis of what is called best evidence. If the evidence shows that Southend is already successful by comparison with other centres, would it not be reasonable to leave the service as it is?
      The second argument is that for some cancers such as gastric and oesophageal, the operations should be carried out by surgeons with a sufficiently high number of such procedures for a meaningful audit of outcomes, and the guidance quotes a figure of at least 10 per year. In the case of the South Essex cancer network, however, there are approximately 80 such resections every year, which is well above many of the networks with a population of 1 million.

      1001
      I hope that the Minister will also consider the impact on the needs of other patients if specialist surgeons are removed to other centres. I could quote many examples, but if we take the case of benign upper gastro-intestinal conditions, and if we remove the two accredited upper GI surgeons from South Essex, a specialty in which there is an acute shortage, how can we be expected to transfer cases to other networks that do not have the capacity to take on extra work?
      We have been told that Professor Richards, the national cancer director, has been given the task of reviewing the South Essex situation. I am in no doubt that when he sees the stature and success of the centre, he will wish to help us. The crucial question is whether he has an instruction from the Department to implement the 1 million rule as far as possible.
      My hope and that of my colleagues, and the hope of all who work in the hospital, is that the Minister will state clearly and unambiguously this evening that as the centre has achieved success and clinical excellence, the region and the national cancer director will be permitted to recommend that it should be allowed to continue, and thereby to maintain the superb service and safeguard patients from long journeys to other centres.
      I know that the Minister continually hears constituency arguments making the case that the situation in one constituency is splendid, but I hope that she will accept that in this case there is a genuine, strong and compelling argument. If something is working well, it is to the benefit of society and all the people in the community if we let well alone.
      12.17 am
      Mr. David Amess: Communities are invariably fiercely loyal to their hospitals. In that regard, Southend is no exception. For that reason, I was horrified when Southend hospital was given a one-star rating. Under no criterion was that justified. It is well known that local residents have the highest regard for the hard-working staff at Southend hospital and the wonderful service that they offer. In particular, the cancer service is first class. If the Minister cares to consider the outcomes at Southend compared with others, they are well above the average.
      Having looked at the cancer plan, I understand why the Government were minded to draw up the plan. I applaud it. Following the meeting which my three colleagues and I had at Southend hospital on Monday, we have a number of genuine concerns, which we ask the Minister to consider. As she knows, although the hospital is situated in the constituency that I represent, it also serves the constituents of my three colleagues. Unfortunately, since anxiety was raised among the general public—it had nothing to do with local Members of Parliament—there has been an outpouring of concern.
      I was delighted that the Secretary of State for Health decided to write a personal letter to the editor of the Evening Echo. That was much appreciated. However, the letter raised a number of concerns. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) said, under the auspices of the new cancer taskforce led by Professor Mike Richards, the reference to areas of 1 million inhabitants is particularly worrying.
      1002
      Certainly, as far as local residents are concerned, we have a first-class service. The argument that the cancers are minor and that their treatment should take place in other parts of the country would be very distressing to people in an area that is populated by a higher proportion of elderly people than other parts of the country. I ask the Minister to consider that important factor.
      As we have a first-class service and that is what the Government want, why change it? Monday's meeting was very productive and educated us on a number of issues. It was not biased at all. It demonstrated that, with a new consultant having been appointed at Southend hospital, some concern has already been expressed about morale generally, because it is argued that if the rarer cancers were taken away from the hospital, there would unfortunately be a knock-on effect.
      I say very gently to the Minister that this is a warning shot across the bows. Local people will not just stand idly by and let their service be reduced in any way below the excellent standard that we currently have. I ask her to consider very carefully the pleas that my hon. Friends and I are making.
      12.21 am
      Bob Spink: I am very grateful to be given the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
      Castle Point people value very highly the cancer services at Southend hospital. Today, I questioned Professor Richards, the cancer tsar, in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in an evidence session on cancer care and research. He was very well briefed and knew about the situation in Southend. It will be interesting to read the transcript of that exchange. I made a couple of notes. He said:
      "I am absolutely confirming that Southend will be retained as a cancer centre."
      I suppose that that is the case to some degree, and certainly for the more common cancers. We are grateful for that undertaking, which was extracted by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). However, Professor Richards went on to explain that some patients with less common cancers who need surgery would get better outcomes if they were treated in specialist centres. He quoted much evidence from around the world to illustrate that point. We all know that if we had a child with one of these rare cancers, we would not want them to go to just any hospital, even if it was local. We would want them to go to the very best hospital where they would get the best outcome. We are approaching this matter in a very grown-up manner.
      The cancer tsar also said that Southend hospital cancer centre was "excellent". Residents and staff at the hospital are grateful for that acknowledgement, as the hospital really is excellent. He said that he would liaise with the eastern regional office to ensure that we get the best possible solution for local people. That is all we can ask from the Minister. I am delighted to see that she is giving her time tonight to listen to us.
      Finally, the Evening Echo, and the two Southend MPs in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), have done a very great community service in drawing attention to the problem and in getting the undertakings that we have so far been given. Castle Point people are indeed indebted to them.
      12.24 am
      Mr. Mark Francois: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on securing this debate, which is of great importance to residents throughout south-east Essex. I thank him and other speakers for allowing me to make a quick contribution.
      As I have only a short time, I shall concentrate what might be called the thin-end-of-the-wedge issue. If the Government decide to transfer some specialist cancer operations from Southend, perhaps to Ipswich, because Southend is said to lack a catchment area of 1 million patients, what will prevent them, after establishing that precedent, from deciding that other sorts of operations should be done elsewhere?
      If several services are moved, it could be argued that the remainder of the services may as well be moved because Southend does not have a catchment area of 1 million. That anxiety has been raised with me by my constituents and people in surrounding areas. I should be grateful if the Minister gave us assurances on that.
      My constituents in Rayleigh want the service to be preserved mainly as it is. So do I. Southend hospital's record on cancer treatment is excellent. The service is not broken, so I implore the Minister not to fix it.
      12.25 am
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on securing an important debate. Approximately eight times the usual number of hon. Members for Adjournment debates are in the Chamber, and I stress that quality as well as quantity is present. I know that the hon. Gentleman recently tabled a parliamentary question on the matter and that he has pursued it assiduously. Much local concern has been expressed in the local media. My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) have raised the matter with me and sought assurances about the future of the service.
      Before I deal with the specific issues in Southend, I should like to place them in the context of the cancer plan, which hon. Members have mentioned, and the continuing work to improve services throughout the country. I shall then explain the effects on Southend. It is wrong to view the matter in isolation; the thrust of the cancer plan is about setting up networks in which people work collaboratively rather than in isolation.
      The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) made a responsible contribution. He acknowledged the tensions between excellence and access and talked about getting the balance right between services that are close to home and those that are in specialist centres. We all want our constituents to have access to the best services for treating especially complex illnesses.
      The contribution of the hon. Member for Castle Point was in marked contrast to that of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who failed to grasp the issue. We are not considering removing services or salami-slicing, but improvements. In the past, our record on cancer has not been wonderful, but it is now improving dramatically, although we have some way to go before we achieve the same outcomes as other European countries. There is no question of reducing the services that are available to local people.
      1004
      It is now widely accepted that the national health service has been underfunded for decades. That means that it has had too few staff and inadequate facilities, which have not been organised into specialist cancer treatment services of the kind that exist in the rest of Europe. Our outcomes have therefore been poorer than those of many other countries.
      People have not had the necessary support through preventive care; patients have had to wait too long for diagnosis and treatment. If we are honest, they have not always received the treatment, care and support that they have a right to expect.
      The cancer plan was published only a year ago; we should reflect on the outstanding progress that has been made in that time. The plan sets out a managed way forward. We need more nurses, doctors and, crucially, more radiographers. We also need more equipment. Most of the vital equipment was old and needed replacement. We also needed to ensure that new drugs were available to everybody who could benefit from them.
      The cancer plan is backed by the biggest ever increase in funding for cancer services. This year, an extra £280 million is available to improve cancer services; next year, a further £127 million will be available. By 2003–04, the NHS will get £570 million a year more for cancer services than it received last year when we published the cancer plan. I do not think that anybody—Opposition Members or anyone else—could doubt that this represents a massive prioritisation for tackling cancer.
      But the cancer plan is not just about money. It is also about putting in place the systems, changes, clinicians and specialist teams to work together to ensure that the new investment results in improved outcomes for patients, which is what we are all interested in.
      Treatment also needs to be available much faster. All too often, waiting times have been far too long. The cancer plan sets new targets to cut waiting times, and just over 91 per cent. of people with suspected cancer were seen by a specialist within two weeks of being urgently referred by their GP between July and September 2001. That is a tremendous increase, but, again, it is not quite enough. We want to do much more.
      We need more staff and more training. By the end of 2001–02, we expect to increase the number of cancer consultants by 428 compared with 1999. That means that we are on target to reach the cancer plan aim of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006, which represents a tremendous investment but also perhaps illustrates what a low base we were working from before the cancer plan was put into place.
      We also need better palliative care, and the new opportunities fund is helping us to ensure that we have more consistent funding for adult hospices, for which funding is variable up and down the country. We also need more modern equipment, and we now have a programme to upgrade equipment. In total, approximately 25 per cent. of MRI scanners, 35 per cent. of CT scanners and 20 per cent. of linear accelerators now in use in the NHS are new since January 2000. There is an awful lot of new equipment now in place in the health service.
      Hon. Members have described how these policies are becoming evident in Southend, and it is good to know that the people of Southend and the surrounding area are so appreciative of the improvements. It is particularly

      1005
      good to hear hon. Members' praise for the staff involved in the service, and that they feel that the service is providing excellent care for their constituents.
      Hon. Members asked about guidance. I will respond first to the question about the rationale behind setting a network population of 1 million people, and its application with particular reference to Southend and upper gastro-intestinal cancers, which was the specific issue raised. One of the essential features of improving cancer outcomes in this country has been the move to create specialist diagnostic and treatment centres, in which teams of oncologists, surgeons, physicians, specialist nurses, radiologists, pathologists and many others can collectively diagnose and treat the various types of tumour. This is not simply about surgeons but about the whole diagnostic and treatment team coming together to share ideas and good practice.
      The teams are being developed within 34 cancer networks throughout the country. They typically serve populations of between 1 million and 2 million people; South Essex is one of the smallest networks, with just 680,000 people. Each cancer network has a cancer centre at its core. There is good evidence to show that specialist teams such as those that I have described produce better results. We have lagged behind Europe on outcomes.
      The expert advisory group recommended that a cancer centre should normally serve a population of more than 1 million. When there is a need to consider geographical constraints to ensure a balanced service, however, a population base of two thirds of a million should be considered an absolute minimum. Following the publication of the expert advisory group report, further guidance on individual tumour types has been, and is still being, developed.
      Networks have now almost completed the task of implementing the guidance issued on the common cancers. Over the past few years, they have created specialist teams for breast, lung and colorectal cancers. Sadly, these cancers are quite common, but that means that the numbers of patients being seen are substantial enough to warrant the creation of such centres in most district general hospitals.
      We are now moving on to develop guidance based on the care of patients with the less common cancers—for example, gynaecological, upper gastro-intestinal, urological, head and neck, and haematological cancers. Because patient numbers are, thankfully, smaller, it will not be possible to provide large multi-disciplinary teams and equipment in each local hospital. Most people would accept that that is common sense.
      In relation to the gastro-oesophageal cancers to which hon. Members have referred, the picture in this country is poor. We do not compare well with Europe and average five-year survival for gastric cancer is 12 per cent. against 20 per cent. for the average European patient. That represents a tragic and avoidable loss of life for many patients.
      Most studies show that hospitals dealing with large numbers of patients have the best outcomes. Although surgeons are key to that, they are only part of the multi-disciplinary team. Guidance issued in early 2001 to centres that care for patients with upper gastro-intestinal cancers recommended that they serve a minimum
      1006
      population of 1 million and, for pancreatic surgery, 2 million to 4 million. A population of 1 million normally generates about 280 oesophageal and gastric cancers, and radical surgery is appropriate for about 100 patients.
      That is the minimum appropriate to improving outcomes and the policy was recently endorsed by the council of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, so the argument for creating specialist centres is compelling. Retaining small units without proper specialist teams is not an option if we want to improve outcomes for patients.
      I want to deal with how all those national initiatives have been applied in Southend, whose hospital is part of the South Essex cancer network, which is one of five such networks in the Eastern region, but one of the smallest in the country. Clinicians across Southend, Basildon and Thurrock have a long tradition of working closely together to deliver good quality cancer care to patients, and the wider community values the holistic care that it receives from the services.
      The cancer network recently celebrated its sixth birthday. Its achievements have also been celebrated and delivery of good care for common cancers is well advanced. The care is of extremely good quality and I thank all the clinicians involved for delivering those very high standards.
      From time to time, officials review the composition of cancer networks to ensure that they are developing appropriately in accordance with the plan. South Essex was reviewed in 1999 and 2001, and concern was registered about it being very small. There is anxiety that, as it moves on to consider the less common cancers, it might have difficulty supporting an increasing number of specialist teams. It might also have difficulty attracting the high calibre of clinical specialist required. On its own, it might find it more difficult to fund staff and specialist equipment from its per capita income, so high-quality clinical collaboration with other networks must be developed.
      It has been recognised that we perhaps have to think more creatively and apply innovative approaches to achieving specialist teams among a small population base. That is exactly the work that Professor Mike Richards is undertaking with colleagues and clinicians in the area. It is not beyond our wit to find a solution that retains the very best of the high quality care that Southend provides for people of the neighbourhood as well as access to specialist teams. We can have the best of both worlds: we can ensure that care is provided close to home where appropriate and that work with neighbouring clinicians is undertaken to establish a wider network or a series of joint networks that co-operate to achieve the outcomes that people rightly want when they deal with more complex cancers.
      South Essex has two accredited surgeons towards the overall team and they are treating cases that used to be treated in London or not at all. We do not yet have the figures on outcomes, because it takes at least five years to measure the five-year survival rate. We shall monitor the figures carefully, however, and we look forward to seeing the outcomes produced by the surgeons involved.
      There is a regional group in place and it is working on the issues involved with setting up the collaborative networks, such as using ultra-sound in diagnosis to achieve best outcomes. That requires not just

      1007
      state-of-the-art equipment, but a specialist radiologist who would probably have been trained on that equipment in the United States. There is a great deal of development work to be done in the South Essex network. Again, that may be better served by collaboration with other networks in the Eastern region so as to achieve best advantage.
      The approach of trying to work with neighbouring networks has been endorsed by Professor Richards, by the surgeons' accrediting body, and by the body responsible for setting national cancer standards. I have every confidence that the managers and clinicians involved will find a way to solve the admittedly difficult problem of developing a gastro-oesophageal centre while conforming with best advice, and will be able to make recommendations.
      Let me confirm beyond all doubt that rumours circulating in the press that the Southend cancer centre was due to close are not true. Such a closure has never been on the agenda. The matter was raised with me by Councillor Jennifer Howlett from Castle Point, who was very concerned. I am delighted to reassure her and, indeed, the local community that the centre will not close.
      1008
      Moreover, the fact that we are considering ways of providing good services to deal with the more specialised cancers does not mean for a moment that we will reduce the services available to local people. Such scaremongering is unhelpful: it makes vulnerable people feel insecure when they or their relations are ill and need quality treatment.
      We want cancer services to be improved. That will require new investment, but it will also require change to ensure that we drive up our standards. Members have said, "If the system ain't broke, don't fix it." But we do not want change for its own sake; we want change because we know that people are entitled to better outcomes. For many years, our outcomes have not been comparable with those in other countries. It is time that we secured the investment and reform to ensure that our constituents have the best possible services, and I hope that those services will be available in Southend for many years.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Territorial Army
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on a subject on which people often expend a huge amount of air and noise—but on which they do not cast much light. The Territorial Army is a deeply emotive subject for many reasons, not least because it is one of the few remaining links between an increasingly isolated Regular Army, an army that spends much of its time behind the wire or overseas—or recovering from overseas operations—and the civil community. We shall probably hear more about those links. However, much of the subject is clouded in the mysteries of time.
I pay tribute to Corporal Ted Chapman, a Victoria Cross holder from the second world war who died recently. He was entirely a territorial soldier—by instinct, enlistment, courage and achievement. The fact remains that there are no more of his type today, but there are good reasons for that and I hope to shed a little light on them.
Things have changed since 11 September for the regular forces and for the territorials. The President of the United States of America, in his state of the nation address, said:
"Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning."
In September, the Prime Minister said that however the United States decides to proceed, we will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with it, providing moral, physical and military support in the war against terrorism. However, it is a new style of terrorism. It is not the terrorism that we have grown used to, mainly republican or loyalist. It is asymmetric warfare, and the threat is just as likely to come from within our shores against civil targets in an unexpected and wholly asymmetric fashion.
The Secretary of State for Defence, speaking on "Westminster Hour" last Sunday, said:
"We have to develop a force to protect key points and similar targets above and beyond our regular forces."
His choice of words was interesting. The term "key points" is known to many hon. Members. It was a title that the old Territorial Army, the TA that we used to know, used to describe a task with which it was familiar. It indicated threats to our homeland, and the forces that would be available to achieve protection and give us a feeling of security.
I suggest that the Territorial Army is in dire straits, and that it may not be able to achieve that sort of operational stance. Our regular forces are deployed abroad, waiting to deploy abroad or recovering from
252WH
operations. I shall not say that that is unprecedented, and I shall not use the much-used word "overstretched", but our forces are stretched almost to the limit. There has never been a more pressing need for the Territorial Army.
Since the strategic defence review, the Territorial Army has been used to support the regular forces in dribs and drabs by means of individual reinforcements, section reinforcements and, occasionally, platoon reinforcements. It has become used to operating at that low level. It has done a fine job, but difficulties and anomalies have arisen because of the new threat that is emerging. I am thinking particularly of the teeth arms, with the exception of the Royal Engineers, who can and will deploy independently because they have complete unit autonomy up to squadron and, I believe, regimental level. The Yeomanry, the Royal Artillery and the much-depleted 15 battalions of infantry are, however, incapable of deploying at anything above company or squadron level, and even that would be extremely difficult.
Let us take the example of an infantry battalion from the curiously named East of England Regiment, which is made up of several fine old county regiments and whose companies now extend throughout the midlands and into East Anglia. Each company is commanded by a territorial company commander, who is supported by territorial platoon commanders, when they can be recruited. There is, however, no battalion staff worth speaking of, apart from a regular commanding office, a regular regimental sergeant-major and a handful of captains at battalion headquarters, although that is not always the case.
Such an arrangement has a couple of implications. First, that battalion of the East of England Regiment cannot deploy as an entity. Let us suppose that an infantry battalion was needed—this would be a reasonable task—to defend Fylingdales and to provide armed force beyond that available from the police. The East of England Regiment could not fulfil that role, although a regular unit could. A Territorial Army battalion is not configured for such a role, because it has no autonomy of deployment much above platoon level.
It is also difficult to train junior and middle-ranking officers and middle-ranking non-commissioned officers. Ted Chapman VC won his Victoria Cross as a corporal at the Teutoburger Wald and ended up as a company sergeant-major, having held, with great distinction, every rank from private to company sergeant-major in the third battalion of the Monmouthshire Regiment. That would not be possible today. There can be no such thing as a battalion exercise created by the Territorial Army, because everything that it does must be strapped on to the Regular Army. It is difficult to train company sergeant-majors, company seconds-in-command or even company commanders, because no intrinsic training mechanism exists. By the same token, it is impossible to deploy a battalion without heavy regular Army support, and the Territorial Army is no longer configured for such tasks. That is, I imagine, why the Secretary of State for Defence referred to developing a force to protect key points.
I must also underline the pay anomalies faced by territorials who are called to the colours. The battalion to which I used to have the pleasure and honour of belonging was deployed to Bosnia and received

253WH
territorial reinforcements, despite being one of the few fully recruited battalions in the Army. TA soldiers came forward wearing the badges of sergeants and corporals, but had to be paid as private soldiers when they were deployed, and that anomaly was deeply unsettling for those non-commissioned officers. Furthermore, they could not fulfil the role of corporal or sergeant in a regular infantry battalion, despite receiving two weeks' training at the reserve mobilisation and training centre and, indeed, training from their regular battalion on arriving in Bosnia. They wore the badges, but they did not draw the pay and could not fill the boots of their regular counterparts. That is a severe oversight and difficulty in the treatment of our territorials.
There has been much unhelpful talk about the call-up of the Intelligence Corps reservists in the wake of the emergency created by 11 September. I choose my words carefully, because the Minister will be exceedingly bored by now of my colleagues and me prodding him about procedures that have been reported extremely unfavourably and improperly by the press. The response of the 3rd (Volunteer) Military Intelligence battalion to the call was splendid. Its soldiers are extremely specialist, as the Minister is aware, so their call-up was going to be unusual and slightly more difficult, especially as the procedure had not been practised since the Suez crisis.
Newspaper headlines stating that territorials were reluctant to come forward, or were backsliding when the call came, were extremely unhelpful and insulting to the men and women of that battalion and the Territorial Army. I deeply regret that, as it makes our territorials look like something that they are not. I do not want to dive too deeply into history, although I have every inclination so to do, but the majority of honours on the colours of every infantry battalion or yeomanry regiment have been won by territorials. Precisely the same spirit to respond to the call of the nation is alive and well inside the territorials.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I have heard, anecdotally, that one person in the battalion wanted to join and was called up, but his employer was reluctant to let him go. That is a modern development.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If one reads the newspapers, one would be forgiven for thinking that employers had been universally difficult with territorials called to the colours, and that there was a great deal of backsliding from the soldiers themselves. I think that I am right to say that there were only two or three examples of soldiers in the battalion whose employers impeded their call-up.
Call-out procedures must reflect the information age in which we live and its style of asymmetric terrorist and conventional warfare, if that is not a contradiction in terms. There is no doubt that the procedures used to get these men and women under arms were rusty and difficult. The soldiers have not yet joined their units, despite the fact that it is nearly six months since the emergency occurred. I will not labour the point, because I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that has
254WH
been undertaken on the problem, but I want to underscore the fact that some of the staffing procedures in the call-up of the battalion were slow. That is probably the kindest thing that I can say about them. A huge burden fell on the commanding officer and staff of that battalion, who did magnificent work to produce a magnificent response.
I shall return briefly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). There have been difficulties with some employers, but the Minister has assured me that they are being tackled.
I move on to the vexed question of recruiting. I see a hobby horse dashing past the window, but I will not jump on it. The Territorial Army is in a strange position. The directive about infantry recruiting from the director of infantry suggests that the aim for a territorial infantry battalion is for 66 per cent. of the 76 per cent. recruited to attend camp every year, which is fine. A territorial unit, especially an infantry unit, is always under strength, being only ever three quarters manned. That allows a budget for the commanding officer who, unlike a Regular Army commanding officer, is charged with recruiting for his unit. If he is undermanned, there is money in his budget to allow him to recruit more effectively.
We are in an invidious position. Should a territorial battalion have 100 per cent. manning, there would no money left in the budget for recruiting. The point is arcane, but there is a substantial difference between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army in terms of recruiting. The territorials should have an independent budget at unit level or at central level to allow them to recruit effectively. The lack of such a budget is one of the reasons why so many of our territorial units, hand-in-hand with our regular units, are chronically under-recruited.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie):Although some may be undermanned, others are overmanned.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister. The fact remains that the majority of units are undermanned, and I ask the Minister to consider carefully this anomaly in recruiting policy.
Turning to the issue of retention of morale from the perspective of a former regular officer, I am conscious of the fact that regular units, particularly infantry units, are overmanned with majors and lieutenant-colonels, all looking for commands. They want battalions or regiments to command, in order to progress with their careers. The trend for territorial commanding officers to be regular Army officers—less so in the yeomanry, but increasingly in the infantry—means that there is a grave disincentive for the territorial officer to serve through the ranks and endeavour to achieve the rank of lieutenant-colonel, commanding his local unit.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who are present, are holders of the territorial decoration? The Government scrapped that decoration in 1999. What does he think that that has done for the morale of Territorial Army officers?

255WH
Although the Government introduced a new decoration common to both officers and other ranks, which is a good thing, Territorial Army officers no longer have the incentive of the right to place letters after their name. Is it not ironic that that should have been done by politicians, who are only too glad to give themselves awards that permit them to place many letters after their names?
Patrick Mercer: The old territorial decoration was an important incentive for those who give up so much of their spare time to serve for paltry rewards in the defence and the support of their country. That decoration was an important adjunct to territorial morale. Also, I am so glad that the title was changed to territorial decoration from volunteer decoration, as the initial letters for the latter were somewhat unfortunate.
It is important in terms of retention that the commanding officers of territorial units should come exclusively from the Territorial Army. The territorial decoration is also important in those terms.
Mr. Mark Prisk: On retention, does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a breakdown in the ability of men and women to remain loyal to the unit in recent years? He mentioned the East of England Regiment, in which, through the Essex and Hertfordshire Company, some of my constituents serve. Pride in the TA is based on its team strength, its unit loyalty and its cap badge. Does he agree that retention has been undermined by the loss of such loyalty through amalgamations?
Patrick Mercer: It is interesting that I can recall a battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment being changed from an infantry battalion into a logistics regiment, some 10 years ago—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Tempting as it may be to face the hon. Member who intervened, the hon. Gentleman's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.
Patrick Mercer: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mark Francois: May I assist my hon. Friend? The battalion in question was the 5th (Volunteer) battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment, in which I had the honour to serve and which became the Royal Logistic Corps battalion.
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplying those facts. The Royal Anglian's 5th battalion transferred from being an infantry battalion to being a Royal Logistic Corps regiment. It was widely supposed that that would damage morale. In fact, it did not matter because local men continued to serve with their comrades and with those with whom they had joined. Cap badge was relatively irrelevant.
Furthermore, I urge the Minister to continue the trend for the director of reserve forces and cadets to be a territorial. I appreciate that the current post holder is a Royal Marine reservist. However, it is important for the post to be filled by someone who has a civilian job. If he does not, that individual cannot empathise with the
256WH
men and women whom it is his duty to represent effectively. I hope that the Minister will reinforce the resistance to the imposition by the regular forces of an officer who is either a regular or a recently retired regular, recalled as a reservist. I shall be grateful for the Minister's support.
Over the years, our territorial forces have given huge service to this nation, largely unrewarded. The casualties that they have suffered and the honours that they have garnered for the nation are innumerable. Things have changed; the threat has changed. However, we need a force that can deploy quickly, flexibly and, above all, autonomously, if the threat about which we hear so much is to be countered effectively.
9.51 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on having secured the debate and on having put his case so eloquently and authoritatively. I cannot claim to speak with his authority—he is obviously well versed in the subject. I am also delighted that the Minister is to sum up. He is no stranger to my constituency. He has visited it and is familiar with my territory, so he will recognise what I am going to say. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) is present. I have often heard her making a passionate case for the Territorial Army.
I have listened to many debates on defence matters, but this is the first opportunity that I have found to contribute to one of them. I should like to record the contribution of the Territorial Army in my constituency. My sentiments are similar to those of the hon. Member for Newark. My constituency has a great military history, with traditions that run deeply. Generations of young men and women from Cleveland have served in the armed forces, many of them with our local regiments, most notably the Green Howards—who are closely associated with Cleveland and North Yorkshire—and, in the past, regiments such as the Durham Light Infantry and King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, as well as in the technical disciplines of the Royal Engineers, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Corps of Signals.
I think of the sacrifices of many of those young men, who died fighting for their country and their democracy in the conflicts of the past century, and I grieve to see the familiar local surnames on the war memorials in the towns and villages of my constituency. However, threats to our way of life and to the democratic process, from wherever they come—from hostile nations or organised terrorism—must, in the last resort, be overcome by force of arms. In that endeavour, as the hon. Member for Newark eloquently explained, the Territorial Army plays a vital role in backing up the regular forces and ensuring that there is an adequate reserve of trained men and women ready to meet every eventuality.
On my patch, the Territorial Army is based at Colby Newham on the southern outskirts of Middlesbrough. At Colby Newham there is a detachment of B company, the Green Howards, otherwise known as the Tyne Tees Regiment. Also at Colby Newham is 104 Pioneer Squadron of the Royal Logistic Corps, a detachment of

257WH
the Army Cadet Force and a squadron of the Air Training Corps. Altogether, there are 140 Territorial Army soldiers training there. There are 68 youngsters trained by 12 adult instructors.
Those people do not only train, valuable as that is. They take part in valuable community events. The refurbishment of Albert park, the main park in the centre of Middlesbrough, was carried out by 104 Pioneer Squadron. Over a few days it helped to repair boats from the park's boating lake and to erect new railings. It makes school visits in the area. It assists in fundraising for local charities, and only last year the Army Cadet Force took part, with good results, in the Imperial Cancer Research Fund "race for life".
This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South reminded me that last year, during the flood crisis, the Territorial Army played an important role—including its work in Skinningrove in my constituency. It makes an important contribution to the spirit of Teeside. I note its support and recognition of multiculturalism in our society. A few members of our ethnic community are serving with the Royal Logistic Corps, and I am sure that that phenomenon will grow in the years to come.
The Army Cadet Force also participated in the Middlesbrough Mela 2000, which is a festival of the Asian community. That has been happening for several years and the Territorial Army has played its part, mingling with the Asian community. I know that because I have seen it myself; I have not attended every year, but when I have, I have seen the Territorial Army regularly.
Issues need to be tackled if the Territorial Army is to grow and be sustained—certainly in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will take the points I want to raise with him in the spirit in which they are meant. There is a need for the Ministry of Defence to pay closer attention to the standard of the buildings in which the Territorial Army in my locality is housed. A shoddy, down-at-heel building will certainly not attract young recruits. I have been to the premises at various times and there are always big repair bills. Recent bad weather has caused costly damage to the buildings, which could have been avoided if thought and cash had been applied to keeping them in reasonable repair.
As the hon. Member for Newark mentioned, there is a need to examine how the Territorial Army recruits officers. Locally, the Royal Logistic Corps has an establishment of six officers, but only three are in post. The Green Howards had similar vacancies, but that has been eased by the recent arrival of a permanent staff instructor. More thought needs to be given to that and, possibly, greater budget provision needs to be made available.
If there is no one to command our soldiers, training is attenuated and commitment must suffer. More thought must be given to the wages and allowances made to Territorial Army soldiers as well as to the legal obligations of employers to allow time off for training and service. The recent experience of Territorial Army personnel being reluctant to serve in Afghanistan because of job pressures shows that change is needed. Locally, our TA detachments are in fine heart. If we give
258WH
them the backing and funding that they need, I am sure that we can show that our area can provide excellent soldiers with spirit and determination.
As the hon. Member for Newark said, the Territorial Army serves this country without fear or favour. The Government are doing everything possible, while they make hard choices in restructuring our defences to meet our new challenges. Those challenges are brought about by the end of the cold war and the ever greater challenges that confront all of us after 11 September.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister takes what I have said in the right spirit, because people in my area are looking forward to a positive response from the Government.
10 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate and on giving a detailed analysis of the problems suffered by the Territorial Army. I recall that his last job in the Regular Army involved reservists, so he knows more about that subject than many in this Room, and on both sides.—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, so we must look forward to the Minister's speech to find out more.
I was on the Army reserve until recently, but I have fallen off the top because I am too old. I put my name down to volunteer for the TA in October, in case there was a possibility of going to Afghanistan. However, I do not think many soldiers from the TA have gone to Afghanistan.
As a young regular officer, I had a certain disdain for reservists until, along with one other person in this Room, I attended staff college. I was required to engage in a presentation of what was known as "One Army", which was a concept whereby the TA and the regular Army were as one. Having to do this presentation revealed to me that the TA was extremely important and that reservists were crucial to the defence of this country, which in the arrogance of youth I had not realised before. Later, I worked with the reserve special forces and was impressed by what I saw. People gave their time freely—well, not exactly freely because they were paid for it—but had to juggle that with their responsibilities as employees or employers.
On this point, I recall the German concept known as "citizen in uniform". By having reservists, one relates the armed forces—and particularly the army—to society. The "citizen in uniform" concept, which is part of the Bundeswehr, is crucial because the fewer reservists we have, the wider the division grows between the armed forces and society. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred to the importance of military aid for the civil authority, which is when people see the TA in action. However, if there are fewer and fewer soldiers, the Territorial Army will be seen less and less, so we need the TA to be part of society.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has already mentioned, suddenly, after 11 September, we are involved in a long-term conflict, perhaps for the first time since Korea and certainly for the first time since the end of the cold war. It is not the same as the conflict during the second world war, but it is a long-term

259WH
conflict. Suddenly, we must ask where the reserve is when we need it, because whether one thinks of Fylingdales, local defence or whatever, it is not there. That is extremely important to the defence of the country. Perhaps it has brought us back to what we realised before 1989; that there are threats out there. We need home defence in the face of international terrorism. That is not fanciful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned the reinforcement in Afghanistan. I understand that several TA people from London were called up and that their employers were difficult about it. I hope that the Minister has made note of that point.
There is a general philosophical point about the importance of the reserve forces. It is often easy to deal with big projects—a big airbus or fighter planes—but we must understand that reserve forces are crucial. The reduction in the TA was intended in the strategic defence review. I quote from paragraph 109, which states that
"numbers will fall to around 40,000 volunteers with reductions concentrated in yeomanry, infantry and supporting combat services"—
in other words, in what used to be called the teeth arms. Since 1997, we have been selling off buildings, such as the Duke of York's headquarters, which used to be a big TA headquarters. Some units have been scrapped and some have been pushed further out of London. That has reduced the impact of reserve forces on society.
We now need the reserves, but where are they when we need them, Mrs. Deputy Speaker?
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe, as I am not a Deputy Speaker but a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
10.5 am
Mr. Mark Francois: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate and on introducing it so well. I am pleased to participate in the debate as part of the Back-Bench platoon. I served in the Territorial Army for seven years, including service in two officer training corps and then in a NATO role infantry battalion, the 5 Royal Anglian. Its successor today, at least in the infantry role, is known as the East of England Regiment.
I want to raise three issues. First, I shall speak about formed units. Secondly, I want to refer to filling appointments with TA and regular officers, and, thirdly, I want to speak about home defence, not least in the light of events on 11 September.
One of the main thrusts of the Governments strategic defence review, at least in theory, was to make the Territorial Army more integrated with its regular counterpart. As a result, however, most TA soldiers now know that, in the event of war, their units would, effectively, be broken up and they would be fed piecemeal into regular units to reinforce them, perhaps as battle casualty replacements. It is difficult to maintain morale and unit cohesion in TA units when many of the
260WH
soldiers understand that, if they have to fight—in the event of their training coming to fruition and deterrence failing—they will not fight as one unit.
Dr. Moonie: That is not true.
Mr. Francois: The Minister says that that is untrue, but I understand that that is likely to be the case. For example, under current arrangements, most infantry battalions would be broken up, but I shall return to that point when I speak about home defence.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the central elements of serving in the armed forces is the cohesion and camaraderie that is created by serving together? When I served in the Territorial Army, I remember being astonished during my first assessment weekend that from a Saturday morning until a Sunday evening such camaraderie could develop between a group of people in the space of 36 hours. Surely that is the whole point.
Mr. Francois: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When people volunteer to serve in the reserve forces, we need to keep them interested so that they continue volunteering. An undermining of unit morale and cohesion has an effect on not only recruitment, but retention. For many years, the TA has faced the problem that, although it has recruited people to serve, it has had a challenge retaining them. If the cohesion of units is undermined, the challenge of retention for commanding officers becomes all the greater.
Before the Minister quotes figures at me and says that everything is all right, I wish to make a comparison with other reserve forces. I recently tabled a written question to his Department in which I said that, good though it is, the Royal Marine Reserve is 10 per cent. below establishment. The Royal Naval Reserve is nearly 20 per cent. below establishment and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is approximately 30 per cent. below establishment. The hon. Gentleman certainly cannot tell us that all is well because a simple comparison with other reserve forces reveals that not to be the case.
Appointments have been a long-running issue within the Territorial Army and, it is fair to say, within the Ministry of Defence. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark. The TA has a particular challenge with officer retention. The sort of people who make good TA officers also tend to be good in business. They are promoted and come under increasing pressure to choose between their TA career and their professional career. The Minister is nodding. One of the incentives for officers to remain in the TA is to hope to have the honour one day of commanding a unit.
If, however, more and more unit commands—battalion commanding officers, for example—go to regular officers because the Regular Army needs to find slots for people of that rank, that is a disincentive for TA officers to stay on. If it becomes apparent that those slots will not be available, they will think that they may as well concentrate on their professional career. A judicious balance must be struck between these

261WH
competing objectives. I make a plea to the Minister on behalf of those in the TA to bear it in mind that, each time a TA slot is given to a regular officer, that has knock-on implications for the retention of TA officers further down the line.
There has been a great deal of talk since 11 September about so-called asymmetric warfare. It is said that some may not wish to attack members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by the usual conventional means, but may use terrorist techniques, such as chemical or biological weapons. To give credit to the Select Committee on Defence, it identified that threat in the previous Parliament and used the phrase "asymmetric warfare" in some of its excellent reports. In a sense, the Committee was ahead of the game. It said that if there were an asymmetric threat to the United Kingdom—and, after what happened in the United States, we know that that can happen—more troops would be needed to respond to it. It said also that, in many ways, the TA was ideally suited for that purpose.
Let me conjure up circumstances in which there was a concerted asymmetric attack on the United Kingdom by people using chemical and biological weapons in tube stations, railway stations and other transport modes in large public buildings. To reassure the public, a large presence of troops would be needed. We would need troops in the past with the relevant equipment, who had been trained in chemical and biological warfare. The Territorial Army has trained for that purpose for many years and has that capability. However, there were fewer troops than there are now. In the circumstances I am describing, there would not be enough regular troops to go round the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, that is because a proportion of the Regular Army is always deployed abroad in one capacity or another.
If we take the threat of asymmetric warfare seriously—I believe that we should, particularly after what happened on 11 September—there could be a new role for many TA units. They could work as formed units and be trained for a home defence role, specifically to assist citizens in the event of an attack. The Minister may recall that a Home Service Force was formed in the 1980s. It was trained and constituted to protect key points against saboteurs, and was specifically orientated for a home defence role. There could be a modern and relevant role for the TA in the 21st century. In particular, its infantry battalions—if I may be allowed that small plug—could train specifically to provide a layer of defence for the United Kingdom in the event of such a threat. That would mean more units, and the defence budget would need more money. However, given what happened on 11 September, I believe that the money would be well spent.
Mr. Prisk: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the potential of the TA in defending the homeland. However, I ask him to comment on the danger of restricting the TA solely to that role, because there are other functions that it could fulfil. It may be difficult to
262WH
recruit the breadth of skills that are needed, and many people would like to be able to serve in the front line elsewhere.
Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The two roles are not mutually exclusive. If some TA units were to train in that role, that does not mean that they could never do anything else. Part of the concept of the armed forces is that they are inherently flexible. My argument is that there are not enough TA units. I would like to see extra TA units re-established, which may specialise in home defence but could also be deployed for other tasks. For example, a TA infantry unit that specialised in home defence could assist in flood defence, if the town in which it was based was threatened by rising floodwater. The two roles are not mutually exclusive.
In conclusion, history shows that when our country has been in great danger, the Territorial Army has often rallied to the colours. It has an honourable record of service. Whenever the bugle has sounded, it has responded to the call. As a result, it has sometimes been taken for granted. Its contribution should be properly recognised and honoured. The TA also needs to be resourced.
10.18 am
Hugh Robertson: For the purposes of transparency, I want to register an interest. I serve on the regular reserve of officers and think that I will do so for at least another 10 years. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on obtaining the debate, and I thank the Minister for listening.
In any debate about the Territorial Army, it is appropriate to begin by paying tribute to all those who give up so much of their time, because serving in the TA demands sacrifices in family life, social life, and work. It has a huge amount to offer the Regular Army. It provides a link between the Regular Army and the civilian world, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) has paid tribute to that. Critically, when members of the Territorial Army join the Regular Army, they bring with them skills that are not usually available to the Regular Army. I had direct experience of that when I assembled a battle group to go to the British Army training unit, Suffield in the mid-1990s, about 15 per cent. of which was made up of members of the Territorial Army. They were easy to slot into the order of battle, and as the battle group went on, they contributed more and more. By the end, some of them were more useful than some of the regular troops that were there in the first place. Let no one doubt the real contribution that they make.
There is much that is right about the Territorial Army. The debate comes down to two simple questions: first, what is the Territorial Army's role in the modern army, particularly post-11 September, and secondly, how will it meet that role? As is appropriate for a Westminster Hall debate—they tend not to be party political—I shall make my remarks as constructive as possible. In trying to assess the Territorial Army's role post-11 September, I considered the strategic defence

263WH
review of July 1998. In it, the Government said that the Territorial Army was then about 56,000-strong and still at 80 per cent. of its size at the end of the cold war.
Dr. Moonie: That was its establishment.
Hugh Robertson: It was largely made up of formed units at low readiness that were intended to defend the United Kingdom against invasion or to reinforce the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in Germany.
We need a smaller, more readily deployable and usable Territorial Army that is closely integrated with regular force elements. Although numbers will fall to about 40,000 volunteers, with reductions concentrated in the yeomanry, infantry and support-combat arms, we will be able to deploy more rapidly and bring the Territorial Army to full operational readiness. To achieve that, we will create an Army mobilisation centre and ensure that TA units are fully manned, trained and equipped to the standards needed to undertake their tasks effectively.
We must ask whether, as a result of the strategic defence review, the TA is indeed now fully manned, trained and equipped. I suspect that it is not. We must also ask whether the review's vision is still correct after 11 September. To answer that question, we must consider the three types of operations that the Army is likely to undertake post-11 September. The first must now be the war against terrorism. The second is an uneasy grouping of United Nations and Northern Ireland-type peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, counter-terrorist low-intensity operations. The third is conventional war.
There is still a clear need, which we often forget about, to reinforce the Regular Army with proper formed units. I strongly suspect that the TA is not geared up for a wholesale call-up. We would be extremely foolish to forget its role in conventional war. We rediscovered it when we had to fight the Gulf war. I have no doubt that, post-11 September, such expeditionary warfare may once again be on the agenda. We never know when such events are round the corner, and we must make sure that the TA is ready to meet them.
Mr. Robathan: Surely that is the crux of the matter. Suddenly, we are in a new ball game in which, notwithstanding the strategic defence review, we might have to deploy force overseas. The strategic defence review does not have the capability to commit a formed TA battalion or unit of that size.
Hugh Robertson: That is right. At a time of endless UN operations and the war against terrorism, it is tempting to forget about the conventional warfare role, but that remains extremely important.
I shall now deal with the rough alliance of peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, counter-terrorist low-intensity operations. Those were the operations envisaged for the Territorial Army in the July 1998 defence review, but the fact that it is not fully manned at the moment must undermine that. The estimates that I have seen suggest that there is a shortfall of about 18,000 recruits, and that must be addressed. The TA has a vital role to play in reinforcing the Regular Army, and in releasing its units to take part in the war against terrorism.
264WH
Many solutions to that shortfall could be implemented. For a start, the Territorial Army must be more proactive about the way that it recruits people. When I left the Regular Army—hon. Gentlemen may look puzzled—no one made any attempt to recruit me into the Territorial Army. That must be addressed. [Interruption.] At the end of the debate, my hon. Friends may know why.
Secondly, the Territorial Army must be more flexible about how it incorporates people into its ranks. An extremely good scheme for watchkeepers has now been abolished. Regular Army units regularly need watchkeepers, and an obvious pool of people with ex-Regular Army experience could fulfil that role. When we took a battle group to BATUS—British Army training unit, Suffield—each of the company squadron groups had a Territorial Army regular reserve watchkeeper. The scheme was abolished four or five years ago, and such flexibility needs to be restored.
Thirdly, a legislative review is necessary in the wake of changes in employment law to ensure that people can leave their work easily and be called up for operations and for the Territorial Army, as many of my hon. Friends said. Fourthly, we need to tackle pay differentials, which have, as far as I am aware, applied for five, six or even 10 years. It is simply wrong that people who serve in the Territorial Army are treated differently from those who serve in the Regular Army. That must be addressed.
Recognition is important. We have already discussed a territorial decoration. People who give up their free time for public service like to be recognised for that, and it is wrong that they are not.
The question of real estate has been touched on in previous speeches. People who give up their spare time for such activities want to do so conveniently. Many of the buildings being sold off are in the centre of town. The question of the Duke of York's has been raised. We must stop that process now.
The final matter that I should like to discuss is the war against terrorism. Many hon. Members have been enormously impressed over the years by the United States National Guard, a force that can deal with all types of civil emergency. The United States places a much bigger emphasis—and not merely because of the events of 11 September—on what it calls homeland defence. The Secretary of State suggested in a recent speech that in his view the Regular Army is not available for that task. The Territorial Army is ideally suited for that role, for two reasons in particular. It has excellent links with local communities, which need to be developed and improved. In that respect, we should note the importance of county regimental links, which draw people into the Territorial Army and allow them to feel that they are making a genuine contribution to their local community.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) for giving way, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) for having secured the debate. Glancing around the Chamber, I noticed my old

265WH
squadron leader sitting behind the Minister, but I shall not embarrass him further.
Does my hon. Friend feel, as I did when visiting America, the close link between the general public and the National Guard? A National Guardsman told me, "The best thing about this is that the public keep coming up to me and saying how pleased they are to see us here." That is exactly the same link as the Territorial Army has with society as a whole. Does my hon. Friend agree that because of that link the money that is so desperately needed and richly deserved is vital?
Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. I endorse my hon. Friend's comments and conclude by emphasising that point. The link between the Territorial Army and the county that it serves is important.
The Territorial Army is ideally placed to achieve co-ordination between the various civil authorities—fire, police, ambulance and the new strategic health authorities—and the military, which is critical in fulfilling the role of homeland defence effectively. In the summer, I spent a lot of my time in my constituency on the question of Kent Ambulance national health service trust. It was obvious that we did not have proper contingency plans to deal with a big civil emergency in Kent. Enormous infrastructure issues are involved, including the channel tunnel and the ports. There was a sort of plan to deal with a disaster in any of those places, but an all-embracing plan looking after fire, police, the strategic health authorities and the Territorial Army, which could be easily called up to provide the manpower, was noticeably missing.
We must review the role of the Territorial Army post-11 September and not forget its traditional role of reinforcing the Regular Army in times of conventional warfare and in low-intensity, peacekeeping operations. That review must be conducted in concert with the main defence review, not as a postscript tacked on to the end—the Territorial Army is too important for that.
Mr. Prisk: As my hon. Friend pointed out, the integration of the regulars and the reserves is crucial. Does he share my concern that, because some members of the Army Board lack direct experience in sharing civilian and military roles and of the practical difficulties involved, they are not aware of sensitivities?
Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend makes his point well—we must review the Territorial Army in concert with the Regular Army—but I shall steer clear of criticising the Army Board.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman must bring his remarks to a close. I am sure that he understands the rules of Westminster Hall.
Hugh Robertson: I shall certainly do so, Mrs. Roe.
The review must make use of the Territorial Army's new role in homeland defence and, critically, we must ensure that service in the Territorial Army remains as attractive as possible.
10.31 am
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to take part in today's debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing it, and on the effective way in which he deployed his arguments. He raised issues of great importance to the armed forces not only after the events of 11 September, but because of the wide range of challenges constantly faced by the armed forces that go beyond that of terrorist threat.
I also enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who set a good example to hon. Members, especially new ones, by skilfully weaving together his constituency experiences and, at the end of his speech, making some powerful points about the general debate. He tempted me to alter my own comments by making additional references to helicopters, but as I am speaking on behalf of my party, I will keep to more general points.
We benefited from the comments made by the self-styled platoon of Conservative Back Benchers, who deployed their considerable experiences and talents in this subject. I cannot imagine anyone daring to challenge our facilities knowing that such skilful and able individuals defend them.
I wish to frame my comments today on the basis of questions raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who asked what was the Territorial Army's role in today's armed forces and how it could be fulfilled. Whether it could fulfil that role effectively is also the subject of today's debate.
The key point about the Territorial Army is the flexibility and resource that it offers to our armed forces. It produces a reserve that we can deploy in several ways. I recently read the excellent biography of Churchill, by Lord Jenkins. I have reached the section on the second world war, which tells us that whenever Churchill met a general, he took the opportunity to ask him about his reserves. From the general's answer, Churchill determined his effectiveness in winning the battle, by finding out whether the general had deployed reserves that are available and could give flexibility. That is the key role that the Territorial Army can fulfil. It is wide and varied, and I hope that the Territorial Army will play it with flexibility.
It would be all too easy to conclude from recent events that the whole posture of our armed forces must be changed, and end up with a set of armed forces and a Territorial Army that is attempting to fight the last battle, although the next battle may be different. I argue, as did the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent, that we need a Territorial Army with flexibility to deploy the specialist and skilled troops who were sent to help our armed forces in such places as Bosnia and Afghanistan. The TA must also have the flexibility to deal with homeland issues that have been raised since 11 September, on which many hon. Members commented, and the flexibility to deploy more forces if we must fight a larger-scale conventional war. We all hope that that will not be the case, but we cannot guarantee that. It is only a few years since we had to deploy large forces in places such as Kuwait.
I hope that our Territorial Army will fulfil all those roles, and although the Government developed plans to allow the Territorial Army to fulfil a home defence role

267WH
following 11 September, I urge them not to turn the Territorial Army into a form of home guard. That would demotivate some people who want to be part of the Territorial Army, and the TA would not meet the challenges that we may have to face in several years.
The second issue that I shall cover is whether the Territorial Army's present configuration meets the challenges of a flexible reserve to fulfil the roles of back-up for special forces, a conventional reserve and homeland defence.
Several hon. Members touched on the problems that the Territorial Army faces. The size of the Territorial Army has reduced over the past few years from 75,000 personnel in 1998 to around 59,000 in 1997. The figure is closer to 41,000 today. To be fair to this Government and the previous Conservative Government, that decline occurred alongside shrinkage of defence expenditure and the number of people in the main armed forces. That was a consequence of the end of the cold war and we should therefore welcome some of the contraction of the forces.
However, there is a worry that further shrinkage of the TA will mean that it will not be able to fulfil the roles that I mentioned. We must consider the 41,000 troops in the light of Government figures that suggest that only 50 to 60 per cent. are deployable at any point.
We cannot compare that percentage with previous years in entirety. The Minister wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) in December 2001, which revealed that, unfortunately, somebody in the Ministry of Defence seems to have destroyed the records of the proportion of the Territorial Army who were available during years before 1998. However, recent figures show that only 50 to 60 per cent. of 41,000 people are deployable at any one time. I hope that the Minister agrees that that figure is too low. Does he plan to increase the availability of the 41,000 troops?
The role that we envisage for Territorial Army forces has a bearing on their availability. Several hon. Members touched on the problem faced by some members of the Territorial Army who were asked to go to Afghanistan or other foreign countries. That may be disruptive, and I understand that individuals and their employers could be reticent about long-term deployment. We must consider how to deal with that problem, and we must not demotivate people who want to be part of the Territorial Army by giving the impression that it is a home guard that will stand guard over various establishments in the event of terrorism. I hope that the Minister will address that and acknowledge that the motivation of personnel in the Territorial Army is linked to the role that the Government envisage for them.
The other issue that relates to the number of troops that can be deployed is the amount of wastage from year to year in the Territorial Army. The Minister provided figures in a recent written answer that suggest that wastage is as high as 25 to 30 per cent. That might be significant with regard to several issues that hon. Members have raised, such as motivation, pay and—even—facilities. We must reduce that wastage, if we are to ensure that as many as possible of the 41,000 people are available at any time.
268WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark for securing the debate. It has given hon. Members the opportunity to hold the Government to account on the issues under discussion. My party supports the key work that has been done by members of the Territorial Army, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on how their role can be strengthened.
10.40 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I draw the Committee's attention to the entry under my name in the Register of Members' Interests: I remain a serving officer in the Territorial Army.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) on securing the debate, and the hon. Members and my hon. and gallant Friends who have spoken. They have brought a wealth of experience and expertise to the debate. It has been a high-quality debate, and I will endeavour not to lower the tone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark made a plea to the Minister that the director of reserve forces and cadets should be a proper, pukka reservist. That relates to an important issue, about which I wish to add my own request. The reservists are embedded in the civilian community from which they draw their livelihoods, and they have a different ethos from the regulars, whose life style is predominantly closed and military, and who are much more amenable to central direction. It is important that the man who is charged with advising the Minister about the reserves should be a reservist with a proper day job. We have recently done well in that respect, but I wish that to be maintained.
I share the concern that has been expressed about the number of Territorial Army command appointments that have been taken up by regular officers. However, during the many years that I have been a Territorial Army officer I have received many regular commanding officers and, although I always found that experience profoundly shocking at the outset, it gingered up the regiment. The regiment benefited a great deal from occasionally having a regular commanding officer. Therefore, I would not wish to see that possibility ruled out, although it would be undesirable if too many regular officers commanded Territorial regiments.
Mr. Robathan: Is there not merit in the idea that Territorial Army regiments should have a reservist commanding officer and a regular adjutant to ginger up the troops?
Mr. Swayne: That consideration is worth taking on board.
The Opposition's position remains the same as it was at the time of the strategic defence review, and throughout the previous Parliament. We believed that 59,000 was the correct figure with regard to the size of the Territorial Army. If that figure were significantly reduced, that would damage the Territorial Army's ability to deliver its historic tasks of providing the civilian and military link, regenerating the reserves, and providing support to the Regular Army—and more of that support is required in the post-SDR environment, with its increased demand for expeditionary forces, and for support to the civilian power.

269WH
We hold to that position—although, given the events of 11 September 2001, perhaps we should review our assumptions, particularly in respect of what may come out of the additional chapter to the SDR. New roles have already been mentioned this morning by my hon. Friends. Even if we held to our view that 59,000 was the right figure, we might have to review whether a larger establishment was required to deliver a trained strength of 59,000, so there may need to be some expansion of the Territorial Army. Such issues need to be considered at great length. The measures would not be inexpensive. We shall issue a consultation document in the next few weeks that invites a debate on the subject.
The principal asset that the Territorial Army brings to the table in which the Regular Army is interested is the 3,000 serial reservists—serial mobilisers, should I say—who go from one mobilisation to another. One can understand the belief on the part of some regular officers that if all that is wanted and needed from the TA is those 3,000, there is no need for an establishment of 59,000 or, as it now is, 41,000. We must be aware that the reduction in the establishment of the TA took place at the same time as the change in emphasis in its structure, which reduced formed units that were deployable as such, and placed much greater emphasis on an individual training organisation capable of filling gaps in the Regular Army.
That has led to two problems. First, we are now fishing in too small a pond to find the required number of deployable reservists. The SDR reduction in the TA hit most severely the units that provided the bulk of its commitment in the Balkans. Secondly, the formed units are the goose that lays the golden egg, in terms of generating serial mobilisers.
The previous director of reserve forces and cadets described the TA as a broad church. Let us say that one third of it is young, with few financial commitments or family responsibilities. Such people are readily able to deploy, and gain a great deal from such experience. At the other end of the broad church is a third made up of older people with family responsibilities and developed careers. They are less able, but not impossible, to deploy. A constituent of mine—a judge—has recently returned from the Balkans. He can deploy, but is much less flexible than someone in the third at the other end of the spectrum. The other third is somewhere in between the two.
We rely disproportionately on the third that is much less deployable to provide the training infrastructure of the formed unit and deliver the third that is deployable. The reduction in the emphasis on the infrastructure and the formed unit is already beginning to show, in terms of the damage that it will do to the TA's ability to deliver the number of men that the Regular Army requires.
We have already begun to see evidence of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark referred to the level of undermanning. The Minister referred to some units that are overmanned, but most of those are a consequence of the reduction in establishments in SDR and it will be a relatively short-term phenomenon. We must not ignore the warning signals. The footprint of the TA is already far too dispersed to fulfil properly its function of recruiting and retaining. In many respects,
270WH
the TA lacks critical mass to train effectively. My hon. Friend referred to the inability to train at battle group and brigade level. Such quality of training makes the TA capable of delivering the 3,000 serial mobilisers that are so important to it, because it provides the infrastructure for those who will train them. It is a vital resource.
There is already a severe shortage of young officers. I am involved in that aspect of the TA. At the territorial commissioning board, a large number of high quality candidates are coming through. However, not enough of them reach Sandhurst. The courses there are under strength and some are being cancelled. Sandhurst is now complaining about the quality of the training of the candidates when they initially present themselves at the college. They are effectively untrained, and what was designed as a testing course is increasingly becoming a training course. That is a severe problem that must be avoided. I can think of many initiatives that we could adopt to deal with that, but time prevents me from listing them, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As usual I have a long, and I must say, as I did not write it myself, beautifully crafted speech. However, in the interests of trying to reply to the points that have been made, I will have to abandon it. I shall start with some general issues and then move on to more specific ones. I shall try not to miss anything out, but if anyone wanted to catch my eye towards the end, I would be happy to respond.
I shall start by considering the exact meaning of the ability to deploy. In a written answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West(Mr. Swayne), I said:
"Under the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) the Territorial Army (TA) was restructured to make it more relevant and usable and more fully integrated into our armed forces and defence plans. As a result, more TA units are now held at a higher state of readiness than pre-SDR and we continue to assess that the TA infantry battalions have the capability to be deployed on operations as formed units. As such they are an essential part of the Army's order of battle."—[Official Report, 12 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 517W.]
We must recognise that in the old Territorial Army, at its pre-SDR strength of 58,000, there was no level of readiness for the type of operations that we envisage. We have reduced numbers and increased the quality of the tasks that we demand of the TA. As with German reservists and conscripts, the option of forming static infantry battalions for the defence of the homeland is no longer there. Nor is it considered necessary to the same extent as it was in the past. That is not a party political point, but a military one.
We must recognise that as rules change, we must change the ability of our men and women to cope with them. Hence the development of the centre at Chilwell, which has yet fully to make its mark but which is rapidly proving a valuable resource in the mobilisation of Territorial Army personnel. It will continue to play a growing and important role in the future. There is a gap in capability, which we are trying to meet. Our aspiration is to create fully formed units to perform the tasks that we expect of them. Yes, at present they do much in the way of individual reinforcement, but that always has been and always will be a role for reserves.

271WH
This is the first opportunity that I have had for a debate, as Minister responsible for reserves, with so many of my reserve officers actually present and speaking to me. I can assure them that, as with any reserve officer that I meet, I will listen to them very carefully.
To make a general point, as hon. Members will know, we will shortly publish a consultation paper on material that ought to go into the new chapter. I would welcome their responses and I will be happy to talk to them individually about that if they so wish. I include the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for New Forest, West, who, despite many grey hairs, is still well within the age limit, unlike the unfortunate hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who has had to drop off the twig—I will not make the obvious remark.
The TA is about 1,300 short of its establishment of 41,200. There is a high turnover of TA personnel, and we are trying to find out why. However, the rate has always been high. Perhaps it is something with which we have to live. Given the rate of flux, a shortage of about 1,300 is not considered to be critical. We are trying, for instance, to recruit into medical units, but it takes a great deal of time because we need specialised personnel.
We need to strike a balance. Yes, we want more highly skilled personnel, but we also need flexibility. I agree that we need both, but there is a dissonance between the two. We cannot have extreme flexibility and extreme skill, so when looking to build up a highly skilled specialist unit we must recognise that it may be a role for other parts of the TA. We must be careful when doing that, because the concept of the home guard must be avoided at all costs. Indeed, I would utterly reject that as a role for the Territorial Army. That is not what it is for, and it is not what we want.
As far as we can, we are trying to do away with different decorations for officers and men. It is generally accepted to be an outmoded concept.
The regulations with regard to commanding officers of the TA are clear. TA officers who are recommended in confidential reports will always get command in preference to regular officers, but we must remember that the pressure of their civilian jobs often makes life difficult for TA officers. Frankly, I do not see a way out of that dilemma. By and large, officers hold responsible jobs in the community and many do not have the option of continuing as part-time senior officers, given the necessary commitment that it requires.
The present director of reserve forces and cadets is Brigadier Tom Lang, who is a Royal Marine. I know Tom well, and meet him regularly. His is a part-time appointment. There is no question of the directorship being taken over by a regular officer, but we are giving the director more roles and increased responsibilities, and we will need either more part-time officers or a full-time reserve officer. Another possibility might be for the cadets to be moved from the TA. I am talking about possibilities, not about Government policy. I am thinking on my feet. It is a complex situation, but I guarantee that that post will be kept as a reserve post, although the increasing workload may make it a full-time past rather than the present part-time post of two days a week.
Mr. Robathan: It is a most important point, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving it due cognisance. I
272WH
understand that for the Royal Marine reservist—I appreciate the nuances—only someone who holds down a full-time job is able to empathise, recommend and advise correctly. I therefore strongly submit that anything that can be done to keep such a person in that post, even if it involves a dissolution of responsibilities, should be done. I am grateful that the point has been acknowledged.
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to acknowledge it. The ideal would be for someone in normal full-time civilian employment to do the job, but I recognise the importance of the director having empathy with what goes on. I recognise that an increasing amount of work needs to be done.
I do not think that I have ever had to reply to a debate to such a senior former officer as the hon. Member for Newark, and I am glad that he secured the debate.
Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister answer a question from a much more junior officer? Our defence needs have changed since 11 September, not only at home—this place was a target—but on overseas expeditions. We played a supporting role in Afghanistan, and we may need to do so in other places.
Dr. Moonie: I accept that point, but there is a shortage of officers. The reasons may be demographic or societal; and young people may have a more selfish attitude or be more materialistic. I could ramble on for hours about the possibilities, and I cannot honestly say that I have an answer. There are some typical officers on the Opposition Benches. If that is good enough for the hon. Gentlemen, I do not see why it should not be good enough for others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) asked some questions. I must make it clear that reservists will not be going to Afghanistan. Some have been compulsorily called up, and I support that call 100 per cent. I have argued for it at the Ministry of Defence for the past year or so, because I think that it is right, but no reserves will be going to Afghanistan. They will be based in this country. There might be a possibility of them going to Afghanistan in future, but certainly not now.
Ethnic minorities are important in helping us to increase the numbers. Tomorrow, I am going to an exhibition in Hounslow about the role of Sikh regiments, which will be interesting. I am happy to visit the centre to see for myself how dilapidated it is, although I am sure that it will get a coat of paint at some time.
I think that I have covered as many points as I can, so I shall end by quoting a letter from the colonel of the 3rd (Volunteer) Military Intelligence Battalion, who said:
"The battalion's officers and non-commissioned officers accept the personal, financial and professional disruptions that attend mobilisation willingly and with good grace."
He adds that the vast majority will serve, and that has always been the case.

Housing (London)
11 am
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): I call Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe, because I am a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
Jeremy Corbyn: I have had trouble on that score before. Good morning, Mrs. Roe, and thank you.
This is not the first, and certainly not the last, Westminster Hall debate on London housing, and I hope that there will be further debates on the Floor of the House. It is clear from the number of hon. Members present that there is serious concern about housing shortages and housing problems in London. The housing crisis affects almost everyone: those on waiting lists, those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, those who are homeless or, unfortunately, still roofless, and those who are desperate to pay high private rents or buy a flat in London.
The situation demands large-scale public intervention, which has helped people out of poverty and misery in London in the past. There were large-scale council house developments after the first and second world wars and right up until the advent of the Tory Government in 1979. Many people owe the fact that they live in reasonable accommodation to the enormous efforts that successive Labour Governments and many Labour local authorities put into expanding their social rented stock, and such an approach remains the only long-term solution to London's housing problems, which the market alone cannot solve.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), will refer to this when she replies, but it is important to recognise that London's housing problems are markedly different from those in other parts of the country. Its problems are driven as much as anything by the property boom, which has a pernicious effect on all housing sectors and particularly on public services and on the ability of public service workers to live in London.
Lists and figures abound, and they tell a terrifying story. In 1998, 19,000 homeless households were in accommodation in London, but the number has now gone up to 48,000. The figure has increased from 2,000 to 4,600 in the borough of Haringey, and from 500 to 1,400 in my borough of Islington. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) will catch your eye, Mrs. Roe, because he wants to say more about that. Throughout London, the figures tell a similarly terrifying story.
Some 7,000 families have been placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation throughout London. That is an entirely miserable way to exist, and such accommodation is supremely inefficient and a gross
274WH
waste of public money. We are giving millions of pounds to bed-and-breakfast landlords and making millionaires of people who often provide abominable accommodation. Anyone who cares to visit bed-and-breakfast hotels in Finsbury Park in my constituency and in many other parts of London will see the sheer misery in which people must live. Such accommodation is not cheap and is paid for by the public sector, because housing benefit pays the rent of a large proportion of the people involved.
If I may, I shall quote briefly from the Shelter briefing for this debate, which states:
"The Government has made tackling homelessness a policy priority. The Homelessness Bill, the National Homeless Strategy and the new unit dedicated to reducing the use of B and B are testament to this."
Shelter is very favourable to many of the Government's policies, but the briefing goes on to say:
"But these polices must be backed up by resources if the Government is to deliver on its pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 and end it in a generation. The Spending Review 2002 presents a key opportunity to put in place a sustained programme of investment backed up by challenging targets to improve the lives and life chances of homeless children."
Shelter has given us part of the important story. It is true that the costs of poor quality housing are borne by the public sector, in that we pay for extortionate private sector rents through housing benefit or through homelessness and bed-and-breakfast landlords. However, the children also pay. They pay in ill health, poor school achievement, endless moves from one set of homeless person's accommodation to another and family break-up. The damage to our communities resulting from the inadequacy of housing in London is astonishing. We must tackle that issue.
However, we must also look at the problems of communities that are being priced out of their geographical area. The borough that my right hon. Friend and I have the honour to represent is now one of the areas of the country with the fastest rising property prices. That means that even Members of Parliament moving there could not, unless they had substantial equity, afford the mortgage on a two-bedroomed flat. Price rises of that magnitude, which are similar to those that have happened in neighbouring boroughs, mean that unless families on average or below-average incomes obtain social housing through a council or a housing association, the possibilities of remaining in the community where they grew up are pretty well zero. Inner-city areas of London are simply exporting people on average or below-average incomes. That problem needs to be dealt with.
Mr. Andrew Love: According to figures released this morning by the Halifax, the average loan taken out by a first-time buyer in London at present is £127,000. Does not that make for the sort of affordability crisis that my hon. Friend describes?
Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. As that is a Londonwide average figure, many people in inner urban areas will have to pay substantially more. The costs of living in London are very high.
We need to look for solutions. The Labour Government who were elected in 1997 inherited a legacy. The outgoing Labour Government in 1979 were

275WH
funding an enormous council and housing association building programme. Those of us who served on London boroughs will remember that between 500 and 1,000 new dwellings a year was a routine achievement. That figure dwindled so that at the end of the period of Tory Government very few were being built. We looked to the election of a new Government to encourage the expansion of the social sector. Unfortunately, that expansion has not happened to any great degree, and indeed, with the number of sales—particularly of existing council property—happening at present, the new build is barely keeping pace with current stock.
The Government have done much to try to improve existing stock, and I acknowledge the amount of money released through capital receipts that has been injected into areas by way of regeneration money. My constituency has benefited from that, as have the constituencies of many colleagues. We welcome that money; we welcome the new roofs and windows and the improvements to estates, including security and community and play facilities. Those are very welcome. However, they do not solve the problem. The solution is expanding the stock.
I am concerned that the Government seem to emphasise regeneration to some extent and estate transfers to a great extent. I hope that the Minister will deal with that question. I share the concern that many people feel about tenants being virtually forced into estate transfers because they believe that there is no alternative. It is interesting that despite a pressurised campaign to vote for a transfer, the tenants of the Aylesbury estate in Southwark voted to remain within the council. I hope that the Minister will tell us that in future there will be a genuinely level playing field on estate transfer votes, so that money will be invested whether or not the estate is transferred.
Mr. Edward Davey: My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) cannot be present, and he apologises for that. However, he told me about that vote. He would agree with the hon. Gentleman that the choice facing tenants means that, in effect, they are being bribed to move to the stock transfer option. However, tenants voted against that by three to one—so they would back the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
Jeremy Corbyn: We are all sorry that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot be here today, but I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
I ask the Minister, where do we go from here? The Government have done a lot in terms of estate improvements, improving the quality of life for people on estates. They have also done much to promote key worker housing through some funding of teachers' schemes. However, it seems ironic that, while the Government invest to enable teachers to buy homes so that they may stay in the community—and none of us has any problem with that scheme—the police and other Government agencies are selling Government property. There seems a complete lack of co-ordination in that respect. We should retain in the public sector specialist homes that were built for the police, nursing staff, fire officers and so on. It seems that something has gone badly wrong in that regard.
276WH
Key worker housing is not a solution in itself, however. There is a desperate problem with getting nurses, police officers, firefighters and others to work in London, but there are other key workers who are not included. If no one sweeps the streets, they become filthy, so the street cleaner is a key worker. Hospital porters and catering workers are key workers, as are workers in many other grades.
I hope that the Minister recognises that, in the longer term, the only way in which to ensure good quality public services and a good standard of life in London as a whole is to expand the affordable rented sector. The Minister should recognise that, over the past three or four years, many in London have spent much effort and time examining the housing situation. That effort includes the Mayor's strategy document for London and statements on the subject by the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, Shelter and employers who have difficulty in recruiting skilled workers. Not least, it includes those views expressed by inner-city and outer-London MPs, who share those concerns.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, she can tell us a number of things. First, she may tell us that, when the restrictions are removed on local authority borrowing and authorities are allowed to borrow against capital assets, there will be no restrictions on councils' borrowing against those assets to build council stock if that is what they decide, democratically, to do. I hope that she will tell us that the Government are prepared to invest in new build or purchasing existing properties for conversion, so that we may expand the social rented sector. They should recognise that although different housing problems exist in other parts of the country, we must retain and expand the rented sector in London, so that we may look forward to a cohesive city instead of one that is increasingly divided by housing shortages and associated problems.
I know that these are difficult times, but it is too easy for the Government to say that they will leave the market to deal with such issues. The market has had a pretty free rein in the past few years in London, and it has shown that it can make a great deal of money from shortages but can do nothing for the poorest and most vulnerable, or for the cohesion of our city. I hope that the Government will recognise those issues and be prepared to invest massively in expanding the social rented stock, which, in turn, will lead to the better communities that we want.
This is not the first debate on this subject, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Week in and week out, some of us have to face people in our surgeries and speak to families with three or four children who share two-roomed flats. We see all the tension and anger that goes with that situation, but we have to tell them, "Sorry; you are not really a priority and you have no chance of being rehoused." It is hard, it is brutal and, above all, it is totally unnecessary for us to have to say that. Public intervention is necessary to save us from that situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind the many hon. Members who wish to speak that the winding-up speeches begin at noon.
11.14 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this important debate, which concerns inner and outer-London boroughs. Some might think that those of us in the outer London boroughs have an easier time. That is true in some respects; I am aware of the problems in inner London. However, to imagine that, outside the inner core, we are all in leafy boroughs is far from correct. I am pleased to see that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is present. I am sure that he will add to my comments on our borough.
Our problems are much the same and we do have deprived areas. However, the principal problem, which the hon. Member for Islington, North has elucidated, is that of rising house prices. Property prices have risen by over 100 per cent. since 1996 and most of our residents and their children are being priced out of their communities. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the importance of keeping communities together; this pricing out is having a very bad effect on our areas.
There is no affordable housing for purchase—that is a frightening prospect for anyone considering being a first-time buyer in central, inner or outer London. The average price of a flat in the London borough of Hillingdon is £104,000, and a semi-detached house is £170,000—anyone would regard that as an impossible first step. We are lumbering people with incredible debt, even at this time of low interest rates. If those change, we shall have extreme problems.
The issue of key workers is as relevant in outer London as it is in inner London. Key workers include everyone who works there—someone has to work in the shops and provide other services. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome teachers and other public service sector workers. However, it is not just the public sector that is affected. I regret the sale of police houses and other dwellings. It started some time ago and I am sorry to say that it is continuing. That is an accountant's measure—the short-term gain looks good on paper. However, the long-term loss is huge and we are now suffering greatly from it.
In outer London we have another problem—we do not have enough houses. However, the dichotomy is that we do not want too many to be built, because the places where they might be put are our open spaces. Week after week, people come to my surgery with stories of chronic overcrowding and they all have the same problem—they are not deemed to be priority cases; they have no chance of being rehoused. However, I also see people who do not want a development to be built because parks and open spaces are valuable. I recognise that; those are the green lungs of our communities. If we are not careful but build on those, we shall ruin the quality of life that the residents of suburbs value. Many of the people who live in Uxbridge moved out from central London just after the war because they did not like the pollution and thought that they were moving to a better quality of life. However, unfortunately, the quality of life that they left behind is extending further out.
278WH
When I speak to other Members of Parliament, I often find that the problem in the north of England is the reverse. Those of us who live in London wonder what can be done about the places around the country where the houses and vast estates cannot be filled. Government after Government have considered how to change the situation and it seems to be impossible to socially engineer. People come to London as a honeypot.
Mr. Love: Two suggestions for dealing with the problem that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at are as follows. First, 50 per cent. of all new build housing on any size of site should be affordable housing and, secondly, we should increase the density of housing on any site. Does the hon. Gentleman support either of those suggestions?
Mr. Randall: I am not a housing expert, but I do believe that those suggestions should be considered. There is a real problem and something must be done to deal with it.
There is another problem, which I am sure is also faced by other hon. Members' constituents. Because of the lack of housing, a blame culture arises among those people who find that they cannot be rehoused, and they blame asylum seekers. My constituency is near Heathrow, so it includes a certain number of asylum seekers. It is a fallacy that people cannot be rehoused because of asylum seekers, but the shortage of housing creates a problem and increases social tension. Unless we can deal with that problem, the situation will get worse. It is difficult to explain to people that what they perceive to be true is not the case when there are so many urban myths around. It is difficult to tell people that they cannot be rehoused when they know of someone who has just moved in. That causes big problems in our communities.
We have individual problems in the area, such as a large university—Brunel university—and students to be accommodated. I am sure that most hon. Members share my concern about student debt. We will have another problem when the building of Heathrow terminal 5 goes ahead. Vast numbers of construction workers and other businesses associated with the construction of terminal 5 will require temporary housing. There might be an opportunity for those people who are involved in that work to house their workers and then allow the local authority to use the accommodation afterwards in some sort of planning gain, but that is for the London borough of Hillingdon to work out.
As time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not go into detail on the situation in Hillingdon and the number of families in temporary accommodation. The London borough of Hillingdon has put in a bid to the void transfer scheme, and we are waiting to hear the result. That will not provide the whole answer to the problem. Almost certainly, the correct solution lies in the creation of more permanent housing that is affordable to households on low incomes. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made some suggestions that we should all consider. Many families on limited incomes in Hillingdon are unable to afford market housing, whether it is owner-occupied or rented. That is the fundamental cause of housing need in my constituency.
11.24 am
Mr. Chris Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on choosing this subject for debate. It is of enormous salience to our constituents, as it has been during my 18 years in Parliament. It remains the biggest issue for my constituents by a long way. It would not be inappropriate to say that we have a genuine housing crisis throughout London, particularly in inner London. That crisis has not suddenly occurred; it has been happening for a long time. It results fundamentally from a lack of investment. I will return to that point in a moment, but let me first echo much of what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said in his extremely interesting and honourable speech. His warning that we must all avoid looking for scapegoats when considering the difficulties faced by our constituents was well said and well taken.
The problems of investment for the creation of new accommodation at affordable rents for our constituents and the regeneration of existing council accommodation have existed for many years. Throughout the period of Conservative Government, there was a decline in investment. I am pleased that, in the past four years, more money has been available to boroughs such as Islington to renovate and create housing, but it is nowhere near enough. I welcome that extra investment. This year, Islington has double the amount of investment money for its housing work than it did four years ago. That is an enormous improvement, and it is welcome. In the coming financial year, it will amount to a little more than £40 million.
I spoke to the director of housing last week, as we visited one of the estates in my constituency that are in need of improvement. He said that, given the condition of Islington's existing housing stock, before we even think about creating necessary new housing, improvement measures costing about £440 million will be needed. It does not take a genius to work out that if we have only £40 million a year, it will be a long time before that existing housing stock is put in decent order.
The problem is becoming worse. Many estates built in the London borough of Islington, and in the old borough of Finsbury, were built in the immediate post-war years. Those estates have now reached the point at which major structural difficulties occur. That is bound to happen after 40 or 50 years. The concrete is starting to crumble. The structure needs major attention and that problem will become worse during the next few years.
My first and most important plea to the Government is for them to understand the need for sustained and increased investment in the housing capital stock in boroughs such as Islington. It is needed to put existing housing in a decent condition and to ensure that people no longer have to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, in overcrowded accommodation and, in some cases, in no accommodation at all.
The Government have rightly identified the provision of public service as their major priority for this Parliament. In areas such as inner London, it is not just health, education and transport that need attention, but housing. I hope that we will begin to hear much more
280WH
from the Government about that, and that they will identify it as one of the key public service priorities—because it certainly is a key priority for my constituents.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the article in London Housing that estimates that, if the capital funding proposals of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions were to go ahead, London would lose out, in comparison with the rest of the country, to the tune of £128 million of resources? London and the shire counties also lost out in the revenue support grant settlement of the past three years. Therefore, it is clear that London and the shire counties are losing out with regard to the Government's local support grant settlements.
Mr. Chris Smith: I have not seen the article to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and I am unsure whether I share his analysis of the provisions for London and the rest of the country. The floor and ceiling proposals in relation to revenue support grant—which the Government have rightly put in place—must also be taken into account, as must the many other ways in which they are assisting, such as the single regeneration budget schemes and the neighbourhood renewal fund. London rightly benefits from all those forms of assistance, as do other areas of the country. However, my key point is that the Government must specifically address funding for housing work in the London boroughs.
My constituents' problems are currently compounded by the appalling service that they receive with regard to the administration of housing benefit, which was outsourced four or five years ago to a firm called IT Net. Forms are lost, not just once but twice or three times. Delays of months occur in the sorting out of even the simplest cases. Letters are occasionally sent out, on the same day and to the same person, that give a different housing benefit assessment. Tenants are sometimes issued with eviction notices—and they might face court action, or receive a visit from the bailiffs—because their housing benefit has not been properly assessed.
Unbelievably, the Liberal Democrat council—that party currently controls Islington, alas—did not send IT Net packing, as it should have done. Instead, it extended the company's contract and gave it more money. That was absolutely the wrong decision. However, a month and a half ago the new contract was signed.
I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of her colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions the problems that the people of Islington are facing because of the failures of IT Net, and to ensure that the Department's housing benefit team takes the matter seriously and does whatever it can to help the tenants of Islington to receive a better service.
Mr. Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the original contract for IT Net was signed by a Labour council? Before the 1998 local elections, the Labour administration agreed to a poor supplier and signed a weak contract. It would have been extremely

281WH
costly to end that contract, and it would have led to short-term chaos—which has happened in other London boroughs.
Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right on one point: the contract was signed by the previous Labour council. I said at the time that that was the wrong decision. The Minister and I have told the council so many times since. Now, it accepts that it was wrong. It was far worse to compound the error by continuing and extending the contract.
I make a brief final comment. I fear that there is considerable uncertainty about our tenants' likely fate on rent because of the Government's rent restructuring proposals. I understand why the Government wish to establish a more rational system of setting rents for council tenants throughout the country, but I urge them not simply to attach council and housing association rents to market rates. Market rents in inner London are astronomical and getting worse. If market rents are used as the lodestone for setting social housing rents, I fear that our constituents are in for substantial rent rises. I hope that that will not happen. A problem is that the Government have not given us precise information about how their proposals will affect what our constituents must pay.
I hope that the Government take account of the worries that my colleagues and I have about the proposals, which I know that many of our constituents share. We need more and better housing at affordable rents in our constituencies. That is a major issue of importance. The Government have done much to improve on what they inherited in 1997, but there is further to go.
11.36 am
Glenda Jackson: I endorse everything that hon. Members have said, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I will not repeat the details that were furnished about the severe housing crisis under which London is groaning—that is no exaggeration. Undoubtedly, the Government have invested more money in affordable social housing than was invested under past Governments. However, I regret to tell the Minister that the money is not sufficient for London.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out the problem of a lack of investment over decades. We need more investment in London to create more affordable housing. The Government should adopt the policy that has been promulgated by the Mayor—I must declare an interest because I serve on the Mayor's advisory cabinet with the portfolio of homelessness—that all new projects should consist of 50 per cent. affordable housing.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge was right that we must protect London's green spaces. That causes higher density, and would require higher standards of build quality so that we do not encounter the problems of neighbour disputes caused by noise and harassment,
282WH
which all London Members have heard about from people in their advice surgeries. Therefore, costs will inevitably rise, which is why the Government must examine how there can be more investment for London housing.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, there is little point in the Government's prioritising long-term investment for education, health, transport and tackling crime if housing is not addressed. I am sure that every London Member knows of a surgery case of a child who is treated for asthma in hospital and returns home to a flat in which mould is growing out of the child's bedroom wall, producing spores. In addition, there is a problem if an elderly person who eventually has a hip replacement must return to a building in which the lift is out of order and there are 68 steps up to her flat. It is impossible for children to benefit from the Government's vast investment in education if their home is so overcrowded that there is nowhere for them to do their homework. I shall not list specific examples in the two other subject areas that I mentioned—transport and the prevention of crime—but we all know that inadequate, unacceptable housing can feed the root causes of problems.
The Government must seriously and speedily address the need for increased investment in affordable housing in London. I acknowledge that investment is a medium and long-term solution to the problems that we all face in our advice surgeries. I would argue that the Government can take action in the short term to begin to improve matters now.
The overriding issue of housing benefit has already been mentioned. I represent half the borough of Camden, which has received two charter marks for the excellence of its housing benefit system. However, because of the inadequacies of the system in other London boroughs, landlords in my constituency are now refusing to accept tenants if they would be paid via housing benefit. That seems entirely improper, but there is nothing that the Government can do. However, they could certainly take the payment of housing benefit to landlords out of the hands of the tenants. The local authority should be able to pay directly to the landlord. That should also be the case with other types of housing, such as temporary housing. We have already mentioned the scandal of bed and breakfasts, and I am delighted that the Government have introduced the bed-and-breakfast unit. There is much that the Government can do in the short term.
On the subject of keeping communities together, I should like to mention local reference rent. I dealt only this week with the case of a constituent who was made redundant. She had lived in a flat for many years. The LRR officer visited and disagreed with the rent that her landlord was charging her. The result is that my constituent has to find an additional £100 a month from her unemployment benefit, as I still persist in calling it. There are huge discrepancies in rents charged in my constituency. As there is so much pressure on housing in London, inadequate properties can command very high rents. In the short term, the Government could consider and change the existing structures.
Mr. Love: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the difficulties with housing benefit that she outlines,

283WH
particularly in London, are leading to additional pressure on the affordable rented sector, which is no longer available to some people? The private rented sector is therefore a factor in increasing the numbers of the homeless.
Glenda Jackson: I thought that I had already made that point, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clearer. That is absolutely the case. We are experiencing the break-up of communities. More people have to leave the places where they, their parents and grandparents have lived for years, because they cannot afford the rent.
Far too many organisations in London have partial responsibility for tackling such issues. The Government's overarching strategy is to be welcomed, and the Bills that the Government have introduced will help to tackle homelessness and attempt to prevent it. However, there are also the Association of London Government, the 33 boroughs, the Government office for London and taskforces hither and yon.
We are in a real crisis, and the Government should consider the issues and accept the argument that I am urging on them. There should be a single strategic group, which I think should be the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor, to devise strategies and implement speedy and co-ordinated measures to begin to tackle an issue that, if not dealt with in the short, medium and long term, will lead to vast bills further down the line for London. We have heard from the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the potential for severe social disruption; I have heard similar stories. Only the other week, someone said to me, "If you are black, you can get a house. If you come into the country, you are guaranteed a house immediately." We all know that that is not the case, but if such urban myths are not challenged, London will never be a world capital city. The housing issue will be a constant pressure on everyone.
I strongly urge the Government to deal immediately with the issue of increased resources and, in the short term, to amend the existing structures that I mentioned with regard to housing benefit and local rent referral. We must devise one statutory body—I made it clear where responsibility for that should lie. That body should be responsible, if not for actually delivering new houses, for devising the strategy and the overview to tackle the problems for London as a whole.
11.45 am
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall try to be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I agree with an enormous amount of what has been said. The first political job that I did that carried any responsibility was that of chairing the housing committee in the London borough of Waltham Forest in 1973. I may have thought that things were difficult in housing then, but they did not compare with today's problems—we have waiting lists so long that the computers might as well be turned off. The number of homeless exceeds the number of lettings available to local authorities and social landlords. The single homeless are, for the most part, not even covered by homelessness legislation. The Homelessness Bill will make some changes and provide that local authorities should give advice, but I despair to think what that could be in the current circumstances.
284WH
I echo the comments made about the need for investment. It is crystal clear that, unless we significantly improve investment, we shall not begin to tackle the problems. I have never understood why local authorities are not allowed to borrow against their assets, or why, in cases involving housing associations, the right-to-acquire receipts are ring-fenced for new provision, but councils' right-to-buy receipts are not. The removal of that inconsistency could make a difference straight away.
It is clear in boroughs such as Waltham Forest that, whatever is done in terms of new build—I agree with making available 50 per cent. affordable housing in new developments—it will be no quick fix and will not provide the whole solution. As long as London housing is organised on a borough basis, individual boroughs will have difficulty in managing.
I recall a time in my borough when the council bought properties—there were programmes in which 200 to 300 properties a year were bought. It seemed a simple and straightforward way to increase the supply of rented social housing.
Mr. Love: There are significant numbers of empty properties in London—perhaps we could start with those.
Mr. Gerrard: Absolutely; that would be a good place to start. We should also remove some of the barriers encountered when local authorities try to lease in the private rented sector—such as the housing benefit threshold—which make it more difficult for them to run leasing schemes.
I want to comment on some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made about the private rented sector. Although I do not pretend that the whole sector is wonderful or that some people are not living in horrible conditions within it, I despair when people come to my surgery who are being evicted from decent private rented sector homes, usually because of housing benefit problems. We had an experience in Waltham Forest of the privatisation of housing benefit. Fortunately, the council decided to terminate that contract. In doing so, it did not face making payments to the contractor but received money from the contractor because of the contract's failure. Surely part of the strategy must be to deal with such problems in order to prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place.
We should reconsider the system of local reference rents. Gaps between the housing benefit that people receive and the rent that they are required to pay can eventually make them homeless. It is argued that if we did not have local reference rents and keep the lid on, market rents would spiral out of control, but they are doing so anyway. That argument would work only if there was a genuine market in which people had some choice and could tell their landlord, "I'm not paying that money. I'm going elsewhere." The London housing market does not offer the sort of choice that allows people to operate in that way.
Linda Perham(Ilford, North): My hon. Friend mentioned homelessness prevention. Is he aware that

285WH
the neighbouring borough, Redbridge, has a homelessness prevention team that is doing very good work and, indeed, saving money? There is also a scheme that gives boroughs choice in housing allocation.
Mr. Gerrard: I am certainly aware of the choice-in-allocation scheme, and it will be interesting to find out how it operates. I was not aware of the specific work being done in Redbridge on homelessness prevention, but I should like more local authorities to put more effort into that. It is difficult for them when people have such problems in the private rented sector.
We could also make some other small changes to housing benefit—changes to disregards, tapers and thresholds—which would make a significant difference to some people. We should stop tinkering with the system. Local authorities receive a new circular every week on another change to be made to the system. It is no wonder that the administration starts to falter.
The long-term solutions must involve investment. There is no answer in the medium to long term but greater investment. However, we should also consider shorter-term measures such as letting local authorities buy and considering what we can do to improve the housing benefit system so that at least we prevent some people from becoming homeless and putting extra pressure on the social sector.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that winding-up speeches begin at 12 noon.
11.53 am
Ms Oona King: Given the lack of time, I shall try to reduce my speech to a few points. The first, and the most salient, is that we must fund the welcome changes that the Government have introduced. Following legislation, for the first time 18 to 21-year-old care leavers will be given priority, as will all 16 and 17-year-olds. In Tower Hamlets, that will mean a minimum of an extra 300 young people turning up at homeless services. We welcome the fact that they will be given priority, as they must be in any civilised society, but we must have the money to back that up, and it is not there at the moment.
Secondly, we must reduce temporary accommodation, especially among families with children, as has been said. Shelter estimates that an investment of only £250 million, which is surely crumbs from the table, would bring about 10,000 empty private properties back into use as temporary accommodation, with much cheaper rents. Will the Minister respond, if not now, perhaps in writing, to that proposal?
Thirdly, we must tackle and prevent homelessness among those who do not qualify for priority need. That can be done only by increasing the amount of affordable housing.
Fourthly, although all hon. Members have many problems with stock transfer in our constituencies, it is fair to say that, according to the DTLR's deprivation index, I have the worst. Recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who is in the
286WH
Chamber today, and Lord Falconer, the Minister for Housing and Planning, visited my constituency. He saw a family of 16 people who lived in two bedrooms and described that as the worst housing that he had ever seen. It is shocking that such housing problems exist. We cannot sit back and allow another generation of children to grow up in slums. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have my colleagues' support on that issue, as I shall lose it on my next point. Having seen two cases of successful stock transfer, which has turned slums into very good quality housing, we must consider that route and deal with the problems that arose with the first wave of stock transfers 10 years ago.
Fifthly, the right to buy is another controversial matter. At the very least, it must be suspended in areas of regeneration where it is sucking up Government money that was made available to improve housing.
Sixthly, I am horrified by the prospect of rent restructuring. I seek the Minister's reassurance that it will not be dire for housing associations. Some housing associations in London, for example, have said that they do not want to increase their rents but will be forced to do so.
Finally, I commend the Minister on her decision to review the housing health and safety rating standards. I hope that she will deal with the overcrowding regulations, which have not changed since the 1930s. I welcome her comments on all the issues that I have raised. We are millions of pounds better off under the Labour Government, but it is still not enough for our housing problems. Please could they give us some more?
11.57 am
Joan Ruddock:All that I can do in the few minutes that are left is to impress on the Minister why there is a crisis in my borough of Lewisham. It has 250,000 people with high deprivation rates. Its constant population growth is now reckoned to be about 7 per cent. over the next 10 years. In the past six years, the number of lettings that have become available from council stock has decreased by nearly 50 per cent., to 2,000 per annum. That is because people cannot get out. They would have purchased homes, but during the same period the average cost of a flat has increased from £64,000 to £155,000. That is an impossible price for the average person to pay.
There are 15,000 people on the waiting list and they are in serious need. My borough is one of only four in London that do not use bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is to be commended for that. However, as a consequence, no one else can acquire council house stock because 1,400 homeless households are in temporary accommodation. During the same period, only 260 new homes have been produced in the whole borough. That is not even enough to house my case load of homeless people. My borough could have taken the close on 4,000 units that were produced throughout London last year by social landlords, and still not met our needs. That is the extent of the crisis. It is a catastrophe for individual families. As so many hon. Members have said, families are breaking up under the strain. Children's health and education are being sacrificed. The position is unacceptable.
I agree with all that has been said and must impress on the Minister the need for more public intervention and more investment. The right to buy should be suspended

287WH
in cases of great shortage, such as that in my borough, and allocating 50 per cent. of development to social housing is the least that we can do.
The Government have given my borough considerable good news. However, today we need to complain because people are suffering and there are remedies that the Minister must put into effect.
12 noon
Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. He initiated a debate on housing in London last July and I agree with him that we should keep bringing the issue to the House until we get a solution. We have to keep arguing and must convince Ministers that the matter is urgent. Those of us who represent inner-city and outer-London constituencies hear about it in our surgeries every week. I am sure that others feel as I do after their surgeries: frustrated, angry and impatient—and lots of other things for which I would be called to order if I said them—about our inability to deal with some of the problems that are brought to us, not least overcrowding. A lot of my constituents have many points on the housing list, representing their need, but that need is unmet.
The misery out there is beyond words and it is getting worse. That is happening for a series of reasons that are well known and have been mentioned. Consider the history of housing policy in London. After the second world war there was plenty of land on which to build and large amounts of money did make an impact on the housing crisis in those years. Now we have population growth not seen for decades but land is scarce, so prices are high. The problem is possibly at its most acute in London's history. Despite some of the proposals and policies that have been mentioned, the Government have yet to meet the challenge. It is a major challenge and they should recognise that.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) gave a moving example from her constituency. My example is from a report produced by Fordham Research for Kingston council on the housing needs in the borough. That estimates, after detailed research, that every year for the next five years there will be a shortfall of 1,365 dwellings for affordable rent in Kingston. That is an indication of the need in one area. If we multiply that across London, we shall get an idea of the problem.
The Government have introduced a few welcome measures. At least the starter home initiative recognises the problem despite not meeting it by any means. However, the Metropolitan police and the national health service are selling off homes, so we are taking one step forward and two back. It is questionable whether the way in which the starter home initiative is set up deals with the problem for key public workers. I ask the Government to consider whether shared equity is a better way—it might produce more money per buck.
Rent restructuring has been mentioned. That is incredibly worrying on affordability grounds and because of what it says about the Government's underlying attitude to public subsidy for housing in London. It seems to suggest that there will not be much
288WH
Subsidy—that will have to come from the tenants. Is that really the way forward? Does it solve the problems that we see in our advice sessions? It is also creating uncertainty for the future of the registered social landlord sector in that it is unclear what will happen because the Government have made such a mess of it so far. With that uncertainty, landlords will not conclude the deals that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked about. We shall not see the advances that have been made in other parts of the country. The Government must act quickly. They must get it right and they must understand the problems of affordability as they affect London.
There are other solutions that the Government should seriously consider. The GLA has been good at promoting use of the planning system to tackle some of the problems. That is a medium-term solution, as hon. Members have said. We need to consider the 50 per cent. affordable housing proposal for new developments, and we should apply it to sites of smaller numbers. The floor needs to come down.
Mr. Mark Field: I apologise for my late arrival, but I had a constituency engagement that was arranged some time in advance. It is obviously useful for me to play an active part in the debate.
I want to tackle the Mayor of London's 50 per cent. blanket housing proposal for key workers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will comment on my concern, which is that it may have unintended consequences, especially if there is a downturn in the property market as a whole during the next two or three years. A limit as high as 50 per cent. across the board may discourage developers from building at all.
Mr. Davey: I suppose that I am grateful for the intervention, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misrepresents the GLA's proposal, which is about more than key workers. Moreover, if the Mayor went down the road of a much lower limit, as some developers have suggested, we could not tackle the problem. We may have to adjust and tweak as we go along. I am sure that the GLA is aware—I hope that Ministers are—that if the problem makes the market dry up, we may have to consider other measures. Land values and property prices in London show that the idea that developers could not still make a handsome profit does not hold water.
There must be more than a planning solution, as the Government must do their bit. The affordable housing planning permission is well and good, but a public subsidy is still needed to build the houses through the social sector. The Government do not seem to be putting that money forward. Perhaps we shall see in the comprehensive spending review in July that they have changed their mind, but the GLA briefing for the debate suggests that the total public subsidy requirement for London needs to be £600 million a year to deliver the social housing if we have the 50 per cent. affordable planning guidance. If one compares that with the public subsidy of £240 million provided at present, one sees the size of the increase needed—it needs to be almost trebled, year on year.
That is a challenge to the Government. I hope that the Minister will say that she and her colleagues will hear the voice of hon. Members in today's debate and argue

289WH
strongly with Her Majesty's Treasury for such increases. They would be an effective use of public subsidy, as they would use the benefits of the planning system effectively to reduce the land price, and would lever in financial capital with a relatively small public subsidy. Although the increase may seem large, it is good value for money for the taxpayer and is worth defending on Treasury terms. If the sum required was considered in historical terms, it would still not be as great as the amount that was spent in the 1950s and 1960s in real prices. What the GLA argues for in terms of resource requirement for London's social housing is relatively reasonable.
I want to talk about one other solution for the problem, which may be more controversial. People who want to leave London to live elsewhere—the necessary houses are available in other parts of the country—should be able to do so if they wish. A recent experiment in my borough facilitated that by bringing landlords to Kingston, providing details of job opportunities and vacancies from jobcentres and providing packages in which local authorities have supplied money for relocation. People are starting to take up such offers. Recently, people have relocated to Lincoln, Easington in County Durham and elsewhere. Such people are still economically active and are moving for jobs as well. That may be part—I emphasise that word—of the solution.
The Government have to recognise the extent of the problem. They have to back the GLA's actions and tell the Treasury to come up with the goods.
12.9 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful that you have allowed me to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. It is a matter of consensus that the problem of homelessness, and particularly the problem of people living in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, is getting decidedly worse. The subject is important and needs to be addressed by the House.
I would like to start, if I may, by administering a minor rebuke to the hon. Gentleman. The idea that everything in public housing was wonderful up to 1979, but suddenly got worse between then and 1997 and then suddenly got better again between 1997 and today, is farcical. I think that we would all agree that the problem is one of under-investment during a long period, under Governments of both parties. We must try to find ways of putting that right and improve the lot of people living in London.
London is by far the most expensive place to live in Britain. Even people on average incomes cannot afford to buy or even rent decent accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out in his excellent speech. house prices rose by 23 per cent. between September 1999 and September 2000, to an average, in London, of £194,000. Such a figure would require a single person to earn over £50,000 a year to get a mortgage. As the hon. Member for Islington, North said, even Members of Parliament would be in difficulty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said, the population of London continues to grow, which will further exacerbate the problem. The total population of
290WH
the capital is approaching 7.2 million. That is an increase of 28,000 every year since 1983. Those figures are taken from the Office for National Statistics' "Focus on London 2000". The population is increasing partly through net inward migration from the rest of Britain—a north-south drift—and partly through net inward migration from the rest of the world. We need to take those figures carefully into account.
I hope that the Government are examining the latest census. I doubt that the Government's figures are accurate, because of the number of uncompleted forms. They need to be accurate so that a proper revenue support grant can be made to the London boroughs. I want to return to that aspect of the allocation of resources to London, which I mentioned in an intervention.
There is a staggering estimate that, by 2016, one-person households as a proportion of the total will rise from 37 per cent. to 40 per cent. Married couples are expected to decline as a proportion of households from 44 per cent. to 30 per cent. That will require a substantial number of empty houses. It is not only the increase in one-person households that will determine that, but the fact that we are all living longer and that more people want to live in London. The problem is acute and getting worse, and to solve it more investment will be required.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the issue of homelessness and people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I have only a short time available to me, but the rate of increase in the number of people living in such accommodation is a scandal. We know, from a written answer supplied by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that the number of families living in bed-and-breakfast in the United Kingdom rose between June 1997 and June 2001 from 4,500 to a staggering 11,340, of which 6,270 families are currently housed in bed-and-breakfast in London. I would say to the Minister and every Member of the House that that figure is far too high. It is a scandal and a waste of precious resources.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) quoted the Shelter brief prepared for the debate. She quoted the figure of £250 million, which is the sum required to provide 10,000 units of privately leased accommodation. It is estimated that £60 million is spent on bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London alone. That money, therefore, would provide 2,500 units of accommodation. The figure is not huge, but it is there. Money is being misapplied. Furthermore, the standard of accommodation in bed-and-breakfast is often very poor, so we must get away from the idea that we are providing a service for those people when, in fact, we are doing them a great disservice. The Government should regulate to set standards for bed-and-breakfast accommodation, so that the huge amount of money that we pay is at least spent on something of reasonable value.
Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman talked about the so-called scandals. In the past year, 11,000 properties in London were sold under the right-to-buy legislation and only 3,000 new properties were built. Nationally, it costs about £50,000 to build a property, but the right-to-buy receipts are for an average sum of about £28,000.

291WH
Last year, over £1 billion was spent on the right to buy. Does the hon. Gentleman want anything to be done about that?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is part of the governing party. If he could persuade his Minister to abolish the right to buy, he would have a point. Until he can persuade the Minister to do so, he will have to live with it. There is no point in his intervening on me because I am not in the Government—they sit on the hon. Gentleman's side of the House.
The most serious problem that I shall cite in this debate relates to the estimate by Crisis, among others, of the number of hidden homeless. The problem is really tragic. Crisis estimates that as many as a staggering 400,000 people in the country as a whole may be hidden homeless. In London, it is estimated that some 112,000 women and children—and, perhaps, a further 75,000 men—are hidden homeless. There may be 200,000 people in London who are hidden homeless. Those figures are far higher than the Government have ever admitted in their official figures. The Government need to address all those categories, including people sleeping rough on the streets, living in bed-and-breakfasts, and sleeping on a sofa or the floor in friends' houses. No one knows exactly how many there are.
Will the Minister state clearly that she will initiate some research, so that we have at least some idea and are given an authoritative figure of the number of people who are homeless in London? An easy way to do so would be to include a question in the census form. I know that there will not be another census for another 10 years, but these things take a long time to plan, and we might plan for the future. Meanwhile, some academic research should be conducted to allow us to discover how many hidden homeless there are in London, and in which boroughs, so that we can begin to allocate resources to each borough on a sensible basis.
A number of people have said that one problem that leads to homelessness is the non-payment of housing benefit to people, who are subsequently evicted from their homes. We have raised that point in Westminster Hall before, and the hon. Member for Islington, North intervened in another debate on that matter. It is no wonder that there are problems with housing benefit when the system is changed almost weekly; there have been between 70 and 90 new directives in the past three years. No one can administer the housing benefit system correctly if it is changed with that rapidity. I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his council has contracted out the management of housing benefit but, equally, I have some sympathy for the company administering it, because the Government continually make changes to the system.
Finally, I shall mention the allocation of resources, which is a subject that I raised in an intervention. I quoted from a London Housing article from October 2001, which showed that the DTLR proposals would mean that, over three years, London would lose out in resources for capital investment in housing by £128 million, which includes £91 million for local housing authority strategies and £37 million for housing associations. Given the picture that has emerged of the number of homeless people increasing and the number of social housing units that are being built declining in the current period of Labour Government, it seems
292WH
wrong that the resources allocated for London are being reduced. Indeed, we know that in the past three years, the resources allocated for London have been reduced by £91 million. It is worth noting that the Government use the index of deprivation to replace the old index of local deprivation. In a sense, that is to compound an error twice because that is the mechanism used to distribute regeneration grants and it does not take account of other factors, such as rising populations, in each borough.
It has been a worthwhile debate. Many hon. Members have emphasised that there is a problem of under-investment, but we know that, under the Labour Government, homelessness has risen substantially, the number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen substantially, the number of social housing units has fallen substantially and Labour councils have more empty council houses than Conservative councils. Those councils should turn houses around more quickly. Conservative councils can manage their housing stock better than Labour and Liberal councils—
Hon. Members: Shame!
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton):Order.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We know that the Government will have a real job to do to reverse the tragic human misery caused by the problem of homelessness in London, which is getting worse.
12.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. It is not the first time that he has raised the issue and I am sure that it will not be the last. I also congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I shall not reply to each point in detail because many general points have been made, but the debate has raised our level of thinking and awareness of housing problems in London.
I want to start by making a few general points. I agree with much of the analysis of problems in London. The Government of course recognise the real pressures that exist in the capital. I also want to make two specific points. First, I want to remind hon. Members of the history of under-investment in housing over many years, especially during the 18 years when the Conservative party was in power. All of us whose political memories predate 1997 and who have had anything to do with housing in London—
Mr. Clifton-Brown:It is pathetic.
Ms Keeble:It is not pathetic. All of us who have longer political memories and practical experience in housing know exactly what price communities in London paid as a result of that under-investment.
Secondly, in addition to under-investment, there has been a failure to tackle some of the issues surrounding housing standards. Some of those issues have been

293WH
mentioned: how we calculate the fitness of properties and overcrowding, how we define who is homeless, how we determine rents and how we plan to provide decent support, through housing benefit, for people who cannot afford to pay their rent. That adds up to a big agenda, which the Government must tackle by dealing with investment issues and with the standards and legislation that underpin housing provision.
It will be impossible to deal with all those issues in the time that I have available, but I hope to make progress on some of them.
John McDonnell: I want to pick up the point raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). We have 2,000 families in temporary accommodation—almost on the scale that existed after the second world war. At that time, Clem Attlee came along and launched almost a Marshall plan to allow local councils to borrow to build. Will the Minister address that central question? Why cannot councils borrow to build?
Ms Keeble: I shall deal with a range of issues raised in the debate, but I shall refer specifically to investment and the procurement of investment for affordable housing. As hon. Members acknowledged in their speeches, since coming to office we have reversed the decline in investment in housing and have aimed for significant increases, including in London, not just through council accommodation but also through registered social landlords. Where the money goes is an important issue, and one of its major uses is bringing the existing housing stock up to a reasonable standard.
I can see no justification for authorities—including the Government, who are responsible for the provision of housing through local authorities and housing associations—to tolerate unfit public sector housing stock. We have made it a priority to bring the housing stock in question up to standard and have applied a substantial amount of money to that task. We have set a target of bringing all public sector housing to a fit standard by 2010, and a third of it by 2004. That will be a challenge. The argument about finding alternative sources of investment, in particular through stock transfer and other options, is partly to do with increasing the speed of funding streams to bring housing to a decent standard.
As to the shape taken by our proposals, hon. Members will be aware that we have a range of options, including not just stock transfer, but arm's length management companies. Now there is the discussion with respect to the Prudential code, which will shape the possibility of councils' raising funds in the private sector to use in upgrading their housing stock.
294WH
I am well aware of the vote on the Aylesbury estate. Thought will be needed to ensure that council tenants are still provided with the housing improvements that they want, and to which they are entitled. However, in many ballots throughout the country tenants have voted for stock transfer and it has been successful in many instances. It is now a realistic option, which has produced good results.
The points that were made about rent restructuring must be tackled if we are dealing with a diversity of providers of public sector housing. I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that safeguards are built into the system with respect to both the year-on-year increases and the total cap. I pay tribute to the London Members of Parliament whose vociferous lobbying was partly responsible for the incorporation of those safeguards.
My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) both raised the issue of overcrowding. We are investigating that. It is an important factor because it has repercussions for so many other Government agendas, especially ensuring that children have a decent education. The overcrowding regulations are probably among the most difficult standards with respect to improvements because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned, they were introduced in 1935. The arguments that Labour Members of Parliament made about improvements then are the same as those made today, and it will be a major task to make progress. However, it makes no sense that in this day and age people should still be expected to sleep in the kitchen.
Hon. Members made an important argument about the need to increase the supply of affordable housing in London. That is of course right. There is not enough time to go through all the arguments, but hon. Members will know of the starter home initiative. Important factors in that, besides the need to deal with the high property prices, are recognition of the need for high quality public services in the capital of the country, to ensure that it maintains its position as a world-class city, and the importance of good public sector workers to deal with key services. The initiative is not a universal panacea, but it is designed to tackle a specific problem. We are also taking other measures.
As to the question of future action, the debate comes at an opportune time. Later this week a conference will be held to launch the consultation process for the 2002 London housing statement, which will set out the key housing policies and priorities for the capital. It is important that all partners take part in the consultation, so that the statement may have a real impact. From what I have heard this morning, the debate will be trenchant and lively; I hope that it will tackle the real issues of homelessness and housing in the capital.

New Africa Initiative
12.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Before I call the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I give notice that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has sought permission to speak from the initiator of the debate, the Minister and myself. I am happy to give my permission, and I shall certainly call him.
Tony Baldry: In light of 11 September and in a week when the Prime Minister is visiting Africa, it is timely that we should be debating the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which was formerly known as the new Africa initiative. I welcome—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving do so quietly?
Tony Baldry: I welcome the Prime Minister's visit and the Government's commitment to Africa, but Africa's chronic crisis will not be solved by one man on one visit. The Government clearly recognise that the new partnership will need the support of wealthier countries to succeed. I agree with the sentiments that the Prime Minister expressed at the Labour party conference following 11 September, when he said that the state of Africa was a scar on the conscience of the world. If we focus on Africa, we can help to heal that scar; if we do not, it will become deeper and angrier.
A coalition against Africa's poverty is crucial. It is obviously no good the UK Government performing well on debt relief, for example, if the G8 coalition of which it is a part also includes underperformers. A coalition means collective responsibility, and the new partnership can succeed only if it is built on a firm coalition, which includes several players, the first of which is the United States.
Friends of America must wonder whether it is delivering enough. President Bush's state of the union speech mentioned evil five times, but poverty not once. Of course, it is right that we must fight terrorism throughout the world, but we must also fight poverty. Colin Powell is on record as asserting:
"While Africa may be important, it doesn't fit into the national strategic interests, as far as I can see them."
We shall have to persuade colleagues in Congress and friends in the American Government that the United States could do more. The United States claims to be the largest development donor in the world, but that does not change the fact that it also gives the most parsimonious percentage of development assistance, at just 0.1 per cent. of gross national income. President Bush will attend the forthcoming financial summit in Monterrey, but it is questionable whether he intends to announce that the United States will increase overseas development and assistance. Instead, it looks as if he will offer poor countries a change in the way in which the International Development Association operates. That might look attractive in the short term, but it will be unsustainable in the longer term, and it is not what Africa needs. Africa—particularly sub-Saharan Africa—needs all Organisation for Economic
296WH
Co-operation and Development countries to meet the target of 0.7 per cent. of GNI for overseas development as soon as possible.
The second part of the foundation that is necessary for the new partnership to succeed is the European Union. Its communiquè following the first Africa-Europe ministerial meeting last year stated:
"The European Union welcomes the New African Initiative which reflects many of the essential elements of the EU's own external relations policy."
There must, however, be concern, because seven of the top 10 recipients of EU external assistance are middle-income eastern European countries, which will soon join the EU. Last year, Poland received three times more aid than Uganda, which is the only African country in the top 10. The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on International Development that the amount of European Union development aid that was given to poor countries was actually dropping and was now less than 40 per cent. We must, therefore, persuade colleagues in the EU, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers that the EU's development assistance and budgets must focus much more on poverty and on Africa.
The third part of the foundation of the new partnership must be African countries themselves. Nigeria's President Obasanjo accurately asserted that the resolution of conflict will be central to the success of the new partnership.
For African countries the rhetoric of partnership features prominently. As a press release by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs succinctly notes, the new partnership will be
"a common vision and a firm and shared conviction…to eradicate poverty and to place their countries…on a path of sustainable growth and development, and at the same time to participate actively in the world economy and body politic".
Those may not be new commitments. They are the conditions for which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have provided aid for years. Importantly, they are now clearly stated African commitments. We need a firm partnership that involves the United States, the European Union, which obviously includes the United Kingdom, and African countries. We must then consider how that could impact on specific policy areas.
The first crucial building block of the new partnership will be Africa's health and education. HIV/AIDS infects someone in Africa every 25 seconds. Even those better off countries such as South Africa and Botswana are suffering catastrophic levels of HIV infection that may kill off a quarter of young men and women in the next few years. That is a fairly horrific figure.
Wealthier countries are clearly failing to deliver more directly for two reasons. First, the global health fund has revived only a fraction of the $10 billion that it needs to combat the pandemic, and we need to ensure that other countries contribute to that fund. AIDS is undoubtedly fuelled by poverty. Secondly, wealthier countries are partially failing on drug patents. I welcome the declaration signed at Doha on TRIPs—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—but it remains undecided whether developing countries can import cheap copies of patented drugs from third countries. That would benefit only countries that have their own manufacturing capacity, and that often excludes Africa.

297WH
Education is equally important. According to UNICEF, infants born to mothers with no formal education are twice as likely to die before their first birthday as those born to mothers with post-primary school education. Again, the European Union is the most culpable, as it allocates only 3 per cent. of aid to basic education through the European development fund, and the gap between disbursements and commitments can mean that as much as 40 per cent. of aid is returned to member states. That must change in order to meet Africa's needs. Furthermore, the lack of public funds now means that in countries such as Tanzania, Ghana and Zambia many poor people cannot afford basic education. In Zambia, as much as three quarters of basic education spending must be met directly by poor parents themselves.
Poor countries are sick because they are poor, but they are also poor because they are sick. That need is even more apparent when we consider the other two building blocks of the new partnership—debt relief and access to market economies. The new partnership clearly sets out how debt relief should be linked with costed poverty reduction: wealthier countries should commit themselves to deeper debt relief for African countries that show a commitment to poverty reduction. However, I am not sure that it happening under current World Bank criteria. The debt payments of Zambia, Tanzania and Cameroon exceed their combined health and education budgets. The poor people in those countries will see the World Bank giving in principle, but taking in practice.
The World Bank's constriction on development sustainability is compounded when we consider the economics of African countries since 11 September. Commodity prices are falling. African countries rely on coffee, cotton and tobacco, but the prices of those commodities have already fallen by 7.4 per cent. this year; and the International Monetary Fund expects them to fall even further. We need to ensure that Africa is given a strong voice in institutions such as World Trade Organisation, but adequate economic access for African goods to the markets of Europe and the developed world.
The erosion of Africa's share in world trade between 1970 and 1993 represents a lost annual income of $68 billion. We have to work out how African economies might benefit from increased trade; that must mean rich countries allowing quota and tariff free access to their markets. It is particularly important that African agriculture is not undermined by unequal competition with industrialised agriculture.
The new partnership will want to emphasise the importance of developing the private sector in Africa and promote foreign direct investment. Such investment has never been high there; it has fallen dramatically since the Asian crises. Indeed, the Financial Times recently observed that sub-Saharan Africa's neglected ports had significantly held back the progress of their economies.
We will all watch with interest the emerging Africa infrastructure fund that was announced last week. Perhaps the most telling sign is that the nine African countries that are experiencing the worst civil conflicts all have one thing in common. Each has a per capita
298WH
GNP income of less than $200. Conflict resolution will be crucially important to the success of the new partnership. The onus must be largely on African countries, and I support the comments made by the Prime Minister today in The Times. Some of us were disappointed that the countries of southern Africa were not more effective in helping, for example, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe find a resolution for that troubled country's current difficulties.
I have no doubt that the world will meet the United Nations 2015 targets on poverty, not least because of the improvements in China and India. The danger is that as four continents of the world progress, one—Africa—is at best standing still, and at worst, going backwards. Of course, it is an important matter and it is right that the Prime Minister should be there. None of us should be under the illusion that unless there is a massive political commitment—involving us as parliamentarians, colleagues in the European Union, colleagues in Congress, and importantly, colleagues in Africa itself—there will not be the progress in Africa that all of us want to see at the start of this new millennium.
12.41 pm
Mr. John Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I congratulate him on putting the matter on the agenda of the House of Commons. It is not before time, and it is important that it is not only on today's agenda, but that it remains on the agenda of the House of Commons, and is a popular campaign in Britain.
There is a real danger that the African continent will be completely locked out of the process of globalisation. While the rest of the world gets richer, it is evident that Africa is getting poorer. At the start of the 21st century, sub-Saharan Africa includes many of the world's poorest countries. In a reverse of some of the improvements of the 1960s and 1970s, Africa became poorer in the 1980s and 1990s. Average income per capita is lower now than it was at the end of the 1960s. In Britain, the average income is about £16,300 per annum, or about £313.60 per week. In Africa, it is £320 per annum, or £6.50 per week. That is less than £1 per day. Prices are lower in Africa and money goes further, but it does not go that much further. The discrepancy is huge.
Life expectancy in Britain is 78 years; in Africa it is 49 years. Of the 25 million people worldwide who have AIDS, two thirds are African. Therefore, the continent includes a growing share of the world's absolute poorest. Many problems of development are endemic to African countries. The World Bank recently published a table that showed that, while a few countries have moved forward, other countries—such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Niger, Sierra Leone, Madagascar, Zambia, the Central African Republic, Mauritania, Chad, Ghana, Rwanda, Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Burundi, Senegal, South Africa, and Nigeria—have all gone backwards in terms of GDP per capita. In other words, the endemic problems—for example, poor primary school enrolment and high child mortality—remain.
I refer to the summary of the World Bank report, "Can Africa claim the 21st century?" It says:

299WH
"Moreover, many development problems have become largely confined to Africa …including malaria and HIV/AIDS—that impose costs on Africa at least twice those in any other developing region. One African in five lives in countries severely disrupted by conflict.
Making matters worse, Africa's place in the global economy has been eroded, with declining export shares in traditional primary products, little diversification into new lines of business, and massive capital flight and loss of skills to other regions. Now the region stands in danger of being excluded from the information revolution."
The response of recent times has been insufficient to tackle those searing problems. There has been deteriorating capacity, weakening institutions and inadequate infrastructure. Great changes are needed. There must be a concentrated focus on the challenges that face Africa in order to move things forward. Due to the rapidly growing population, 5 per cent. annual growth is needed to stop the numbers of poor from rising. If severe poverty is to be halved by 2015, annual growth of more than 7 per cent. will be required, along with a more equitable distribution of income. That is a massive challenge.
We must link the global and local. We should not think globally and act locally, but simultaneously think and act locally and globally. What do I mean by that? We should address local development projects without neglecting the global need for infrastructures. There are more telephone lines in New York than in the whole of Africa. We must do something about telecom infrastructure and transport and communication infrastructure to allow Africa to be included in the global world.
I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to visit Africa, and the building of a coalition and a Marshall plan. I also welcome the infrastructure fund, which is greatly needed. I hope that the Prime Minister's visit will be a catalyst for a new, continuing and sharper focus on Africa. That would be linked to initiatives on good governance and conflict resolution.
In addition to challenging politicians in America, we must do more in our communities to build popular support for initiatives in Africa to give resonance to politicians' measures.
In May 1990, a BBC television film called "The March" showed people from Africa who were locked out of the economy. They could see images of Europe getting richer, and they wondered why they should stay in Africa rather than move to Europe. If we want to face the challenges of migration and refugees, we must accept that we live in an interdependent world. If we do not address peoples' needs in parts of the world that are small and vulnerable, we should not be surprised that people want to move to where the goods are.
It is in our interest to focus on the initiative. However, I ask for the new initiative on Africa to be not only a high-level initiative, but to be supported by popular campaigns in schools, neighbourhoods and residents associations in our communities. That would give people basic information to make them aware of how Africa is locked out. We should campaign to say that the globe's real challenge in the 21st century is the inclusion of Africa as a whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I am sure that I reflect the views of hon. Members
300WH
by expressing our gratitude to her for coming to reply to the debate. That clearly indicates the important role of Westminster Hall.
12.47 pm
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I very much welcome the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing it. I agree with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) that we desperately need a stronger international focus on Africa because of the needs of the people of that continent and the future security, safety and stability of the world. If a whole continent becomes ever poorer and mired in conflict, that is a desperate tragedy for its people.
Africa is Europe's near abroad. If it is in trouble, that trouble and conflict will spread across the world. For example, bin Laden was in Sudan before he went to Afghanistan. Africa contains rich minerals, which leads to criminality around diamonds. That may lead to drug dealing, which may cause destruction. That may lead to the spread of disease and massive refugee movements. There are more displaced people in Africa than anywhere in the world. There is no conflict among what is morally right, what is necessary for social justice and what is in our intelligent self-interest. It is in our intelligent self-interest to ensure that Africa has better hope for the future.
Poverty in Africa is deeper and wider than anywhere else in the world. Two thirds of the absolutely poor, who live on less than $1 a day, live in Asia, the most populous part of the world. That figure uses purchasing power parity, so it shows what $1 a day would buy in the United States, not in Africa. It is a desperate level of poverty. Some 1.2 billion people live at that level and just about scrape enough to survive. One third live in India; we must keep up our efforts in Asia. One third live in Africa, and nearly half the people on the continent live in such poverty.
At current rates of economic growth, more people will become poorer, because population growth across the continent of Africa is faster than average economic growth, so we can expect further deterioration under present trends. That is desperately serious, and we should pay better attention to the problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, conflict is also an issue. Some 20 per cent. of people in Africa are living in conditions of conflict. The permafrost of the cold war, which controlled disorder and conflict to some extent, has thawed. Conflict breaks out often because states are so weak that they are not able to provide security. Any bunch of gangsters can go around with a gun and enrich themselves. The conflict in Sierra Leone is about diamonds and everyone having kalashnikovs. Many small arms are circulating and breeding disorder in weak states across the continent. When there is such disorder, people can do very little to improve their lives.
In a moving and eloquent publication from the World Bank, "Voices of the Poor", 60,000 people from 60 countries—among the poorest people in the world—were asked what they felt about the world in the year 2000. Some of the descriptions of the grindingly difficult nature of their lives are very moving. What they ask for

301WH
most is security. No one can begin to grow cabbages, keep chickens, take children to school or gain access to health care if there is total disorder and no security. Conflict oppresses people, destroys infrastructure and sets back development. It is an enormously serious problem, and it will get worse unless we do better. However, matters are not hopeless.
There has been much reform in Africa in recent years. There is much more democracy across the continent. Important reforming Governments are making progress in economic growth and the reduction of poverty. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent. in 2001, and Uganda, Botswana and Mozambique achieved growth of 7 to 10 per cent. If we are to succeed in halving poverty, there must be 7 per cent. growth across the continent. Some African countries are achieving that. Therefore, Africa can do it if we make a greater effort to resolve conflict and support reform.
Our great opportunity is that Africa is now setting the reform agenda. The world has been hectoring Africa for a long time. In the past, all sorts of reform agendas were written in Washington and flown to Africa, where they were accepted by reluctant Governments who needed the money but never really believed in the agendas and the reforms failed. We have learned that there is a greater chance of success when there is local commitment and ownership and people design their own reform agenda. That is the real importance of the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
Leading African Governments are now supported in the African Union by all the countries of the continent. They can now say that they are going to reform themselves and resolve conflicts. They know the conditions for which they will get the inward investment that will give them access to modern technology: decent democracy, cracking down on corruption, providing security, enabling the local private sector to grow and investing in infrastructure. Africa is now telling itself so, and is taking the leadership. That is an important opportunity.
In his second term, the Prime Minister has made a commitment to partnership with Africa's agenda for reform, because of the needs of Africa and the danger to the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, the United Kingdom can help, but cannot alone rise to the challenge sufficiently to offer the continent better prospects. The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council, the European Union—which is significant with regard to trading rights—and the G8, which represents the richest countries in the world, and which promised at its Genoa meeting to offer a response to the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Therefore, the United Kingdom, with all of its alliances and relationships, can respond and begin to help.
More aid is needed—it has been declining, and things have got worse in Africa—but it must be better deployed. It must be deployed to build up the capacity of African Governments to successfully manage their economies so that they can provide services for their people. It should not be used to fund a proliferation of projects, which weakens the capacity of Governments, because they have to spend all of their time accounting
302WH
to the donors for how the money is being dispersed, instead of strengthening their health and education systems and providing basic universal services for their people.
What happened in Somalia and Rwanda represented disastrous and shameful failures by the international community in its attempts to resolve conflict in Africa. Sierra Leone is a small country, but the success of the peace effort there—to which the United Kingdom made a significant commitment—was important. It marked a turning point. There is now peace throughout the country: all of the rebels have been disarmed, and elections are planned for May.
However, several larger countries must move forward. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are ready for peace. The Democratic Republic of Congo has never been well governed. Its colonial experience was crude and exploitative. Mbutu was a corrupt kleptocrat, whose regime was propped up by the west because he was a pro-western corrupt kleptocrat. He misused the country's rich natural resources. Now it is divided into three parts. It experienced a civil war, partly as a result of the genocide in neighbouring Rwanda. However, the Lusaka peace accords are sensible. They were made in Africa, and they were endorsed by the Security Council and by all of the regional players. They should be driven forward, so that peace can be delivered.
Since it gained its independence in 1956, Sudan has suffered from civil war for all but 10 years. Both sides want a peace process. The Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan are massive countries; each of them is as big as western Europe. If we put some energy into their peace processes, the prospects of the entire continent would begin to be transformed. We could then begin to turn things around by supporting the reformers, deploying aid well, improving economic performance and increasing the numbers of children who attend school—which is being achieved in countries such as Uganda and Mozambique.
HIV/AIDS is a disaster for Africa, as it is for other parts of the world. Infection rates are increasing in India, Russia and the Caribbean. We must not think that it is only an African problem. However, with regard to the problem in Africa, Uganda shows the way forward. The infection rate among its young children is rapidly falling. In Zimbabwe, one in three adults is infected and life expectancy will fall by 20 years, but the situation in Uganda offers hope. We must campaign, make condoms available, tell the truth about how the infection spreads and treat sexually transmitted diseases early because when they are endemic in a population they spread much more rapidly. We know about many things that must be done. They should be done, so that every African country can do as well as Uganda.
The Prime Minister is going to Africa to listen, so that when he returns he can generate energy in our country, and use that and our historical relationship with Africa to mobilise the G8 and to encourage the Security Council to make a better effort, so that the people of Africa can have more hope of a decent future.
People often ask me about my travels. They say that it must be depressing to meet so many poor people. They are wrong; it is inspiring. The poor of the world are among the most hard-working, creative and dignified

303WH
people. They live in conditions that we could not survive. They grow their own food, build their own houses, give birth to their children without any healthcare system, and raise them without help. They deserve the chance to use their energy and commitment to make a better future for themselves, their children and their continent.
Things are so bad in Africa that if any of us lived there, we would not be able to get out of the mire. The people of that continent deserve decent Government, peace, basic healthcare and education and the chance to develop their economies. If they were to have those things, we could turn things around. By means of a real partnership of mutual respect, responding to the lead coming from Africa, we could begin to turn that continent's prospects around.
People say that there is nothing to believe in in politics any more. That is not true. We are more responsible for the state of the world than ever before and there is a chance for a great advance if we are big enough to grasp it. Responding to Africa is crucial to the future of the world.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. We now move on to the next debate, initiated by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). Before I call him, I should inform hon. Members that the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) have shown their interest in taking part and sought the permission of the initiator of the debate, the Minister and me.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
1 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am very grateful to you for those words, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I am pleased to have obtained this debate on such an important subject. It gives us the opportunity to focus on an important milestone when dealing with the scourge of myalgic encephalopathy, or chronic fatigue syndrome. The report published this month, after painstaking activity and work, entitled "A Report of the CFS/ME Working Group: Report to the Chief Medical Officer of an Independent Working Group" is addressed to Professor Liam Donaldson. I am sure that we would all want to thank him for his considerable interest and contribution.
I hope to be brief in order to accommodate the contributions of my hon. Friends—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) who chairs the all-party group on myalgic encephalomyelitis with such distinction—and to give them the opportunity to make known their views on the report.
ME is an unfashionable cause—some people go as far as to say that there is no such thing. They claim that if it exists at all, it is a mild illness that only the middle class can get—it is all in the mind. People are told to pull themselves together, get a grip and face reality. We now know what reality is. ME does exist. Thanks to the Donaldson report, we are told
"Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) is a genuine illness and imposes a substantial burden on the health of the UK population"
Much of the scepticism that has been so harmful to sufferers of ME stems from the 1980s, when a phrase to describe the illness popped out of thin air—yuppie flu. The report acknowledges what a disservice that was to ordinary men, women and children who succumbed to the illness. It dispenses brilliantly with those misunderstandings, disposes of them and gives us the response for which we have been waiting for far too long.
What is ME, or CFS as it is sometimes called? The term ME was coined in the 1950s following an outbreak 20 years earlier in the Royal Free hospital in London. The term CFS is a more recent invention. We now know that the illness has been around in one form or another for at least a century, possibly even longer. The report estimates that there are approximately 150,000 people in the United Kingdom with the illness. It is often, but not always, triggered by a viral infection. Labyrinthitis, an inner ear infection, is specifically cited in the report. The symptoms are often bewildering: total and overwhelming exhaustion; severe muscle pain; debilitating problems affecting concentration and short term memory; digestive difficulties; and, sometimes, intolerance to food, light, alcohol and even medication.
Contrary to myth, CFS/ME can affect anyone, regardless of their background, age, sex or ethnic origin-even children under five. How can children of that age imagine or invent such an illness, with all those symptoms? Those who have it most severely—about 25 per cent. of the total—cannot do even the most personal task without help.

305WH
I declare an interest in that I had the illness for 20 months in the early 1990s, but I was one of the lucky ones who made a full recovery. However, even those who have what might be described as a mild form of ME are in my opinion entitled to recognition and, indeed, a care package, which has hitherto not existed. Yet, as the report discloses, we invest virtually nothing in research into an incredibly destructive illness that varies in intensity among people. Are we therefore surprised that so little is known about the illness right across the board from patients to professionals in health care?
Following the Donaldson report, there can be no excuse for such indifference or indolence. In its own words,
"inaction due to ignorance or denial of the condition is not excusable."
We can no longer tolerate circumstances in which specialists are few and far between and it can be virtually impossible to see a specialist because there are only a tiny handful in the country and those that exist are massively oversubscribed and often collapse under the burden. We are often no better further down the line. General practitioners are never given proper guidance. Some perform heroics, but others are openly hostile. Indeed, I know of one GP who sent a message to a patient that said "Stop being so nice to people and start digging the garden as I am doing", a view flatly contradicted in the report, which states:
"All clinical interventions carry a potential risk of harm, especially if applied incorrectly; for CFS/ME in particular, imposed, rigid programmes can be actively harmful."
Much better, surely, is the report's recommendation that all management approaches should be done in full partnership with the patient. That also applies to diagnosis. GPs are encouraged to spot the illness early and to put in place a sensible plan for coping. Surely that is far better than what happens now, when many patients wait up to six months merely to be told that they are ill.
Should hon. Members have any doubt, I refer to the study undertaken by the charity Action for ME, "Severely Neglected". It surveyed almost 2,500 patients—the most ever—and revealed that a third waited more than a year and a half to be diagnosed, two out of three received no advice from a GP, and people were made worse by treatment and denied access to health care and benefits. It is not surprising that 50 per cent. of those interviewed in the survey said that they felt suicidal.
I welcome the positive and practical proposals in the report—early diagnosis and advice and much better treatment and care. It says that professionals should be properly trained and that the NHS—GPs and secondary and tertiary care—should be equipped to deal with the problems. The report strongly recommends proper research into all aspects of the illness to achieve a big breakthrough.
For the reasons that I have given, I shall conclude by saying that an enormous number of people have worked tremendously hard to get us to this point, not least Action for ME and its chief executive, Chris Clark. In an interview with Brian Dow in response to the Donaldson report, he said:
306WH
"I wish I could believe that every single sceptical doctor, nurse, therapist and member of the public will suddenly have their minds changed, but that's not going to be the case. What should and will happen though is that the day after publication, if a doctor uses the immortal words 'I don't believe in M.E.' the patient has the power to say 'I'm very sorry but the Chief Medical Officer says that it does exist and here's the evidence'."
In that spirit, I commend the report to my colleagues.
1.11 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. It is always difficult to cram all that needs to be said into the allotted half-hour, so I thank him for his generosity in allowing me to make a small contribution.
I believe that the most significant aspects of the report relate to improving diagnosis, treatment, care, research and health service planning. I and everyone else with an interest in the issue would welcome a clear statement today from my hon. Friend the Minister on the Government's plans for implementation in those areas.
Equally important is the question of diagnosis. There is, of course, no single diagnostic test to prove that a person has ME. Until now, it has simply been a question of eliminating other possibilities. However, as early diagnosis seems to have a direct link to the likelihood of recovery, that must be resolved as a priority. The study by Action for ME showed that a third of people took more than a year and a half to be diagnosed. Most thought that that had made a "huge difference" to the severity of their illness.
The Chief Medical Officer's report is very strong on that point. It states that a provisional diagnosis can be put in place after six weeks, with accompanying sensible advice on rest and activity. The diagnosis can then be confirmed if the patterns continue. That has been almost universally welcomed, not least because it may help to break the spiral of a patient becoming worse and having to pay more visits to the GP.
On treatment and care, the report made it clear that because of the lack of serious research, there is no magic pill that helps all people. None the less, much can be done to alleviate some symptoms. Moreover, for those at the less severe end of the scale, rehabilitation programmes involving pacing, graded activity and cognitive behaviour therapy can be beneficial. The report makes it clear that none of those are cures and the latter two in particular are not appropriate for all people. Care must be taken on an individual basis. The report notes that awareness and understanding of ME as a serious illness needs to be increased among the general public, schools, the media, employers, agencies and Departments.
All in all, the report's publication marks a long overdue watershed moment in the history of ME. However, what we do next is every bit as important, if not more so. I therefore have several questions about the Government response to the report. The Government stated that they would refer the issue of providing guidance to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in due course. I hope that the Minister

307WH
understands that we need to be clear on when that will be. I believe that NICE's own period for producing guidelines is two years.
Mr. Michael Weir: I understand that the Donaldson report referred only to England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister will say if anything similar is planned for Scotland.
Mr. Wright: I believe that the issue will be debated in Scotland and I am sure that the Minister will answer the question. Will she tell the House when advice on diagnosis will be passed to GPs and if it will follow the outcome of deliberations by NICE? Does the Minister think that the UK charities' suggestion of implementing interim guidance on management is a good one, and if so, when will it be done?
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that patients are fully involved in the urgent research called for in the working group report? It is important, too, to listen to support groups such as the Beccles and district ME support group in my constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend joins me in praising and congratulating the new Norfolk and Suffolk CFS/ME service under the leadership of Dr. Terry Mitchell, who serves both our constituencies, for its pioneering work. We need to build on that work and ensure that it is carried out elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Wright: I have no hesitation in applauding the work done by charities, especially the local groups in Norfolk and Suffolk. It is a matter of postcode prescriptions; whether one gets the treatment depends on where one lives. Dr. Mitchell is a pioneer on the issue in the Yarmouth and Waveney area.
On health services, the report identifies grave deficits in primary, secondary and tertiary care, which urgently need to be plugged. We need to take action to ensure that the changes happen as soon as possible, so those who are most severely affected do not continue to receive the worst deal from the NHS. What assurances will the Minister give on the matter? Does she intend to implement specific funding for such services? If it is to be left entirely for primary care, we will be making a rod for our own backs and condemning patients to years of frustration.
What are the Government's intentions on research? For many sufferers, that is the area in which they are desperate for leadership. The York review, which was incorporated into the chief medical officer's report, highlighted the chronic lack of serious research. Indeed, only 43 studies worldwide met the York criteria. The report stated categorically that there should be a programme of research on almost all aspects of the illness.
The report is being forwarded to those responsible for developing the national service framework for chronic disease. That is welcome, but the outcome may be achieved only over a 10-year period starting in 2005. Given that the report indicates that the deficits identified, particularly in relation to the severely affected, need addressing urgently, does the Minr agree that we cannot afford to wait more than a decade for a clear national strategy to be put in place?
308WH
I am pleased that the matter was referred to the Medical Research Council with a request that it should convene an independent scientific advisory group and produce a broad strategy by the end of February. To date, the severely affected have been excluded from serious research and that needs correcting. It is essential that all aspects of the illness are covered. It will go down very badly indeed if research that may help those who are more severely affected is ignored. More work is needed in immunology, virology and endocrinology, among other areas.
At a conservative estimate, ME costs the country £4 billion a year in lost earnings and benefit payments. Does the Minister support the concept of ring-fenced money for research and, if so, what amount does she consider appropriate?
In essence, the chief medical officer said that from 11 January people with ME are entitled to the same support as those with other long-term, chronic illnesses, which is what sufferers and patient groups have been saying for years. They do not want special treatment, just parity with those who have other serious illnesses.
I welcome the recommendation that there should be public awareness campaigns to highlight the seriousness of the illness and I hope the Minister will tell us whether she intends to implement that recommendation. The report also recommends that the education and training of doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals should include CFS/ME and that there should be specific postgraduate education and training in the subject. What assurances can the Minister give in that respect? For example, can she say when that will happen? Finally, can the Minister say how the recommendations on children with ME will be implemented? The impact of such an illness on a young child and their family can be devastating.
As hon. Members know, ME has suffered a curious history, and those who have it have had to face a peculiar double burden over the years. They must cope with an illness that to a great extent destroys their lives and suffer the prejudice and ignorance that has followed the illness around. It is hard for any of us to imagine what it must be like to endure the effects of a serious condition and a constant barrage of scepticism, cynicism and disbelief from those who should have helped them. Since I co-founded the all-party group on CFS/ME in 1998, I have heard from many sufferers whom GPs, health professionals and others have disbelieved. Although those sufferers were lucky enough to receive a positive diagnosis, they had to wait for years before they got to see an ME specialist.
Many more sufferers have experienced protracted battles with their benefits agencies, as they tried to receive the benefits to which they are clearly entitled. Further problems have been experienced at the hands of private health insurance companies, social service agencies and unsympathetic employers. The response to the report has been overwhelmingly positive. People are genuinely relieved that at last the Government are taking their illness seriously and that the problems that they face may finally begin to be addressed. Thousands of people saw a bleak future stretching before them, in which their quality of life became gradually worse. Those people can now have a sense of hope and begin to believe that one day they will be better. It is a huge

309WH
breakthrough to be able to say at last that we have official recognition that ME exists and is a serious condition.
I commend the Government for their work in getting this far. They have seriously tried to grapple with the issue and, as a result, have made important progress. However, this must be viewed as the start of the process, not its conclusion, and we must act with an urgency that has been absent so far. People with ME want that, and after years of neglect, that is the least that they deserve.
1.21 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for his contribution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for his intervention. I welcome the debate, not least because it gives the Government the opportunity to state their response to the independent working group's report on CFS/ME. A group is also being established in Scotland to consider how best to take the report forward.
I want to start by recognising how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. If the illness is not enough of a problem in itself, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth pointed out, the report makes it clear that some patients have found it difficult to get the treatment and care that they need to help them manage their illness and make a recovery. That is why the independent working group gave high priority to harnessing the views of patients, parents, families and carers to underpin the guidance. Two sounding board events were held to enable patients to participate in the development of the report, and were designed to capture some patient voices and to ensure that major stakeholders could identify issues that are pertinent to people who live with CFS/ME. Voluntary organisations also contributed to the independent working group by providing material and sponsored surveys that informed the report throughout.
Some patients have had a positive experience and have worked with health and social care professionals to manage their own care. The report gave the example of a patient who said that
"a diagnosis of CFS was made and I was advised how to manage my energy".
Another said:
"My GP was brilliant. He said he didn't know how to cure me, but we would work together to make me better."
We want everyone with CFS/ME to receive the treatment and care that they need, when and where they need them. Like the patients quoted in the report, we want those with CFS/ME at least to be listened to when decisions are being made about the type of treatment and care that would best meet their individual needs. I want to make it clear that we fully endorse the view of the independent working group that CFS/ME is a chronic illness. Health and social care professionals should recognise it as such, and the Government
310WH
welcome the publication of the report as the start of the process of improving awareness and understanding of CFS/ME.
I acknowledge that the working group faced a difficult task. Widespread uncertainty surrounds the condition, along with disbelief and controversy about its existence and disagreement about the best way to treat it. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the working groups, including the children's and reference groups, who carried out such a difficult and complex task. I am confident that the report will act as a catalyst for improving care and treatment for people with the debilitating illness.
My right hon. and hon. Friends made an important point about the contribution that patients can and should make in determining the best way forward. Patients with a chronic illness have a wealth of experience in managing their condition, and the Government recognise that. The report entitled "The Expert Patient—a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century" sets out how the national health service will empower those with long-term illnesses to become key decision makers in their own care, and that is relevant to this subject.
Key challenges face clinicians who care for people with CFS/ME. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston outlined, there are no agreed diagnostic criteria. Diagnosis is often made by eliminating other conditions through a series oftests, and although it is agreed that overwhelming fatigue is one symptom that characterises CFS/ME, debate continues about which other factors should be taken into account when making the diagnosis. Secondly, we do not know the cause of CFS/ME, although there are many theories. Thirdly, no one form of treatment suits every patient, and it is for doctors, in partnership with their patients, to decide how to relieve the wide variety of symptoms that individuals can experience. Fourthly, we are aware that there is controversy about some approaches used for managing CFS/ME.
We must ask all the stakeholders to work together and establish the treatments, or combination of treatments, that will help patients to get better. One possible way forward would be to develop clinical learning networks that allow clinicians and patients to develop expertise. That is in line with the approach of using patients and users to develop expertise. Although most people receive treatment in the primary care sector, I recognise the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the tertiary and secondary care sectors, and there is potential to develop service networks between tertiary and secondary care. That is another matter that the Government must explore with strategic health authorities. It would improve access to the skills, experience and resources of secondary and tertiary centres, and incorporate the principles of stepped care.
Services for people with CFS/ME have been too patchy. We expect that the report and any further research that may be commissioned will help health professionals feel more confident about caring for patients. The fact that the report has been published should help to increase awareness of CFS/ME, throughout both the medical profession and the public. The report is not intended to provide a comprehensive

311WH
clinical guideline and has not been developed as such, and a referral to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to provide guidance on management and treatment is being considered. Thought must be given to what is the most appropriate clinical tool for helping patients with the condition. It may be that an audit, referral protocol or guideline best meets the needs of the patients with CFS/ME, and those matters must be discussed in some detail with NICE. It would be better to consider all the evidence rather than to rush in and develop something that is inappropriate.
As was outlined, we will ensure that the external reference groups who are developing the national service framework for both long-term conditions and children's services consider the report and its recommendations for improving treatment and care. Although CFS/ME may not be examined as a specific condition in those NSFs, they will address some generic issues that affect the management of illness in childhood and adolescence and long-term medical conditions in adults. NSFs set out standards for treatment and care and provide support to health and social care professionals to deliver high quality services. Although they may span over 10 years, they do not take 10 years to make an impact.
On research, it is clear from what I said about the challenges facing clinicians that we agree with the working group that the evidence base is poor. We fully support the need for more research on a wide range of aspects of CFS/ME and have asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research. To do this, the MRC will appoint an independent scientific advisory group. The terms of reference and timetable will be agreed in the spring of 2002. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that it is a long-standing, important principle of successive Governments not to prescribe to—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I must tell the Minister that time is up. I regret that I must cut off her reply. We now move on to the final debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).

Mason Family (Sierra Leone)
1.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I express my appreciation for the opportunity to raise this Adjournment debate. Normally, I would not seek an Adjournment debate for an individual case, but the history of this case is one of almost monumental incompetence. The lack of humanity demonstrated by Government Departments has been so gross and protracted that I felt that I had to pursue the matter to this stage.
Before I go any further, I should mention that this morning I received a letter from the Under-Secretary on the matter. The letter is courteous and helpful, and she apologised graciously on behalf of the Department for the way in which the case has been conducted. She has accelerated an appeal and given dates. Indeed, she has anticipated the outcome of the debate; the letter may foreshorten our proceedings somewhat. I wish to thank her publicly for responding in this way and being helpful to the family.
None the less, the case has many lessons. It would be right to review the history, simply to place on the record what has happened. In essence, the problems arose from nothing more complicated than the transmission of papers for an immigration appeal from the Senegal embassy to the appellate authority in the UK. The transmission of papers has taken three years and involved seven Ministers—two from the Foreign Office, three from the Home Office and two from the Lord Chancellor's Department—and correspondence with 10 Downing street. Today, it appears that we finally have a resolution to the problem. It is not the final resolution, because I do not know and cannot anticipate the appeal decision, but at least the bureaucratic procedures have been dealt with.
I also wish to raise the issue publicly, rather than leave it with the Minister's letter, because it involves a wider foreign policy issue. The Prime Minister is going to Sierra Leone on Saturday. In general, the Government and the Prime Minister have acquitted themselves with enormous credit on the Sierra Leone crisis, in which British troops have been involved. In many ways, it has been a success story for British foreign policy. However, a dark underside is the way in which the British Government have dealt with the cases of individuals from Sierra Leone. This particularly appalling case must be set against the highly creditable role that the Government and, in particular, the Prime Minister have played.
Let me explain how the problem arose. The Mason family lived in Freetown, Sierra Leone, where Mr. Mason was a prison officer. About three years ago, the family went into the interior on a business trip. That was a time when the Revolutionary United Front rebels were gathering strength. On the way back, the family were stopped by the rebels, who took their car and their possessions and left them destitute by the roadside. They had to walk for two days to get back to Freetown.
On the way back, Mr. Mason's daughter Victoria, then 18 or 19, was raped by RUF rebels. Unfortunately that seems to have been standard procedure in Sierra Leone during the civil war; it was something many young women experienced. When the family arrived

313WH
back in Freetown there was disorder in the township. Some of the rebels and their friends gathered around the house of the Mason family because they knew of Mr. Mason's background in the prison service. He was called out into the street. He refused to come, knowing the fate that awaited him. He was then burnt alive in front of his family.
Over the next few hours and days the family witnessed some appalling scenes. The RUF rebels were in the habit of taking people and cutting off either their whole arm or half of it. Many of the Masons' friends and neighbours suffered this experience. During that terrible period an elderly mother died of shock. The rest of the family managed to escape to the football stadium where they at least had refuge and some food to keep them alive. They then fled to Guinea, the neighbouring country, which refused to accept them. From there they went to Dakar in Senegal, where they took refuge in a slum colony in the early months of 1999.
At that point the family consisted of Mrs. Mason, her three sons, ranging in age from early twenties to a young boy of seven, who is now nine, and the daughter who was raped and was by now carrying the rapist's child. They sought help from the UNHCR and the British Red Cross to survive in Senegal. That is where I came in and it became a matter for the British Government, because Mrs. Mason's sister, Etha Brace, is one of my constituents. She runs a successful, well-known restaurant serving west African food in Twickenham, and she received a message from her sister asking for help. They had not seen each other for many years but they were very close during childhood.
The sister did what she could to help. She said, "Why not come to Twickenham? We have a restaurant which is only operating at half capacity because we don't have any staff." There is virtually no unemployment in my constituency and there are certainly no unemployed people with a speciality in west African cooking. She told her sister, "Come to my restaurant. We will give your family work so you won't be dependent on benefits. There is work here and I have a spare flat. We have plenty of accommodation and we can look after you".
The family were encouraged to apply to the British embassy for visas to settle with the Brace family in Twickenham and did so. At this point the story becomes complicated because of the turbulence in that environment. Although a democratic country, Senegal was then in the early stages of an election campaign in which there was a lot of violence and intimidation, and extortion of refugees. The environment was exceedingly unsettled. When the Brace family sent £1,000 to pay for visas, the Masons were tricked by a Member of Parliament in Senegal who presented himself as having been particularly close to the embassy; he turned out to be a confidence trickster. The Masons then had their passports and money stolen, and they were offered their passports back for a large bribe. Their whole experience was horrific.
Eventually, after some weeks they managed to apply to the embassy for settlement visas and were turned down by the entry clearance officer, a Mr. Sean Burns. Two arguments were advanced; first, that he was not satisfied that there were exceptional personal
314WH
circumstances. In view of their history that struck me as extraordinary. Throughout the correspondence over three years, Ministers have kept repeating that phrase; they are not satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply to this family. That seems bizarre to me and almost insulting. Secondly, the embassy would not accept that the family could be solely dependent on the sister in Twickenham, although this could demonstrably be shown to be true.
I became involved and asked for the case to be re-examined. That was done, and my appeal was rejected by the entry clearance officer at the embassy in Senegal in early 1999. The family appealed and asked to have its visa rejection heard through the proper appellate process, under which the entry clearance officer has to send to the appeal directorate in London an explanatory note that will form the basis of the appeal. However, nothing happened. After six months, the documents had not appeared in London. The members of the family in Twickenham were by now so distraught that they went to Senegal to find out what was happening there and to explain the position to the British embassy.
What the Brace family found horrified them. First, the entry clearance officer showed no sense of urgency and put the six-month delay in sending the documents down to the fact that he was busy. They found that their relatives were utterly destitute. The three boys were sharing a pair of shoes, trousers and a shirt so they could not all go out at the same time. The situation was desperate. The Braces tried to provide the Masons with money and help and appealed to the embassy to speed up the processing of the papers.
Months went by and, again, nothing happened. The message from the embassy was that the official was too busy to deal with the problem. As far as I can establish, the papers did not progress beyond the desk of the entry clearance officer in Senegal for the best part of a year, although some of the facts are a little murky. I became sufficiently concerned that in May 2000—over a year after the original application—I got in touch with the then Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) at the Foreign Office, and asked him to intervene. Although this is a sorry tale, he showed great courtesy and efficiency and genuine compassion. I know that he is in trouble in the House for other reasons, but the way in which he dealt with this matter was exemplary and reflected considerable credit on the Government. He wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ask whether the appeal process could not be moved on more quickly. It was then discovered that the papers had still not reached there. Were they in Senegal or somewhere else?
After a long search, it was established in August 2000—eighteen months after the original application—that the papers were neither in Senegal nor in the Lord Chancellor's Department; they were in the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. I received a letter from the then Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who was both apologetic and gracious. She accepted that mistakes had been made and that there had been unacceptable delays. She also said that the matter would be dealt with urgently. However, nothing happened.
Time passed. Nine months later, in April 2001, a letter was received from Lord Bassam at the Home Office, saying that the papers had been lost there, but not

315WH
explaining how or why, and that nothing further could be done because there were no papers. I wrote to follow that up. Five months later, in August 2001, I received a reply from a person who had clearly not bothered to look at the file and was completely misinformed about the background to the case. At that point, I wrote to the present Minister. I might have over-egged the pudding a little in that I wrote an extremely rude letter drawing her attention to the whole sorry history, with which she has only been involved at a late stage. That is why we are here today.
I am aware that the story has moved on and that the Minister has acted, but it is important to have the story on the record. It reflects appallingly on different bits of the British Government—particularly on the embassy in Senegal and its officials, who were callous and inefficient in equal measure. The Home Office was also inefficient. At least it had the excuse that it was dealing with files rather than with real people, but, none the less, its inefficiency was inexcusable.
Three years on, we are dealing with the prospect of an appeal against a visa decision. I realise that the situation in Sierra Leone has now moved on, but the family are still terrified after what happened to them and are clinging to the possibility that they may be able to come and stay with their family in Twickenham. I acknowledge that that is not something for the Minister to decide because there is an appeals process, but I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put on record that sorry tale.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): I am extremely grateful that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) wrote me a rude letter because it helped me to realise that something very wrong was happening with this case, which is one of many thousands that cross my desk. It also enabled me to examine closely what had happened.
I begin by offering my unreserved apologies to the applicant and her family for the delay and distress that has been caused, and to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that some of his inquiries about the progress of the case received inaccurate replies from my predecessors and, initially, from me in my letter of 14 December.
I and my officials in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are deeply embarrassed at the string of errors that have made these apologies so necessary. The mistakes were not made deliberately, as the hon. Gentleman was gracious enough to accept, but unfortunately, it was one of those cases, among the hundreds of thousands that we deal with every year, in which everything that can go wrong does, not only at the embassy but, subsequently, in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. For that I am very sorry.
The only thing to do in such cases is to apologise, which I have done, and to do everything possible to try to put things right. We also need to learn lessons for the future. The first of those actions has already been taken,
316WH
as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge. The appeal papers are now with the Immigration Appellate Authority, where they should have been a long time ago, and dates have been set for a preliminary hearing this month and a substantive hearing in April. Of course, that in no way compensates for the delays that the applicant has experienced or the additional stress that must have been caused.
I should also say that the examination of what went wrong in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has highlighted several problems involving entry clearance officers in particular. Some have already been addressed and will not occur in subsequent cases and others are being addressed now. I hope that that sort of oversight will never happen again. As a Minister, it is especially difficult to discover that one's replies to other Members of Parliament, signed in good faith, have not been acted on. The loophole in the Department, whereby there is no system for ensuring that ministerial replies are acted on, is being closed.
I do not want to spend time on the details of the case, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has already outlined it. None of that is in doubt or an issue between us. He is right to say that the process of appeals against entry clearance decisions from overseas is that they are lodged with the entry clearance officer and passed to the IND for the papers to be checked, copied and assembled into an appeal bundle and passed to the appellate authority, with a copy to the appellant's legal representative. The appellate authority then lists the case for hearing. Both the delays at the embassy and the unfortunate delays at IND meant that this case was not progressed.
I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will accept my apology and my reassurances that I am doing all that I can to ensure that this loophole for entry clearance cases is closed. I can assure him that I will not be signing any other letter to an hon. Member on an entry clearance case before I have checked that the matter has been actioned by officials in my Department.
The case has been unacceptable in many respects. I did my best, as soon as it came to my close attention, to ensure that progress was made. The hon. Gentleman has been quite gracious and correct in saying that I cannot influence the outcome of the case, but at least we have ensured that action is taken. Although that does not compensate for what happened, we will at least be in a position for a decision to be made on the case in the not-too-distant future.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we will ensure that it does not happen again in other cases. I also hope that he will accept not only my apologies but my congratulations, first for writing me a nasty letter and secondly for raising the issue in Westminster Hall, which has given me an opportunity to explain what went wrong and set out what we are doing to ensure that it will not happen again.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am sure that hon. Members are grateful to the Minister for that fulsome response to this important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what preparations are being undertaken for the commencement of the jubilee baton relay in celebration of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games. [30928]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him earlier in the House.

  Policy Units
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance of the performance and innovation unit. [30894]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the roles of the(a) forward strategy unit, (b) performance and innovation unit and (c) policy unit. [30885]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 14 January 2002,Official Report, columns 86–87W.

  Camp David Talks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with President Bush at Camp David on 23 February 2001. [31662]

  The Prime Minister
  My visit to Camp David on 23 and 24 February 2001 was the first opportunity for face-to-face talks with the newly-elected President Bush. The joint statement we agreed and issued on 23 February 2001 covered our key concerns: NATO, a European security and defence policy, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq, the Lockerbie tragedy, Northern Ireland, developments in Africa and trade issues. The terrible events of 11 September have underlined the importance of the United Kingdom's close working relationship with the United States in pursuit of our common aims.

  Coal Bed Methane
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the performance and innovation unit's energy review considers the exploitation of coal bed methane vital to the UK's energy needs; and when the review will be published. [30888]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 816W.

  Child Care Review
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance and innovation unit's role in relation to the cross-cutting review of child care. [30890]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 25 October that an inter-departmental review of child care would be undertaken with conclusions feeding into the 2002 spending review. The performance and innovation unit are project managers for the review. It is being led by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton, and involves the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the women and equality unit.

  Energy Review
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent work of the PIU on the energy review. [30912]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 9 January 2002,Official Report, column 816W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service Appointments
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what role his Department has in establishing the criteria for making senior appointments to the civil service. [30898]

  Mr. Leslie
  Individual Departments are responsible for deciding the criteria used for selection to fill their own senior management posts. The Cabinet Office has a role in ensuring that senior appointments policy as a whole meets the objectives of the civil service reform programme. This includes monitoring progress against targets to increase diversity and to bring in new skills and experience from outside the service.

  Youth Homelessness
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what recent work the social exclusion unit has carried out on youth homelessness. [30899]

  Mrs. Roche
  The SEU has produced a number of reports, such as "Teenage Pregnancy", "Bridging the Gap", and "Truancy and Exclusion", which have focused on children at risk of social exclusion and the underlying issues which can lead to youth homelessness.

  The SEU is currently leading a project on young people who run away from home or care, many of whom are at risk of rough sleeping and homelessness in later life.

  A number of youth homelessness projects have been supported by the rough sleepers' unit since the 1998 SEU "Rough Sleeping" report.

  Regional Economy (East Midlands)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what assessment he has made of the way in which the Government office for the east midlands contributes to the regional economy. [30900]

  Mrs. Roche
  The performance of the Government office for the east midlands is regularly assessed against the targets set out in its annual business plan. For example, grants offered to businesses by the Government office have generated further investment of nearly £6.5 million and with the support of the office £119 million has been allocated to the region to support local transport plans. A further £90 million is allocated through the Government office to support the regional development agency.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on combating social exclusion. [30901]

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the reduction in social exclusion since 1997. [30902]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The social exclusion unit is currently working on four new projects, looking at:

  re-offending by ex-prisoners;

  young runaways;

  educational attainment of children in care; and

  transport and social exclusion.

  Public Appointments (Women)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what recent discussions his Department has had about increasing the number of women seeking public appointments. [30903]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government as a whole are determined significantly to increase the number of women who hold public appointments.

  My Department produced best practice guidance on making public appointments which will be continuously updated.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is also hosting a series of seminars around the country to encourage more women to apply for public appointments.

  Modernising Government White Paper
  Brian White
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what progress has been made in attaining the targets set out in the Modernising Government White Paper. [30904]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Modernising Government White Paper set out the following commitments:
  936W
  Better policy making—The Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office encourages effective policy making which produces results via training and development; networking and good practice and improved resources for research and evaluation

  A recent survey report—"Better Policy Making"—provides over 40 worked examples of good practice in policy making. It also shows that policy-makers have assimilated and are taking action to modernise the policy process. More information is available at www.cmps.gov.uk.

  Responsive, consumer focused public services—The Office of Public Service Reform is working with Departments to raise awareness of the principles of public sector reform and to increase feedback from customers to support policy making, service delivery and monitoring of performance, to ensure that services are designed around customers and are responsive to them.

  Improving public services—The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit has been established to ensure that the Government achieve their delivery priorities during this Parliament across the key areas of public service: health, education, crime, asylum and transport.

  E-government—The office of the e-Envoy published e-government: a strategic framework for public services in the information age, in April 2000, which set out the Government's strategy for Departments progressing towards the target of having 100 per cent. electronic service delivery by 2005.

  The proportion of Government services available online has risen from 33 per cent. in spring 2000 to 51 per cent. in summer 2001, and is expected to reach 74 per cent. by the end of 2002. The UK online citizens' portal and the Government Gateway are providing the core infrastructure for the further development of e-government services. See website http://www.e-envoy-gov.uk/ukonline/strategy.htm

  Valuing public service—We are creating a civil service for the 21st century. My Department continues to drive the Civil Service Reform programme, and good progress has been made. A report on progress was published in December 2000, and a further report in January 2002.

  These reports, and information on progress across the many separate strands of the Civil Service Reform programme, are published on our dedicated website:www.civil-service.gov.uk/reform.

  Regional Government
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State when he expects the Government to publish new proposals for directly elected regional government in England. [30905]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on establishing an elected regional assembly for Yorkshire and the Humber. [30911]
  937W
  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Government's plans for taking forward the manifesto commitment on elected regional government will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on Regional Governance.

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the operation of the ministerial code of conduct. [30907]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Government's response to the Third Report of the Public Administration Select Committee on the ministerial code sets out their views on the operation of the code.

  Personal Care (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what co-ordination he has undertaken of Departments' assessment of the implications of the free personal care for the elderly in Scotland. [30908]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  In July 2000, DH Ministers announced that they intended to make care from a registered nurse free when provided in a nursing home. This was implemented in October 2001. At the same time, it was announced that personal care services—such as help with dressing and bathing—would continue to be provided on a means-tested basis.

  The Scottish Executive similarly decided to make nursing care free in nursing homes. In January 2001 they also announced that, unlike in England, personal care would be made free too. These policies have not yet been implemented.

  Both the Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to improving health and social care services for older people, but a different approach has been taken.

  IT Management
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what recent progress has been made in improving the quality of information technology management in government. [30909]

  Mr. Leslie
  Successful implementation of IT enabled projects is important for the Government's delivery of improved public services and we are strengthening their management in a number of ways. During the last year all major procurement projects in central civil government have been required to undergo Gateway reviews at key decision points by teams of experts independent of the project team; projects can proceed to the next stage only when these rigorous tests have been met. We launched the Successful Projects in an IT Environment (SPRITE) Programme in January 2001 to work with Departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies to ensure that the recommendations to improve project delivery in the Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action report become embedded in their working cultures.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what part his Department has in co-ordinating the Government's policy on climate change. [30910]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The Cabinet Office provides support to me in my continuing role on international climate change discussions and negotiations on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It assists me in my work to foster effective relationships internationally at the highest political level. The UK's negotiating positions for international negotiations on climate change are agreed through the Cabinet Committee on the Environment, which I chair, and which is serviced by the Cabinet Office.

  The lead Department for climate change is DEFRA, which retains policy responsibility, leads the negotiations in both international and EU fora and deals with day-to-day progress and implementation of the UK's policies. The Cabinet Office works closely with them and with other Departments with a key interest in strategic and cross-departmental issues.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32314]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Civil Service Management Code (CSMC) prohibits Departments and agencies from providing staff with private medical insurance. The Cabinet Office and its agencies comply with this long-standing policy.

  Although non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are not bound by the conditions of the CSMC, I can confirm that none of those sponsored by Cabinet Office have paid for private medical insurance on any occasion.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what proportion of retired senior civil servants have undertaken paid work within the private sector in each of the last five years. [32908]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures are not held centrally, but I can answer on behalf of my own Department. Civil servants who wish to take up outside appointments within two years of their retirement are required to seek permission in the circumstances set out in the Business appointment rules. These rules are included in full in the civil Service Management Code.

  Within the Cabinet Office in the last five years 18 people have retired from the Senior Civil Service. Of these, four, who retired in the years shown in the table, have submitted applications under the rules to take up paid work in the private sector.
  939W

  Retirements

  Made Application to work in the private sector

  1997

  7

  —

  1998

  3

  1

  1999

  4

  2

  2000

  3

  1

  2001

  1

  —

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what proportion of civil servants have spent the whole of their career within a single Department. [32909]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information, by length of service, is given in the table.

  Staff in post by known length of service—April 2001

  Headcount

  Length of service (years)

  Staff who remain in the same Department

  Total staff in post

  Proportion who remain in the same Department (percentage)

  Less than one

  33,860

  36,900

  91.7

  1–5

  96,700

  121,530

  79.6

  6–10

  62,800

  78,860

  79.6

  11–15

  63,660

  90,530

  70.3

  16–20

  32,640

  51,040

  64.0

  21–25

  31.030

  51,460

  60.3

  26–30

  20,960

  34,250

  61.2

  31–35

  10.170

  16,780

  60.6

  36–40

  3,830

  6,700

  57.2

  41–45

  740

  1,190

  62.2

  46+

  20

  50

  38.3

  total

  356,390

  489,270

  72.8

  This information depends for its accuracy on the reliability of data supplied by Departments to the Cabinet Office's Mandate database. Mandate covers around 97 per cent. of civil servants in Departments supplying information electronically.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what the employment costs are, including benefits, of(a) Ministers representing the Cabinet Office and (b) special advisers and their supporting staff retained by the Cabinet Office. [8163]

  Mr. Leslie
  The employment costs, including benefits, of Ministers representing the Cabinet Office is £248,000 per annum and the cost of their special advisers is £196,000 per annum. The estimated cost of Minister's private office supporting staff is £580,000.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98. [32787]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer given on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties
  940W
  owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has responsibility in each of the last four years. [30078]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information requested, covering 1997–98 to 2000–01 (inclusive), is set out in the table.

  £

  Year

  Annual running costs

  As at 31 March

  Net book value

  1997–98

  484,000

  1998

  130,270

  1998–99

  562,000

  1999

  1,437,943

  1999–2000

  462,000

  2000

  173,875

  2000–01

  451,000

  2001

  139,400

  Notes:

  1. The above figures are for the 'Core' of the Department as none of its agencies nor non-departmental public bodies have owned any empty properties.

  2. Figures are given on a net book value basis, as compiled for annual accounts purposes.

  3. Excluded from the above figures is the project, commenced in 1998–99, to refurbish three vacant buildings. The first of those buildings (Admiralty Arch) was completed and occupied by staff in 2000–01. When the other two buildings (Kirkland House and the Ripley Building) are completed in 2002–03, they will form 22 Whitehall, one of the Department's major buildings.

  With one exception, which is the subject of a forthcoming PFI, all buildings were surplus to the Department's requirements and were in the process of being disposed. This has now been completed.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31037]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information on the Cabinet Office's use of Private Finance Initiative consultants from 1 April 2000 is as follows. Information prior to that date can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–021

  Total expenditure

  269,123

  255,919

  Number of full time equivalent consultants3

  30.38

  4—

  Number of billed consultancy days

  82

  57.5

  Number of consultancy firms used

  1

  1

  1 To date

  2 Excludes VAT

  3Calculated on the basis of 215 working days in the year.

  4Represents the average cost over the two year period

  5Not available

  Note:

  The average cost per year for each of the two individual consultants used is £4,800, £57,721 excluding VAT4

  Retirement Age Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State if he will. publish the results of the reviews of the mandatory age of retirement undertaken by each Department. [32667]
  941W
  Mr. Leslie
  Each Department has conducted its own review. The overall picture is being collated for Ministers. We have no plans to publish a separate document.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 335–36W,
  942W
  on older people, when he expects the Cabinet Office to have completed collecting the data from Departments; and when he will write to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. [32760]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office has now collected the data from departments and is currently putting together a report for me to send to ministerial colleagues. When I have presented this to ministerial colleagues I will write to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for his Department in each of the last four years. [27908]

  Mr. MacShane
  On(a), I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 30 January 2002, Official Report, column 406W.

  >On (b), FCO expenditure on taxis for the last five years was:

  Financial year

  £

  1998

  226,736.15

  1999

  329,903.63

  2000

  380,830.36

  2001

  1378,158.43

  1 Costs incurred from 1 April to 31 December 2001

  Afghanistan
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States concerning the observance of the Geneva Convention and its protocols relating to the treatment of prisoners captured in the course of conflict in Afghanistan. [29798]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the treatment of those detained by the US in Afghanistan with US Secretary of State Colin Powell on the telephone on 12 January and in Washington on 31 January.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Afghan Interim Government regarding provision of security across Afghanistan. [33187]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Security is a key issue for the Afghan Interim Authority (IA) and for the International Community. It is clear that a stable environment is needed for the IA to be able to function effectively and for reconstruction work to begin. We have been working closely with the IA on this issue and the UK is currently acting as lead nation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). ISAF was mandated by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 (2001) to assist the IA in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the IA as well as UN personnel can operate in a secure environment.

  There has been regular discussion with the IA on the issue of security, including between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the IA during the latter's visit to the United Kingdom on 31 January.

  Stolen Equipment
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 2002,Official Report, columns 776–77W, on stolen equipment, what the security classification was of the stolen computers and related hardware; from which Departments they came; whether breaches of security were
  944W
  deemed to have resulted in each case; whether equipment was lost outside the Department buildings; and if he will make a statement. [31486]

  Mr. MacShane
  The computers and hardware were stolen from South East Asian Department, South and South East Asia Research Group, Information Department, Human Rights Policy Department, Global Citizenship Unit, IT Support Services, Eastern Department, Finance Branch, Latin America and Caribbean Department, Middle East Department, Management Consultancy Services, IT Strategy Unit, Research Analysts, Personnel Command Training and Conference and Visits Group.

  All the equipment concerned was "unclassified" and went missing from within the FCO buildings. No breaches of security resulted to any of the Departments.

  International Criminal Court
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking on behalf of the UK to ensure that when the International Criminal Court begins to function it will do so with(a) an independent prosecutor, (b) financial independence and (c) without risk of political interference from the UN Security Council. [31765]

  Mr. MacShane
  The arrangements for the election of an independent Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, for the funding of the Court and the Court's relationship with the UN Security Council are set out in the Rome Statute of the ICC. The United Kingdom took a significant part in the drafting of that statute and was among the 139 states subsequently to sign it. The UK ratified the Rome Statute on 4 October 2001.

  The Prosecutor will be elected by secret ballot of the Assembly of States Parties. In addition, Article 53 provides that the Prosecutor is independent with respect to the initiation and conduct of investigations and prosecutions, subject to review, in limited circumstances, by the Pre-Trial Chamber.

  The budget of the Court will be provided through Assessed Contributions levied from states which have ratified the Rome Statute. The precise United Kingdom share will not be determined until the Court comes into existence.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that the International Criminal Court, once functional, has retrospective jurisdiction over defendants involved in unlawful international events. [31766]

  Mr. MacShane
  Article 11 of the Rome Statute of the ICC deals with the temporal jurisdiction of the Court. The Court will have no jurisdiction in respect of crimes committed before the entry into force of the Statute.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what involvement the United Kingdom has in the practical preparations for the staffing of the International Criminal Court; and what steps have been taken to ensure that it is adequately and expertly staffed; [31756]

  (2) what role the UK is taking in the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court. [31758]
  945W
  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom has been an active participant in the eight (to date) Preparatory Commissions (Prepcoms) for the ICC. The election of Judges and senior Officers of the Court will be a matter for the Assembly of States Parties, which will meet once 60 states have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute of the Court. 49 states, including the UK, have done so to date. The staffing of the Court has been discussed at the Prepcoms in the context of the Court's budgetary requirements. Work is continuing on this. The appointment of suitably qualified and expert staff will ultimately be the responsibility of the Registrar of the ICC.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what steps he is taking to encourage states which have not yet ratified the Statute establishing the International Criminal Court to do so; [31764]

  (2) what assistance he is giving to the UN Secretary General in his aim stated at the Preparatory Conference for the International Criminal Court on 27 September 2001 that the International Criminal Court should be functioning within a year; [31759]

  (3) what additional steps he will take to hasten the transition of the International Criminal Court into a working court. [31757]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom will continue to urge other states, in our bilateral contacts and in partnership with other EU and associated states (in pursuance of the EU Common Position on the ICC) to ratify the Rome Statute. 49 states have ratified to date, the 60th ratification will cause the Court to come into existence. The United Kingdom will liaise with the Officers of the Court, when they are appointed, to determine what practical assistance we may offer in facilitating the smooth commencement of the Court's activities.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is making representations to the USA in respect of its ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. [31822]

  Mr. MacShane
  Officials are in regular contact with the US Administration in respect of this issue. We have also joined with EU partners in a written demarche to Secretary of State Powell on 30 October and a verbal demarche on 20 December 2001, both in support of the EU Common Position on the ICC of June 2001.

  Departmental Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average annual leave entitlement of staff in his Department in each of the last four years. [31743]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 1998, leave entitlements for FCO staff in the UK were as follows:

  Grade

  Days

  (a) Up to Higher Executive Officer1

  On entry

  22

  After one year

  25

  After 15 years (HEO equivalent)

  30

  After 18 years (up to EO equivalent)

  946W

  Grade

  Days

  (b) HEOD equivalent up to Senior Management Structure2

  On entry

  25

  After 10 years

  30

  Senior Management Structure

  30

  1HEO equivalent (except HEO Development (HEOD) equivalent)

  2 Senior Civil Service equivalent

  Notes:

  1. In January 2000, all staff at (a) became entitled to 25 days leave on entry and 30 days after 12 years. Staff at (b) became entitled to 30 days after 10 years.

  2. In January 2002, all staff at (a) and (b) had their entitlements increased to 25 days on entry and 30 days after 10 years.

  Staff serving overseas are entitled to additional leave. In 1998 it was between four and 14 days (on a seven day week basis) depending on grade and length of service. After several changes, the entitlement is now five or 10 days (on a five day week basis) depending on grade and length of service.

  Holocaust
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 2001,Official Report, column 259W, if he will make a statement on progress toward resolution of outstanding restitution issues relating to the Holocaust and other victims of Nazi Germany by EU accession candidate countries. [31868]

  Peter Hain
  The Government continue to encourage the settlement of Holocaust-era claims in the relevant EU candidate countries. There has been some progress—notably in Poland, where the Prime Minister has announced that a new restitution Bill compensating victims of all nationalities will be brought to Parliament probably next year. Budgetary difficulties have hampered claims settlement in several of the countries concerned, though all the candidate countries emphasise the importance they attach to this process, as we do.

  Middle East (UN Observers)
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to support the sending of UN observers to the occupied Palestinian territories. [31949]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government believe that third-party monitoring, accepted by both parties, would serve the interests of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in their search for peace. We would support any monitoring accepted by both parties, including UN monitoring. Such monitoring could assist both sides in implementing the Mitchell recommendations.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the Grade Days General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 and 29 January; what the Government's stance was on each issue discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [31831]
  947W
  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I attended the 28 January General Affairs Council. There were no formal votes taken at this Council, but Conclusions were adopted on a range of subjects, in each case reflecting UK positions.

  The Council held a public debate on the Spanish presidency programme for the first half of 2002. The UK underlined the importance of anti-terrorism co-operation, enlargement, economic reform, effectiveness in external policy, trade liberalisation, the middle east peace process and Zimbabwe.

  On Zimbabwe, the Council concluded that the essential elements defined in Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement were not being respected. It decided to close the Article 96 consultations with Zimbabwe and to implement targeted sanctions if:
  the Government of Zimbabwe prevent the deployment of an EU observation mission starting by 3 February 2002. or if they later prevent the mission from operating effectively. Likewise, if the Government of Zimbabwe prevent the international media from having free access to cover the election; or
  there is a serious deterioration in the situation on the ground, in terms of a worsening of the human rights' situation or attacks on the opposition; or
  the election is assessed as not being free and fair.

  The Council took note of a presentation by the presidency of its work programme on enlargement. The presidency's programme is aimed at ensuring that negotiations with candidate countries which are ready can be concluded by the end of the second half of 2002.

  The Council discussed Council Secretariat and Commission papers on conflict prevention. The presidency stressed the need to identify priority areas for action. Member states endorsed the themes of the papers and agreed that EU action should continue to be targeted, joined up and timely.

  The Council adopted Conclusions calling for conclusion of the EU/Chile agreement before the EU Summit with Latin American and Caribbean countries in May this year, and agreed Conclusions welcoming progress in the EU/Mercosur negotiations.

  The Council agreed that the two Vice Presidents of the Praesidium to the Convention on the Future of Europe should remain independent of their nation states. The Council agreed a general framework for the convention budget to be extracted from the current Community budget. This will not, therefore, require any additional expenditure by member states.

  The General Affairs Council issued Conclusions on the middle east peace process. Ministers were concerned at the recent violence and condemned recent Palestinian terrorism. Ministers reaffirmed the importance of the Laeken declaration, which set out the steps required by both sides in the short term, called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority to implement the Tenet and Mitchell recommendations immediately and unconditionally and reaffirmed the need for security and political steps to be taken in parallel. Ministers also expressed their concern at the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and other facilities which help Palestinians in their economic, social and humanitarian development and which are financed by the European Union and other donors. The GAC urged
  948W
  the Government of Israel to put an end to this practice and reserved the right to claim reparations in the appropriate fora.

  The Secretary General/High Representative and the Commissioner for External Relations presented a joint paper consisting of an annual review on Common Strategies. The first of the existing three Common Strategies (on Russia, Ukraine and the Mediterranean) expires in June 2003. The SG/HR and Commissioner Patten agreed to work together on further ideas for improving the effectiveness of Common Strategies.

  The Council discussed the Western Balkans and welcomed signs of steady improvement in relations between Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and encouraged the three countries to continue this rapprochement. The Council urged Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo to work with increased resolve on all matters related to the return of refugees and displaced persons. The Council supported efforts undertaken by SG/HR Solana to facilitate dialogue between Belgrade and Podgorica. It also expressed its concern at the continuing failure of the Assembly in Kosovo to elect a President. The Union's willingness to start negotiations with Albania for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Albania was stressed, but the Council noted that attention has recently been diverted from vital reforms. The Council took the decision to conclude the Interim Agreement with Croatia. The adoption of the Local Self-Government Law in Macedonia was welcomed as a critical step in the process of implementation of the Framework Agreement. This opens the way to the holding, on 12 March 2002, of a Donors' meeting.

  The Council discussed the possibility of an unarmed EU-led policing mission to succeed the International Police Task Force (IPTF) in Bosnia when it completes its mandate at the end of 2002. Its aim would be to consolidate the achievements of the IPTF and the international community's work to establish sustainable policing arrangements under Bosnian ownership in accordance with best European and international practice. The Council agreed that more detailed work was required in order to allow it to take a decision at its 18 February meeting on whether the EU should make a formal offer to run the IPTF successor mission.

  Council discussion on EU/Russia focused mainly on Kaliningrad. The presidency said it would accelerate work on Kaliningrad in time for the EU-Russia Summit in May. The importance of dialogue on Kaliningrad between Poland, Lithuania and Russia was also highlighted.

  The presidency debriefed partners on recent EU efforts to defuse tensions between India and Pakistan. The presidency said that the EU should continue its efforts to encourage de-escalation and a return to dialogue.

  The Council discussed the situation in Afghanistan and in particular the satisfactory outcome of the International Donors Conference in Tokyo on 21–22 January 2002. It reiterated the Union's commitment to playing a significant role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and in supporting the political process agreed in Bonn.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals he estimates live full-time in Gibraltar; and how many UK-registered businesses operate in Gibraltar. [32019]

  Peter Hain
  The latest figures published by the Gibraltar Government show that some 3,700 non-Gibraltarian British passport holders were living in Gibraltar in 2000.

  Details on how many UK registered businesses operate in Gibraltar are not available but there is a substantial number of business interests of UK origin.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what present trading arrangements exist between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. [32066]

  Peter Hain
  The same trading arrangements apply to trade between Gibraltar and the UK as between Gibraltar and the rest of the EU.

  The EC treaty applies to Gibraltar by virtue of Article 299(4). But Gibraltar is exempt from the VAT and Common Agriculture and Fisheries provisions of the Treaty. It is also excluded from the Common Commercial Policy and Community Customs Territory. In consequence, intra-Community rules on Customs and free movement of goods do not apply to Gibraltar, and Gibraltar is a third country under the common regime for imports.

  United Kingdom exports to Gibraltar were £128 million in 2001.

  Gibraltar was the United Kingdom's 73rd export market in 2000.

  Mohamed Mustafa Kamel
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the release by the Government of Yemen of a British citizen held on terrorism charges. [31866]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Mohamed Mustafa Kamel, a British national, was released from Mansoura Prison, Aden, on 26 January 2002 following the completion of his three-year sentence.

  British Detainees (Mazar-i-Sharif)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether UK nationals are being held in Shebhargen prison near Mazar-i-Sharif. [32234]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not aware of any UK nationals being held in Shebhargen prison near Mazar-i-Sharif.

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage a comprehensive military and political agreement with the FDD and other armed movements excluded from Burundi's peace process. [32282]
  950W
  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has pledged £250,000 in support of the facilitation efforts of President Bongo of Gabon and Vice President Zuma of South Africa. They are working hard to bring together all the disparate elements in the Burundi conflict with the aim of a peaceful negotiated settlement.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in identifying the bodies found in Dragodan and Suva Reka in Kosovo. [32169]

  Mr. MacShane
  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has exhumed 210 bodies from individual graves at the cemetery in Dragodan. According to the Missing Persons Unit of the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), 52 of the 210 bodies have been identified to date.

  ICTY completed its exhumations in Suva Reka in October 2000. The 73 bodies identified to date have been Kosovo Albanians.

  In accordance with last November's UNMIK-FRY Common Document, UNMIK will launch a comprehensive programme of exhumation and identification in Kosovo this year. This will include Suva Reka where 300 unidentified bodies, exhumed by ICTY from graves across Kosovo, were re-interred by UNMIK.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has UNMIK made in tracing the missing Serbs in Kosovo. [32168]

  Mr. MacShane
  Action to trace missing Serbs from Kosovo is being taken forward by both the UNMIK-FRY Contact Group on Missing Persons and the new High Ranking Working Group, established following signature of the UNMIK-FRY Common Document in November 2001.

  In the Common Document, UNMIK agreed to launch a programme of exhumation and identification in Kosovo this year. As a first step in this process, three joint protocols covering cross-border repatriation of identified remains, joint verification teams and an exchange of forensic information were signed by UNMIK and the Yugoslav authorities in Belgrade on 24 January.

  UNMIK is also in the process of transferring 800 bone samples to the International Commission on Missing Persons' (ICMP) state of the art DNA testing facilities in Sarajevo. The UK is supporting the work of the ICMP with a donation of £250,000.

  UN Security Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments in respect of enhanced counter-terrorism protection measures for(a) civil and (b) military nuclear facilities were transmitted by the Interdepartmental Group on Implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) to the UN Security Council, pursuant to SCR 1373 in December 2001. [32728]
  951W
  Mr. MacShane
  The defence of civil and military nuclear facilities was not mentioned in either UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) or in the guidance for the report.

  A copy of the UK's response to the Counter Terrorism Committee has been placed in the House of Commons Library, and can also be found at www.un.org/docs/sc/committees/1373.

  Nuclear Terrorism
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European Union and United States counterparts on the threat of nuclear terrorism. [32289]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has had regular discussions with his European Union and United States counterparts about terrorist threats, including the threat of nuclear terrorism.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what access British diplomats have had to(a) Mr. Sandy Mitchell, (b) Mr. Jimmy Cottle, (c) Mr. James Lee and (d) Mr. Les Walker; what evidence against them has been provided by the Saudi authorities; what legal assistance has been made available to them; what charges have been made against them; what date has been set for their trial; and what representations have been made to the Saudi Government regarding their treatment. [32925]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British embassy consular officials have visited Sandy Mitchell, Jimmy Cottle, James Lee, Les Walker and Peter Brandon as often as allowed. This has been about once a month since we secured consular access to the men. The Saudi authorities have shown us no evidence against the men. Four of the men have been shown on Saudi television saying they carried out bombings. We pressed hard for the men to be allowed to appoint lawyers. This has been allowed and the men have now done so. Their lawyers now have unrestricted access to them. We have not been told what the men may stand trial for. No date for a trial has been set.

  We are extremely concerned about various aspects of this case, including that our access to the prisoners has been restricted. We are in close touch with the detainees' families. The majority of them agree that we should not discuss the cases in detail in public. Throughout we have raised these cases at the highest levels with the Saudi authorities. We continue to do so.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage a reduction of tension between India and Pakistan about Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [32838]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs is in frequent contact with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts, and other international partners. We are urging Pakistan to 952W
  continue its crackdown on terrorism. We continue to reiterate to both countries that their differences will best be resolved through dialogue.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received about human rights violations in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [32839]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We remain very concerned over the human rights situation in Kashmir. We condemn all acts of violence that bring suffering to the people of Kashmir.

  We continue to receive regular correspondence from the public and from non-governmental organisations with interests in human rights in Kashmir. We have urged the Government of India to allow greater access to Kashmir, including for international human rights organisations and for UN Rapporteurs. Most recently the Secretary of State discussed human rights in Kashmir on 29 January with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister.

  We continue to impress on the Indian authorities the benefits of greater transparency and importance of investigating abuses.

  Visitor Visas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visitors visas were granted to citizens of(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Sri Lanka in each of the last three years. [32901]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not maintain overseas statistics on nationalities of applicants received at Posts. Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan nationals are free to apply at any Post.

  The numbers of visitor category applications granted in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are:

  India

  Pakistan

  Sri Lanka

  1999

  152,040

  47,968

  15,215

  2000

  154,081

  82,099

  14,471

  20011

  177,756

  275,746

  17,156

  1The collection of annual statistics on the breakdown of applications by category is currently moving from a calendar year to a financial year basis. So the best available 2001 statistics are for the total number of non-settlement type visas issued in 2001.

  2We still await November and December 2001 statistics from Islamabad.

  Television Sets
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) integrated digital and (b) analogue television sets have been bought by his Department in each of the last 24 months; and if he will publish the guidance given to officials making decisions on television purchases. [33226]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]Details of the television sets bought by UK Departments of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and overseas posts could be provided only at disproportionate cost since the FCO does not maintain a central record of such purchases.
  953W
  Standard FCO guidance applies to the purchase of television equipment. This is based on achieving value for money.

  Israel
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the oral statement by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 414, on Israel, what assessment he has made of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Dr. Mustapha Barghouthi by Israeli forces. [32761]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I replied to my hon. Friend by letter on 30 January. Copies of this letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32320]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO does not provide private medical insurance for any of its staff. Staff serving overseas receive medical care in line with NHS standards via a contract with Guy's and St. Thomas's NHS Trust. In some countries where medical standards do not meet those in the UK, and it is not practicable to bring staff home, they are treated by private practitioners.

TREASURY

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years.[27916]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  275,569

  1998–99

  329,255

  1999–2000

  355,080

  2000–01

  303,525

  The information relates to essential refurbishment and redecoration works in the two Treasury office buildings and in 11 Downing street. It excludes refurbishment works arising from the PFI contract for the Treasury's new office accommodation.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four. [28999]
  954W
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]The Government publish an environmental appraisal and evaluation of Budget measures in each Budget and pre-Budget report. However, no stand-alone environmental appraisals have been published by my Department since 1 January 2001.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29000]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]Where environmental considerations are relevant, they form an integral part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29001]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 21 January 2002]Environmental considerations are taken into account in taking important administrative and policy decisions.

  The Department's policy checklist includes a section on environmental appraisals.

  Where relevant goods and services are procured, prospective suppliers are asked to include an assessment of the major environmental impacts of the contract, as part of the tendering and evaluation process.

  Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methods (BREEAM) assessments are undertaken for new buildings and for the major refurbishment of existing buildings within the Department's estate.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials from his Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the civil service college. [29002]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 21 January 2002)No representative from HMT has attended the course referred to to date.

  Ministerial Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team in each of the last four years, specifying the purpose and cost of each trip. [30173]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 707W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether special advisers have sight of replies to written parliamentary questions from hon. Members before the replies are sent; and if he will make a statement. [32977]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Code of Conduct for Special Advisers states that the work of special advisers may include "reviewing papers going to the Minister" and that "they may give advice on any aspect of departmental business".

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers working in his department are provided with private medical insurance; how many individuals have been covered by such insurance in each year since 1997–98 and at what total cost to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement; [32312]

  (2) how many employees in (a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32319]

  Ruth Kelly
  Paragraph 7.1.7 of the Civil Service Management Code prohibits Departments from providing staff with private medical insurance. This condition also applies to special advisers.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish forecast receipts for (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05 from(a) income tax, (b) VAT, (c) corporation tax, (d) capital gains tax, (e) inheritance tax, (f) total taxation in Scotland and (g) North sea oil and gas revenues. [34311]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Projected receipts for 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05 from income tax, VAT, non-North sea corporation tax and North sea revenues are shown in Table B9 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report, expressed as a percentage of GDP. Receipts for 2002–03 from capital gains tax and inheritance tax are shown in Table B 11 of the November 2001 pre-Budget report. No separate projections are made of tax receipts in Scotland.

  Euro
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what work has been commissioned by his Department from outside Her Majesty's Treasury on the appropriate long-term exchange rate of the pound against the euro; and if he will make a statement; [33611]

  (2) if he will list those university academics and economic research establishments he has asked to carry out work relating to the technical preparations for the five economic tests for euro entry; what this work consists of; what cost to public funds is involved; and if he will make a statement. [32874]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury is in regular contact with academics and other outsiders on a wide range of issues, including aspects of the preliminary and technical work. However, the assessment of the five economic tests will be a Government assessment and the work will be undertaken by the Treasury.

  The Treasury published a note in November 2001, "Preliminary and Technical Work to Prepare for the Assessment of the Five Tests for UK Membership of the Single Currency", which addressed the issues of content and timing of the preliminary and technical work to prepare for the assessment of the five economic tests for UK membership of the single currency. A copy can be found in the Library of the House.

  Arthur Andersen
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which partners or senior employees of(a) Andersen, (b). Arthur Andersen, (c) Andersen Consulting and (d) Accenture have been appointed to (i) informal roles giving advice to the Treasury, (ii) task forces reporting to the Treasury, (iii) ad hoc advisory groups reporting to the Treasury and (iv) other formal roles reporting to Treasury Ministers since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [32917]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information about task forces and ad hoc advisory groups are set out in annual reports, published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have been placed in the Library of the House and the annual report is available on the Cabinet Office's website.

  Information about informal advisory roles are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27960]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since its creation in July 1999, Wales Office spending on refurbishment/minor works was £217,000 in 1999–2000; and £281,000 in 2000–01. In the current year to date some £21,000 has been spent.

  Contracts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts were let by his Department and agencies for which he is responsible to(a) PWC Consulting or PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen for consultancy services for the financial years (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available, indicating the remuneration in each case. [33841]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has not let any consultancy contracts to these firms since it came into being on 1 July 1999 and has no NDPBs or agencies. Under the former Welsh Office, £52,000 was paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1997–98 and £4,000 in 1998–99; £20,000 to Deloitte and Touche in 1997–98 and £16,000 in 1998–99; £4,000 to KPMG in 1997–98 and £21,000 in 1998–99.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst and Young, (c) Deloitte and Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33875]
  957W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There have been no such secondments with the Wales Office since its creation in July 1999. Prior to that date there were in 1999–2000 the following secondments with the former Welsh Office:(a) nil (b) nil (c) one (d) two (e)nil.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff were seconded between(a) BP, (b) Shell, (c) Enron, (d) Exxon-Mobil, (e) Conoco, (f) Texaco and (g) TotalFinaElf and his Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33209]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27948]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 January 2001,Official Report, column 590W.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32828]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, Column 351W.

  Information Provision
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of Government information and publicity in Wales. [30897]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has run no television, newspaper, radio advertising or any other kind of promotional campaign since its creation in July 1999. It has no agencies or departmental public bodies within its responsibilities. We are not responsible for campaigns that may be run by the National Assembly or other Government Departments in Wales.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32326]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32014]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry has a departmental expenditure limit of £4,766 million following the 2001–02 Winter Supplementary Estimate. Of this £795 million is capital budget and £3,971 million is resource budget. Of the £3,971 million resource budget, 4.2 per cent. (excluding ACAS) is planned to be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32038]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on the instances where by Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to meet the payment target can be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, I can say that the percentage of bills which were paid by my Department and its agencies within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice was 98 per cent. for the financial year 2000–01. The average percentage of bills paid by my Department's executive non-departmental public bodies over the same period was 89 per cent.

  Fossil Fuel Power Projects
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total carbon emissions are that have been omitted from all Export Credits Guarantee Department supported fossil fuel power generation projects since 1997. [31837]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since ECGD does not have readily available information on the completion dates and operating schedules of all the power projects that the Department has supported, it is not possible to easily calculate actual total carbon emissions since 1997.

  However, for the power projects for which a guarantee has been issued since 1997 it is estimated that upon completion of these projects total annual carbon emission will be of the order of 13.3 million tonnes. This is based on the following assumptions.

  Fuel type

  ECGD1

  CO22

  Carbon2

  Coal

  11,260

  40.6

  11.1

  Oil

  492

  1.1

  0.3

  Gas

  4,367

  7.1

  1.9

  Total

  16,139

  48.8

  13.3

  1Estimated capacity (MW)

  2Tonnes per year (million)

  It has been assumed the plants operate for 60 per cent. of the time (5,256 hours per year). CO2 emissions are calculated using the following conversion factors—Coal: 0687 tonnes of CO2 per MW per hour, Oil 0.417, Gas: 0.309. These are taken from The Greenhouse Gas Protocol

  959W
  website www.ghgprotocol.org and are the 1999 average values for power plants in "Economies in Transition". These are the markets where ECGD most commonly provide guarantees.Carbon emissions are calculated by assuming that carbon makes up 27.3 per cent. of the atomic mass of CO2.

  It should be noted that for most large power projects ECGD is only one of several finance providers. Scaling the carbon emissions by the proportion of finance guaranteed by ECGD would give a figure of less than six million tonnes per year of carbon that is directly attributable to ECGDs participation.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much finance has been made available by the ECGD to support UK businesses involved in fossil fuel power projects since 1997. [31836]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total value of guarantees and insurance provided by ECGD in respect of fossil fuel power projects since 1997 is £1.754 million.

  Sual Power Plant (Philippines)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of financial support the ECGD has provided to UK companies involved in the construction and operation of the Sual power plant in the Philippines; what precedent there was for such support at that time; and whether and on what projects this level has been matched in the case of other instances of ECGD support. [31832]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 1995 ECGD provided financial support to the Sual power project worth £432 million. The guarantee was provided on a limited recourse, project finance basis.

  Prior to Sual, ECGD had supported one limited recourse power project, although with a much smaller loan value. ECGD has also supported a number of power projects on a non-limited recourse finance basis.

  Since 1995, ECGD provided support in excess of £300 million for eight
  other projects:

  Project

  Country

  Guangdong power project

  China

  Hawk aircraft

  Indonesia

  Air Force equipment and services

  Saudi Arabia

  LNG plant

  Oman

  Boilers for the Shandong power project

  China

  Patrol vessels

  Brunei Darussalam

  Manjung power project

  Malaysia

  Defence equipment

  South Africa

  Power Generating Projects
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications have been received by the ECGD relating to power generating projects in the past 12 months. [31835]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 2001, ECGD received 32 applications related to power generation projects. For reasons of commercial confidentiality ECGD is unable to provide 960W
  details of individual applications prior to any guarantee being issued. No guarantees or insurance have yet been issued in respect of any of the 32 applications.

  Coal Plants (Thailand)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which United Kingdom companies the ECGD has received applications for support of their activities in relation to the proposed coal plants(a) Bo Nok and (b) Ban Krut in Thailand. [32483]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has not received formal applications in relation to either of these projects. However an initial inquiry has been received in relation to the Bo Nok project. The identity of the UK company involved is commercially confidential and, in line with ECGD's normal policy relating to discussions prior to issue of guarantees, cannot be disclosed.

  Fossil Fuel Energy Sector
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the UK companies that have benefited from ECGD support in the fossil fuel energy sector and have been prosecuted for contravening environmental protection regulations. [32521]

  Ms Hewitt
  The projects that ECGD supports are by definition located overseas. Therefore ECGD cannot determine whether, and if so how many, such prosecutions have taken place.

  Details of UK prosecutions for breaches of environmental legislation are published by the Environment Agency.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the five companies in the fossil fuel energy sector that have received the most in ECGD funding since 1997 and the amount received by each. [32229]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD does not provide direct funding, but rather issues guarantees and insurance against loss. Since 1997 the five companies in the fossil fuel energy sector that have received guarantees in respect of the largest amounts of business are:

  £ million

  Company

  Value

  Alstom Power

  902

  Mitsui Babcock

  347

  Kier International

  49

  Allen Power Engineering

  39

  Wier Westgarth

  36

  Post Offices
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) directly operated post offices, (b) other main post offices and (c) sub-post offices there were in (i) each English region, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland and (iv) Scotland in each year since 1979; how many of each category of post office in each case were opened or closed since 1979; and how many have changed their status since 1979. [33779]
  961W
  Mr. Alexander
  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that historic data on numbers of directly operated post offices and sub post offices are only held on a UK basis and historical data on numbers of post office openings and closures and status change are not maintained separately.

  I am also informed by Post Office Ltd. that data by country are not available before 1998. The numbers of post offices operating in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, in the last three financial years are as follows:

  Wales

  End March 1998: 1,513

  End March 1999: 1,501

  End March 2000: 1,470

  End March 2001: 1,402

  Northern Ireland

  End March 1998: 650

  End March 1999: 640

  End March 2000: 636

  End March 2001: 611

  Scotland

  End March 1998: 2,051

  End March 1999: 2,026

  End March 2000: 1,999

  End March 2001: 1,936.

  I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that an on-going revision of data has affected individual country totals.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new entrants to the civil service employed in her Department were aged 50 years and over in each of the last five years. [32887]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested for my Department and executive agencies, in each of the last five calendar years, is shown in the table.

  Number

  1997

  33

  1998

  61

  1999

  66

  2000

  50

  2001

  81

  Staff Appointments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures have been adopted for the appointment of business executives to a strategy role in her Department; and for which posts applicants are being recruited at present. [32556]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 619W.

  Foreign Investment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of foreign investment in the Greater London area has been in each of the last three years. [33557]
  962W
  Ms Hewitt
  The figures in the table are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. They are based on the companies' best estimate, at that time, of the number of new jobs to be created.

  There is no requirement to notify inward investment decisions and so the figures include only those projects where Invest UK and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  London region

  Number of projects

  Number of new jobs

  1998–99

  105

  4,125

  1999–2000

  159

  7,200

  2000–01

  222

  8,306

  Total

  586

  19,631

  Your Guide System
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive on the funding arrangements for implementing the Your Guide system; and if she will make a statement. [33066]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]Officials in my Department have met with officials in the Scottish Executive on a number of occasions to discuss the longer-term future of Your Guide. These discussions have included some initial consideration of funding. If the current pilot of Your Guide demonstrates that the concept meets the needs of citizens and can provide value for money for Government, funding proposals will be worked up in the light of the emerging form and content of a potential national service.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Your Guide system will be introduced throughout the United Kingdom at the same time. [33065]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]The pilot of Your Guide currently running in Leicestershire and Rutland is being thoroughly evaluated and this work should be completed in June. If the outcome of the evaluation and of additional work on the costs and benefits of a national Your Guide service indicate that a national service should go ahead, the intention is that this should be introduced throughout the United Kingdom. (Of course national roll-out of an ambitious programme of this kind would be a major undertaking and it is to be expected that the service would be phased in over a period of time.) However, roll-out of a Your Guide service in the devolved regions would be subject to discussion with the devolved Administrations.

  Sub-Post Offices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have(a) closed and (b) reduced opening hours which are located in (i) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, (ii) the Dumfries and Galloway region and (iii) Scotland in each of the last five years. [33067]
  963W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that data by country before 1998 are not available and that regional data are not collated in the form requested. Data on reduced hours opening of sub-post offices are not held historically.

  The numbers of post offices operating in Scotland over the last three financial years are as follows:

  End March

  Number

  1998

  2,051

  1999

  2,026

  2000

  1,999

  2001

  1,936

  I am also informed by Post Office Ltd. that an on-going revision of data has affected individual country totals.

  Christmas Day Trading
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many customers shopped on Christmas day 2001 in England and Wales. [30946]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No data are available on the number of customers shopping on Christmas day 2001.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the results of the regulatory impact assessment on the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. [30940]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No regulatory impact assessment has been completed in respect of the Bill.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish the representations her Department has received from retailers about the Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. [30861]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has so far received no representations from retailers about the Bill.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many retailers have indicated to her Department that they(a) would never open on Christmas day, (b) would consider opening on Christmas day and (c) intend to open on Christmas day, in the last five years. [30945]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No retailers had indicated their intentions on these matters to the Department.

  Sunday Trading
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish recent representations her Department has received from retailers about Sunday trading hours when Christmas eve falls on a Sunday. [30943]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has received no representations from retailers since it became responsible for this subject in June 2001.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will publish recent representations her Department has received from large garden centres about trading on Easter Sunday. [30942]
  964W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has received no representations since it became responsible for this subject in June 2001.

  Consignia
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 17 January 2002,Official Report, column 419, on Consignia, what sums are being invested by the Government with respect to the steps that need to be taken to maintain the delivery service in rural areas and the rural network, broken down by (a) Scotland, (b) England (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [30872]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]The Postal Services Act 2000 provides that it is the primary responsibility of the postal regulator (Postcomm) to exercise its functions in a manner best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. It is therefore for Postcomm to determine how the universal service obligation is implemented in the interests of consumers. Currently Postcomm requires Consignia plc, in the licence, to provide a universal postal service.

  £480 million has been invested by Government in the Horizon programme to automate the entire post office network and £270 million of support over three years has been committed by Government for modernisation of the network. In addition, we have made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas where traditional services would otherwise close. Advice on transitional financial assistance on a UK-wide basis to the rural post office network from the Postal Services Commission is currently under consideration.

  Competition Commission
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the remit is of the Competition Commission with respect to considering the need for firms to compete globally when investigating merger and acquisition activity in the UK. [33006]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  When conducting an inquiry into a merger, the Commission is required to determine whether the creation of a merger situation operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest. In conducting its inquiry into the public interest effects of the merger the Commission considers all matters which appear to it to be relevant.

  Fair Trade Fortnight
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage participation by her Department in Fair Trade Fortnight from 4 to 17 March. [33553]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's catering contractor is going to run special promotions throughout this period for all its fairly traded goods such as tea and coffee.

  Technology Transfer
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made to encourage the transfer of new technologies from universities to industry. [33033]
  965W
  Ms Hewitt
  We have introduced a number of complementary initiatives designed to encourage better interaction between universities and industry. This will enable businesses to access and benefit from the universities' research capabilities, and universities themselves become more responsive to the needs of industry.

  In October 2001 the Government made awards in excess of £100 million under three competitions (the Higher Education Innovation Fund £80 million, Science Enterprise Challenge £15 million and University Challenge £15 million) to encourage the transfer of knowledge from the science base to industry.

  This builds on the previous funding allocated to the first round of University Challenge, £45 million in 1999, and Science Enterprise challenge, £28.9 million in 1999–2000.

  We have expanded the successful TCS scheme which enables high-quality graduates to draw on academic support and expertise while working in a company on research projects of value to industry. We have increased TCS activity by 25 per cent. during 2001; from 730 to 918 current TCS Programmes.

  DTI and its co-sponsors have approved 18 Faraday Partnerships focused on areas of major industrial importance to the UK. Each partnership is designed to promote better exploitation of research and technology by creating partnerships between universities, intermediary bodies (eg research and technology organisations, private sector laboratories, etc.), business end-users and suppliers of finance. A further six partnerships will be selected later this year to enable us to fulfil our White Paper commitment to set up a national network of 24 Faraday Partnerships by 2002.

  The Government have continued to support the LINK collaborative research scheme which is aimed at promoting the development and transfer of new technologies between universities and companies. Expenditure across Government in support of LINK was £41 million in 2000–01. The Government announced seven new LINK programmes and committed £12 million in 2000–01 to a further round of Foresight LINK Awards projects, complementing current LINK programmes in Foresight priority areas. There are currently a total of some 380 LINK university/company research projects under way.

  Clothing/textile Industries
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make it her policy to promote innovation in the textile and clothing industry by supporting a series of sector-specific events highlighting best practice in product innovation; [33269]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to encourage wool textile manufacturers and trade associations to promote British wool textile as a generic brand; [33278]

  (3) if she will undertake a study of the reasons for the differing performance of the clothing industries in (a) Italy, (b) Germany, (c) France and (d) the UK; [33275]

  (4) what steps her Department is taking to broker the participation of UK textile manufacturers in collaborative EU programmes, with particular reference to (a) LINK and (b) Eureka; [33279]
  966W
  (5) if she will undertake to fund activities that will lead to the development of stronger networks among (a) technical textile manufacturers, (b) universities and colleges and (c) other parts of the supply chain in the textile industry; [33272]

  (6) if her Department will arrange a series of regional seminars to highlight the availability of funding for technological innovation in the textile and clothing industry; [33271]

  (7) if she will establish a flexible support fund to support individual companies in the textile and clothing industries undertaking small-scale innovation and developmental work; [33270]

  (8) if her Department will continue to fund technology transfer activities involving technical textile companies and academic institutions; [33277]

  (9) if she will undertake to fund a study of best practice in the Italian textile and clothing industry and how it might be adapted to the UK; [33276]

  (10) if she will make it her policy to ensure the availability of funding to support technological innovation in the textile industry; and if she will make a statement; [33280]

  (11) what steps she is taking to enable traditional textile companies to diversify into technical textiles. [33273]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is a priority for my Department to support a healthy UK textiles and clothing industry and to work alongside the industry's own Textile and Clothing Strategy Group (TCSG) in helping to improve the industry's productivity and competitiveness. I attach particular importance to helping the industry to innovate and develop new world-beating products. The Government have invested more than £80 million in the industry since 1997. And in the last year alone, we have invested about £8 million focused principally on developing the technical textiles market, employment and training opportunities, help for the supply chain, design skills, the benefits of 3-commerce and export support.

  My Department is working closely with the TCSG to raise awareness and encourage participating of textile and clothing manufacturers in a variety of research, technology transfer and best practice programmes.

  A programme of 10 regionally tailored road shows, "Textile and Clothing Funding Unzipped", is under way in key textiles and clothing regions underpinned by a dedicated website signposting companies to sources of help and support for technological innovation, for R&D and for capital investment, including information on collaborative EU programmes such as Link and Eureka. "Unzipped" road shows have so far been held in Melton Mowbray—east midlands in March 2001, Bolton—north-west region in October 2001, Huddersfield—Yorkshire and Humber region in October 2001, Port Talbot—south Wales in November 2001, Llandudno—north Wales in November 2001, London in December 2001 and continues in Sunderland—north-east region on 6 February 2002, Solihull—west midlands on 5 March 2002, Edinburgh on 14 March 2002 and Belfast on 20 March 2002.
  967W
  Particular focus has been given by my Department to supporting the development of Technical Textiles. Since 1998 22 collaborative and innovative technical textiles projects have been supported and a further seven new projects are currently in development. In April 2001 a Technical Textiles Project Co-ordinator was appointed to increase networking within the sector and bring together project consortia of technical textile companies and academic institutions. To help in this objective regional seminars have been held to highlight the availability of funding for technical textile innovation and to encourage traditional textile companies to diversify into this sector. My Department is supporting the work of TechniTex—the Faraday Partnership for technical textiles comprising hub partners Heriot-Watt university, the university of Leeds, UMIST and BTTG. We welcome the industry initiative to explore the possibility of setting up of a TT trade association, which would help broker stronger links across the sector.

  We continue to seek to involve UK textile manufacturers in research collaborations with universities. Currently we are funding two such research partnerships through Foresight LINK Awards. The two projects are aimed at researching new fire resistant textiles, and a prototype automated sorter for the detection and removal of natural and synthetic contaminants in wool and cashmere. We are also funding a EUREKA project with the objective of creating a pilot line for the manufacture of texturised, mass stained, fine polypropylene yarn.

  We are already supporting a variety of collaborative initiatives in the textile and clothing sector as a whole aimed at fostering stronger networks between strategic partners through the Innovation Budget and through best practice programmes such as the Industry Forum Adaptation scheme, which is currently funding a major initiative aimed at improving supply chain efficiency in the textiles and clothing sector.

  My Department is aware that the industry has been in discussions with a view to developing British wool textile as a generic brand. In consultation with the TCSG my Department is carrying out a comparative study of the UK and Italian clothing manufacturing industries, focused on the wool and worsted weaving and men's tailoring sectors. The results of this study will be disseminated to the industry and will inform decisions about any future research projects.

  Azerbaijan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export credit guarantees were issued to support projects in Azerbaijan in the last year. [33771]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]ECGD has issued no guarantee in the last year in support of projects in Azerbaijan.

  Private Sponsorship
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the events which have been sponsored by a private organisation in her Department since May 1997 and the names of the sponsoring organisations; and if she will make a statement. [32511]
  968W
  Ms Hewitt
  Information about events where the Department works with outside organisations is not held centrally, and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost. The Department does not have responsibility for the Office of Government Commerce, Inland Revenue or HM Customs and Excise.

  Timeshares
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) whether she plans to revise the Timeshare (Cancellation Notices) Order 1992 and the Timeshare (Repayment of Credit on Cancellation) Order 1992 on which her Department consulted in 2000; [30107]

  (2) what discussions her Department has had with the European Commission in the last two years on the effectiveness of current controls on the sale of timeshares and holiday club membership; [30109]

  (3) whether she plans to regulate the sale of membership of holiday clubs; and if she will make a statement. [30108]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Officials from the Department and the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels have discussed the timing of review of the timeshare directive with Commission officials on a number of occasions.

  The Department launched a consultation on timeshare legislation in April 2000, which invited views on a number of issues including revision of the Timeshare (Cancellation Notices) Order 1992 and the Timeshare (Repayment of Credit on Cancellation) Order 1992 and whether the legislation should be widened to include new products such as holiday clubs.

  The consultation was a means of informing the UK input into discussions on the review and raised a number of complex issues, which the Department is considering.

  Secondments
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her Department's officials are seconded to work at(a) Arthur Andersen, (b) Andersen Consulting and (c) Accenture; and how many employees of those firms are seconded to work at her Department. [31698]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32831]

  Ms Hewitt
  The normal retirement age in my Department is 65 for staff in Band A (covering administrative and support staff). For all other staff (covering staff at range 5—formerly Executive Officer level—and above) the retirement age is 60. At 1 April 2001 there were 1,103 staff in Band A and 3,189 staff above this level.
  969W
  Flexible retirement is considered on a case-by-case basis under the criteria laid down by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.

  I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply to the hon. Member.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on EU enlargement and prospects for UK business; and what measures have been brought in to assist businesses in dealing with enlargement. [32529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is a broad consensus that EU enlargement will benefit the UK economy since it will provide new opportunities for trade and investment. These opportunities will increase as the economies of the EU candidate countries grow and integrate further with those of the existing EU member states.

  The DTI and Trade Partners UK have produced information about EU enlargement, aimed at alerting UK businesses and helping them work out the practical consequences and opportunities for them. The DTI's publication "EU Enlargement and the single Market: Opportunities for Business" published in September 2000 provides information about the enlargement process and the details of the candidate markets.

  Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [33240]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]Parts(a) and (b) of this question could be answered only at disproportionate cost because the information is not held centrally. However, all equipment purchased by the Department must provide value for money and be fit for purpose. In many cases the Department purchases televisions as monitors for the viewing of educational videos and not for the viewing of television broadcasts.

  Information about digital television sets is available on the digital television website www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk and the guidance it contains is as relevant to public sector purchasers as to consumers. There is, therefore, no specific guidance for officials.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what events(a) she is and (b) other Ministers in her Department are planning to attend as part of the Golden Jubilee celebrations; and what events her Department is planning to arrange to celebrate the Golden Jubilee. [33258]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the reply which he has received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Radioactive Waste
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts her Department has made to monitor the(a) condition and (b) safety of the radioactive waste dumped approximately 250 miles out of Land's End during the 1960s and 1970s. [27192]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Results obtained under the OECD's Co-ordinated Research and Environmental Surveillance Programme (CRESP) related to sea disposal of radioactive wastes have demonstrated that the radiological impacts on human and oceanic populations emanating from the north-east Atlantic dumpsites are exceedingly small compared to the natural background levels, and are likely to remain so. This view was reiterated in the OSPAR Convention's Quality Status Report 2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  CRESP reported that the peak critical group individual dose as a result of sea dumping of solid radioactive waste would be 0.00002 millisieverts per annum, compared with 2 millisieverts per annum derived from natural radionuclides. The critical group is the hypothetical group of individuals who are calculated to be most exposed to the source of radioactivity being assessed—in this case coastal consumers of very large quantities of fish, crustaceans and molluscs (approximately 220 kg/year of fish, 37 kg/year of crustaceans and 37 kg/year of molluscs). The peak doses were calculated to occur approximately 200 years after dumping, by which time some of the activity would have leached from the disposal site and dispersed through the ocean.

  The Government fund extensive environmental monitoring of the waters around the UK, and this has not detected any adverse effects which could be attributed to radioactivity from Atlantic disposal sites. The monitoring shows that doses to critical groups from man-made sources of radioactivity are very small, and considerably less than doses due to natural background levels of radioactivity. In view of this, we have no plans to undertake any direct monitoring of the north Atlantic disposal sites.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Unfurnished Cells
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times unfurnished cells have been used in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000. [29601]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional data are given in the table.

  Prison

  Number

  Ashfield

  0

  Brinsford

  0

  Castington

  240

  Feltham

  25

  Hindley

  7

  Hollesley Bay

  40

  Huntercombe

  121

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  Onley

  32

  971W

  Prison

  Number

  Portland

  31

  Stoke Heath

  72

  Thorn Cross

  0

  Werrington

  0

  Wetherby

  32

  Control and Restraint
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been injured during control and restraint since April 2000. [29597]

  Beverley Hughes
  Records on injuries received during the application of control and restraint measures are not held centrally. However, inquiries with establishments within the juvenile estate show that during the stated period, 296 trainees have been injured during the use of control and restraint measures. Only five of these incidents resulted in outside hospital treatment and these were for fractures or suspected fractures. Many of the remainder were for tender wrist or reddening around the wrist.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children were locked out of prisons overnight; at which prisons; and at which police stations they were held since April 2000. [29603]

  Beverley Hughes
  Since April 2000, approximately 1,720 15 to 17-year-olds have been held overnight in police cells following a failure to return them to prisons designated to hold juveniles. The prisons concerned and the numbers associated with each are set out in the table. Information relating to the police stations at which they were held is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Figures for Ashfield, Brinsford and Portland may be understated as some information is available for the year commencing April 2001 only. Figures for Feltham and Onley may include some young offenders (18 to 21-year-olds).

  Designed establishments

  Lodged in police cells April 2000 to date

  Juveniles only

  Hollesley Bay

  117

  Huntercombe

  79

  Werrington

  54

  Wetherby

  237

  Holding both juveniles and young offenders

  Ashfield

  27

  Brinsford

  49

  Castington

  145

  Feltham

  192

  Hindley

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  110

  Portland

  38

  Onley

  283

  Stoke Heath

  387

  Immigration
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of backlog of immigration 972W
  applications from (a) work permit holders, (b) people with UK ancestry, (c) EEA nationals and their spouses, (d) fiancés and fiancées, (e) spouses and (f) asylum seekers has been for each of the last five years; and what levels of backlog he predicts for the next two years. [30995]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that information on predicted backlogs for the next two years and on individual types of general and settlement cases undecided is not available.

  The number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision on 31 December in each of the last five years is shown in the table. There were 43,000 asylum applications awaiting an initial decision on 30 September 2001, the latest date for which information is available.

  Applications for asylum awaiting initial decision, 1996–20,principal applicants only1

  Year

  Asylum applications outstanding at end of year2

  1996

  57,405

  1997

  51,795

  1998

  64,770

  1999

  119,700

  20003

  89,100

  1Figures rounded to nearest five, except for 1999 and 2000 which are rounded to nearest 100.

  2Figures for 1998 and earlier years are not directly comparable with figures for later years.

  3Provisional

  Information on the number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ immigrationl.htm. Information on the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of 2001 will be published on 28 February 2002.

  Asylum Seekers
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the appeal facilities that would be available to asylum seekers who would be housed in the proposed accommodation centre at RAF Turnhouse. [32518]

  Angela Eagle
  Accommodation centres will provide asylum seekers with access to legal advice for their appeals. The location of appeal hearing centres is a matter for the Immigration Appellate Authority. However, the Home Office will make provision for asylum seekers to travel to their appeal hearings if they wish to attend.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department intends to have with representatives of(a) the City of Edinburgh council, (b) the Scottish Executive and (c) others regarding the proposed new asylum seeker accommodation centre at RAF Turnhouse. [32520]

  Angela Eagle
  The Home Office intends to consult widely within the constraints of the planning process, time and departmental resources.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who purport to be children have subsequently been found to be adults in the last two years. [32193]
  973W
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]Between November 2000 and September 2001, inclusive, there were 1,120 age disputed cases (rounded to the nearest five) of principal applicants who applied in-country. These cases are not included in the published data on unaccompanied minors. Information is not available on either the number of age disputed cases who lodged their application at port, nor on other months in 2000 and 2001.

  Information on unaccompanied minors is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library, and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 180W, on asylum seekers, if he will list the categories of data to be stored on the micro-chip on the asylum seeker identification card. [31329]

  Angela Eagle
  The data held in the Application Registration Card micro chip are:

  1. Name

  2. Address

  3. Immigration Fingerprint Bureau (IFB) Ref. No.

  4. Home Office Ref. No.

  5. Port/Local Enforcement Office (LEO) Reference

  6. National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Ref. No.

  7. NASS Status

  8. Originating Port/LEO Code

  9. Date of Birth

  10. DOB disputed?

  11. Sex

  12. Nationality Code

  13. Nationality sub group

  14. Reason printed

  15. Asylum/Non Asylum

  16. Place of original issue

  17. Date of original issue

  18. Next report date

  19. Card Issue No.

  20. Card Serial Number

  21. Photo Image

  22. Fingerprint template

  23. Issuing Officer

  24. Fingerprints taken?

  25. Number of dependants

  26. Dependant of

  27. Language 1

  28. Language 2

  29. Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker Child (UASC)—Responsible authority

  30. Employment status.

  All items will be readable by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) officials using portable `QuickCheck' readers. Name, National Asylum Support Service (NASS) Reference Number, Next Report Date and Card Issue Number will also, in due course, be readable by those issuing NASS benefit payments.
  974W
  Application Registration Card data will remain subject to review and change.

  Computer Hacking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish for each Department contributing to the Unified reporting and Alert Scheme for(a) internal hacking and (b) external hacking incidents the number of incidents categorised as (i) access denied, (ii) browsing, (iii) password abuse, (iv) privilege abuse, (v) data stolen/disclosed, (vi) files deleted/damaged, (vii) fraud and (viii) other. [31875]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]Reports are made to the United Incident Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS) by a wide variety of critical national infrastructure organisations, including Government Departments, on an in-confidence basis.

  For the period of 1 January 1999 to 29 January 2002 the totals for reports submitted by Government Departments, not capable of being split between external and internal incidents without disproportionate cost, are:

  Number

  Hacking incidents of all kinds

  13,146

  Browsing

  47

  Password abuse

  11

  Privilege abuse

  30

  Data stolen/disclosed

  10

  Files deleted/damaged

  23

  Access denied

  12,929

  Fraud

  2

  Terrorist Videos
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to prevent the(a) import, (b) copying and (c) distribution of videos similar to those produced by GSPC and available in Finsbury Park mosque; [31965]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the action he proposes to take in relation to the videos produced by GSPC being distributed at Finsbury Park mosque. [31963]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 31 January 2002]I have already made it clear that anyone breaking the law and inciting violence, whether under the provisions of the Terrorism Act, Race Relations Act or the Public Order Act will be prosecuted. Importation of obscene material is an offence under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 makes it a criminal offence to publish any article (including videos) which is considered to be obscene.

  In the first instance it is the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. The Metropolitan police are investigating the content and sale of these videos and are discussing with the Crown Prosecuting Service to determine whether prosecutions are possible.

  Drug Co-ordinator Annual Report
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the next annual report by the drug co-ordinator will be published. [32110]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Following the election last year, responsibility for delivering the National Drugs Strategy transferred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Office will publish a report on progress in the summer.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines the Department issues to police forces on dealing with child prostitution and promoting relevant inter-agency protocols; and if he will make a statement. [32157]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that children involved in prostitution are primarily the victims of abuse and that those adults who take advantage of them whether by pimping or by buying their sexual services, are child abusers.

  We also believe that a multi-agency approach to this problem is needed, including local authority, educational establishments and Area Child Protection Committees as well as the police. We are committed to raising awareness and providing clear guidance to police forces and other relevant agencies.

  The Home Office and the Department of Health published "Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution" in May 2000. This provided guidance on establishing a framework and a protocol for successful multi-agency working.

  The guidance stresses that those under 18 who engage in prostitution are victims and ought to be treated as such. Wherever possible criminal justice action should be pursued against those who directly abuse children through prostitution or seek to exploit them commercially as prostitutes.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for child abuse involved child or youth prostitution in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [32219]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Statistics for convictions for the last 12 months are not yet available.

  More generally, statistics detailing prosecutions for offences related to child abuse do not indicate whether the child victim was commercially sexually exploited or not. The recommendations made by the Sex Offences Review to Government on reforming the law on sex offences were published in "Setting the Boundaries" in July 2000. One of the proposals was to create a new offence of commercial sexual exploitation of a child through prostitution or pornography. We are currently analysing more than 700 responses received during the consultation process.

  Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people had been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 976W
  by 28 January; how many have applied for bail (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully; and if he will make a statement. [32552]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 350W.

  Appeals are proceeding in relation to each of those detained before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission. A directions hearing was held on 28 January and a substantive hearing will be set in due course.

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many covert surveillance operations were authorised in each year from 1999 to date under(a) the Police Act 1997 and (b) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. [32635]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 1093W. In addition the Prison Service Agency has carried out seven intrusive surveillance operation since 22 March 2001. The intelligence services have carried out a number of intrusive surveillance operations or investigations: I do not intend to comment further on these.

  No other records are centrally held of the number of non-intrusive covert surveillance operations authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

  Burglaries (Telford)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded burglaries have taken place in Telford in each year since 1992. [32585]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on numbers of certain offences has been collected centrally at police Basic Command Unit (BCU), and Crime and Disorder Reduction partnership level, since 1 April 1999. The Home Office statistical bulletin "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to March 2001", published on 19 July 2001, shows that in the Telford BCU there were 1,507 burglaries in a dwelling in the year ending March 2000, and 1,065 such offences in the year ending March 2001, a decrease of 29 per cent.

  Fear of Crime
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has commissioned into fear of crime among older people; how actual crime levels compare to perceptions of crime; and what measures his Department is taking to tackle(a) the perception and (b) the reality. [32623]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]The Home Office is in the process of carrying out a research study on how crime and fear of crime affects older people. The findings of this study will be published in due course and will cover prevalence of crime against older people, the reporting of such crime to the police, and repeat victimisation. It will also examine how fear of crime
  977W
  among older people is affected by the area in which they live, by past experiences and by other characteristics and their perceptions of the police and criminal justice system.

  The Home Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) fear of crime target relates specifically to fear of violent crime, burglary and vehicle crime—the categories of crime which are of most concern to the public as measured by the British Crime Survey (BCS). The BCS shows that perceptions of crime do not necessarily follow actual trends in crime. This is particularly the case for older people where the percentage of people who feel it is very or fairly likely that they will be a victim of crime within the next year is significantly higher than the number who actually do become victims.

  A communication strategy is being developed to address this misperception, with key themes identified by research and targeted at geographical areas where fear of crime is greatest and groups of people who fear crime the most.

  The assurance agenda within the police reform programme can also be expected to increase feelings of public safety while the Home Office's Reducing Burglary Initiative includes a number of programmes which will target burglary against the elderly in particular.

  Police
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police officers in Scotland receive a housing allowance. [33120]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]This is a devolved matter for Scottish Ministers.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, columns 355–56W, on Brixton police, which London police stations were not accepting reports of minor crime over the telephone (a) at times during 2001 and (b) between 24 December 2001 and 11 January 2002. [31338]

  Mr. Denham
  I understand that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Extremist Religious Groups
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on levels of recruitment to extremist religious groups; and if he will make a statement. [31342]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The police and the Security Service are aware of the activities of individuals connected with extremist religious groups and the police continue to monitor their statements for any evidence of offences being committed. Particular attention is given to the possibility of any offences under Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 which deals with incitement to racial hatred and other legislation relating to racial hatred.

  The police and the Security Service take all threats seriously and attach a high priority to monitoring and countering any possible activities in the country by foreign extremists. Any credible information is fully
  978W
  investigated. An investigation which yields evidence that an organisation or individuals are supporting terrorism will result in the appropriate action being taken.

  Sex Offenders
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for voluntary chemical castration of habitual sex offenders. [26924]

  Beverley Hughes
  At any one time a small number of sex offenders will be being treated with antilibidinal drugs in prison. Research has shown these drugs to be effective only where libido is an important contributor to a person's offending behaviour. The majority of sex offenders, who act from feelings of rage, power or violence, would not be expected to benefit from this form of treatment.

  Treatment with antilibidinal drugs in prison is initiated only after assessment by, and on the recommendation of, a consultant psychiatrist specialising in the treatment of sex offenders, taking account of the nature of the particular individual's sex offending and whether the likely benefits of treatment outweighed the risks and side effects. Treatment would only go ahead with the informed consent of the prisoner concerned. The specialist would also be expected to advise on arrangements for the continuation of treatment on the prisoner's release, as the drugs need to be taken regularly to maintain their effect.

  The national health service has commissioned a study of the feasibility of undertaking further research on the effectiveness of a different group of drugs in the management of sex offenders in both prison and the community.

  Leicestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are employed in the Leicestershire Constabulary; and on what grade. [31981]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest information available is for 30 September 2001 and is given in the table.

  Rank

  Number of officers

  Chief Constable

  1

  Assistant Chief Constable

  2

  Superintendents

  17

  Chief Inspectors

  20

  Inspectors

  90

  Sergeants

  261

  Constables

  1,671

  Total all ranks

  2,062

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin—Police Service Strength 30 September 2001

  Leicestershire Constabulary also employed 691 civilian support staff on 30 September 2001.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will allocate the money being made available from the Capital Modernisation Fund to Crime and Disorder partnerships in England and Wales to assist small retailers in deprived areas. [34088]
  979W
  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 27 June 2001 the provision of £15 million over three years from the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their businesses. £3 million is available in the 2001–02 financial year, with a further £6 million in both 2002–04.

  This money, which is being spent on schemes identified by regional crime reduction directors, in conjunction with Crime and Disorder Reduction partnerships, will be used to help small retailers to improve security. This will be achieved by employing a variety of interventions, including enhancing the security of individual premises and improving the environment of shopping centres.

  I am now able to announce the specific projects which will receive funding from the 2001–02 allocation. £100,000 of the first year funding of £3 million has been set aside for administration and evaluation. The remaining £2.9 million has been distributed to regions in England and Wales using a straightforward formula based on relevant and readily available information. The formula shares 30 per cent. of funds equally between the nine regions in England and Wales, allocates 30 per cent. based on the proportion of population living in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards and 40 per cent. on levels of recorded crimes which impact most on retailers. The regional allocation of project funds for 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be announced in due course.

  Date of birth

  School year in which teacher will reach age 60

  Number of teachers

  1 September 1941 to 31 August 1942

  1 September 2001 to 31 August 2002

  3,380

  1 September 1942 to 31 August 1943

  1 September 2002 to 31 August 2003

  4,700

  1 September 1943 to 31 August 1944

  1 September 2003 to 31 August 2004

  6,010

  1 September 1944 to 31 August 1945

  1 September 2004 to 31 August 2005

  6,870

  1 September 1945 to 31 August 1946

  1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006

  8,810

  Note:

  The data are provisional.

  Student Teachers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how the decision on the cut-out point for incentive payments to PGCE students was arrived at. [34044]

  Mr. Timms
  Teacher training bursaries were designed to encourage more graduates to apply for and enter courses of initial teacher training from 2000–01 onwards. Consequently, it was decided in March 2000 that those graduates who had commenced training before 1 September 2000, or before 1 September 1999 in the case of those following two-year full-time Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses, would not be eligible for these payments. Following representations from hon. Members and others, my right hon. Friend subsequently announced that, for reasons of equity, eligibility for the training bursaries would be extended to those whose courses had begun before 1 September 2000 and who remained in attendance on 20 April 2001.
  980W
  I have placed in the Library a paper showing the allocation of funds to individual projects. I have also written to hon. Members in England and Wales who have projects in their constituencies.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Qualified Teacher Status
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many newly qualified teachers had failed to achieve the award of qualified teacher status by 31 December 2001. [33427]

  Mr. Timms
  Newly qualified teachers have, by definition, achieved the award of qualified teacher status. However, the Induction Standards include a requirement that teachers who qualified between 1 May 2000 and 30 April 2001 must pass the numeracy skills test before the satisfactory completion of induction. As of 31 December 2001, there were 79 newly qualified teachers who had registered for the numeracy skills test but still had not passed. These teachers have until 31 August 2002 to pass the test.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers will reach the age of 60 in each of the next five school years. [33961]

  Mr. Timms
  The numbers of teachers in regular full-time service in the maintained schools sector in England at 31 March 2000 who will reach the age of 60 in the next five academic years are as follows:

  Tuition Fees
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the sums raised by tuition fees in higher education has been directly remitted to higher education institutions; and if she will make a statement. [31978]

  Margaret Hodge
  Tuition fees, whether paid by students or the taxpayer, are paid directly to higher education institutions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sports Co-ordinators
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the total cost of the school sports co-ordinator programme in 2001–02; and if she will estimate the total cost of the school sports co-ordinator programme in September 2004.
  981W
  Dr. Howells
  Sport England estimate the cost of implementation in 2001–02 to be £15 million.

  Sport England have been allocated £90 million to implement the school sports co-ordinator programme by September 2004, which is supplemented by £19.76 million from the New Opportunities Fund for out of school hours sporting activities run by school sports co-ordinators.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many school sports co-ordinators will be in post by(a) September 2002, (b) September 2003 and (c) September 2004. [28611]

  Dr. Howells
  Sport England estimate there will be 518 school sports co-ordinators in place by September 2002. Sport England are on course to reach the target set for 1,000 school sports co-ordinators by September 2004. The figure of school sports co-ordinators for September 2003 is not possible to predict accurately at this time.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total external spend by her Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by her Department over this period; and if she will make a statement. [31043]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport's total external spend on PFI consultants was: 1998—£27,000; 1999—£45,992; 2000—£20,247; and 2001—£25,759. All of this was incurred by the Royal Parks Agency, which used four consultancy firms. The information relating to the number of full-time equivalent consultants, billed consultancy days and the implied average cost of each consultant could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Golden Jubilee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the state of preparations reached for celebrations between 1 and 4 June for the Queen's Jubilee celebrations. [30705]

  Tessa Jowell
  Preparations for the programme of events that I announced on 3 August 2001, are on schedule. Further announcements will be made about the concerts in Buckingham Palace gardens and the carnival pageant when the final details have been settled.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the objectives of the Golden Jubilee Office and make a statement on its progress in achieving its objectives so far. [31081]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]The Queen's programme is being planned by Buckingham Palace. Working closely with the Palace, the Golden Jubilee Office is liaising with key Government Departments and other organisations in supporting and facilitating the celebrations. The 61 separate initiatives for the celebrations are being delivered effectively through 12 project plans, all of which are on target.
  982W
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the effectiveness and organisation of the planning of the celebration of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. [31605]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]The Queen's programme is being planned by Buckingham Palace. Working closely with the Palace, the Golden Jubilee Office is liaising with key Government Departments and other organisations in supporting and facilitating the celebrations. The 61 separate initiatives for the celebrations are being delivered effectively through 12 project plans, all of which are on target.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken since her appointment to ensure that the Queen's Golden Jubilee is celebrated in a manner that reflect the wishes of the public. [31083]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 28 January 2002]The Government are working closely with Buckingham Palace to facilitate the celebrations for the Queen's Golden Jubilee in a way that embraces the six themes for the jubilee:celebration; giving thanks; service; involving the whole community; looking forward as well as back; and the Commonwealth, while adhering to her wish that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds. It is for local communities to decide how they wish to celebrate the Jubilee.

  To help communities plan their local celebrations, the Golden Jubilee Office has distributed 20,000 Golden Jubilee celebrations toolkits to councils, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, libraries, a wide range of organisations across England, Scotland and Wales and the media. A further 10,000 copies have been subsequently requested. A reprint has been ordered to meet the current high level of demand. In addition, a team of representatives from Buckingham Palace and the Golden Jubilee Office are delivering joint briefings across the United Kingdom. To date, they have briefed over 450 organisations. More briefings are planned.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage local authorities to organise events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the accession of Her Majesty the Queen; and if she will make a statement. [31755]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government are working closely with Buckingham Palace to facilitate the celebrations for the Queen's Golden Jubilee in a way that embraces the six themes for the jubilee: celebration; giving thanks; service; involving the whole community; looking forward as well as back; and the Commonwealth, while adhering to her wish that there should be no undue expenditure from public funds. It is for local communities to decide how they wish to celebrate the Jubilee.

  To help communities plan their local celebrations, the Golden Jubilee Office has distributed 20,000 Golden Jubilee celebrations toolkits to councils, Citizens' Advice Bureaux, libraries, a wide range of organisations across England, Scotland and Wales and the media. A further 10,000 copies have been subsequently requested. A reprint has been ordered to meet the current high level of demand. In addition, a team of representatives from Buckingham Palace and the Golden Jubilee Office are

  983W
  delivering joint briefings across the United Kingdom. To date, they have briefed over 450 organisations. More briefings are planned.

  Invoice Payments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the instances in which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2000–01. [32031]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested on the Department and its agency, the Royal Parks is in the following table:

  DCMS

  The Royal DCMS Parks Agency

  Number of valid invoices paid

  6,125

  4,411

  Number of invoices paid outside 30 days or after the agreed credit period

  62

  249

  Percentage of invoices paid on target

  99

  94

  The Department has 66 non-departmental public bodies and does not keep central records of their invoice payment performance. The details requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visitors
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom in each year from 1998; and if he will make a statement. [32485]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of visits was as follows:

  Thousand

  Year

  Visits from overseas

  1998

  25,745

  1999

  25,394

  2000

  25,209

  Visit numbers fell slightly between 1998 and 2000, but overall these were strong years for inbound tourism to the UK, with a record level of spending by overseas visitors in 2000 of £12.8 billion, compared to £12.7 billion in 1998 and £12.5 billion in 1999. Figures for the full year 2001 are not yet available.

  Seal Watching
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many seal-watching establishments there are in England and Wales; how many visitors are estimated to visit these establishments each 984W
  year; how many people are estimated to work in such establishments each year; and what the total gross revenue per annum of the industry is estimated to be. [32600]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not have the information to answer the questions raised.

  Departmental Secondments (Energy Industry)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [33205]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has seconded no members of staff to these organisations during the periods quoted.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of licensing pubs and clubs to sell alcohol 24 hours a day on residents of the cities of London and Westminster. [33004]

  Dr. Howells
  Our assessment was set out clearly in the White Paper "Time for Reform" (Cm. 4696) published on 10 April 2000. We proposed that the conditions attached to the licences of pubs and clubs should be set locally by the local authority on the basis of the balance of the operator's requirements, resident views, and police and fire authority assessments. To counter and minimise public disorder resulting from fixed closing times, we intend to introduce flexible opening hours as a condition of the licence for each premises, with the potential for some venues to operate up to 24 hour-opening, seven days a week, subject to consideration of the impact on local residents. We intend to implement these proposals by means of primary legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. The changes will beneficial to the police because it will help them cope with late night disorder and reduce crime; for business because it will sweep away red tape and offer them real flexibility; for citizens and visitors to this country alike by creating a safer environment in which they can have greater choice; for families by creating more opportunities for them to spend leisure time together without fear of intimidation or disorder; and for local residents, who will acquire a bigger say in the licensing process which will be properly accountable to them.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Mahmood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will establish an inquiry into the national lottery sales improvement programme, in particular the proposal to remove terminals from retailers with less than £1,500 per week turnover. [33725]

  Dr. Howells
  We have no plans to do so.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what geographical areas statistics on take up of digital television are collated. [33311]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]Take-up figures are not currently available for the regions, but we are currently examining whether useful data may be collected cost effectively.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date the viewers panel established to advise the Government on the consumers' view on digital switchover reported. [33329]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]The Viewers' Panel Report: Digital Decisions: Viewer Choice and Digital Television was submitted to me on 6 December 2001. Copies are in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff were seconded between(a) PWC Consulting and PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Ernst & Young, (c) Deloitte & Touche, (d) KPMG and (e) Andersen and her Department in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) April 2001 to the latest date for which figures are available. [33863]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has seconded no members of staff to these organisations during the periods quoted.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Refrigerator Disposal
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish a diary of events leading to the implementation of the EU Directive on the disposal of refrigerators and freezers; what discussions her Department has had in the last five years with the retail industry on this matter; and if she will make a statement. [33600]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]In 1998, the original European Commission proposal for a regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer (ODS) did not require the recovery and recycling of ODS from the refrigeration equipment unless it was "practicable". An amendment to the article on recovery in the draft regulation was agreed in February 1999 at the EC Environment Council meeting. Between February 1999 and mid-2001, UK officials repeatedly asked the Commission for formal clarification of the position of ODS in the insulating foam of refrigeration equipment. The occasions on which this was raised by the UK and other member states, either directly or implicitly during discussion of items for clarification, are as follows:

  EC Regulation 3093/94 Management Committee meeting, 23 February 1999;

  EC Regulation 3093/94 Management Committee meeting, 11 October 1999;

  EC Regulation 3093/94 Management Committee meeting, 1 March 2000;

  986W

  Margins of the Montreal Protocol meeting in Geneva, July 2000;

  DETR letter to European Commission dated 11 September 2000;

  EC Regulation 2037/2000 Management Committee meeting, 4–6 October 2000;

  DETR letter to European Commission dated 30 January 2001;

  EC Regulation 2037/2000 Management Committee meeting, 13–14 March 2001.

  EC Regulation 2037/2000 Extraordinary Management Committee meeting, 11–12 June 2001;

  EC Regulation 2037/2000 entered into force on 1 October 2000. In June 2001, the European Commission formally clarified that mandatory recovery and recycling also applied to ODS in fridge insulating foam as of 1 January 2002.

  The Department, with assistance from colleagues in DTI, has been in regular contact with the refrigeration retail industry on the effect of legislation. Retailers were represented at refrigeration sector group meetings at which the regulation was discussed.

  Since the middle of last year, the Department has worked closely with retailers and other stakeholders on practical arrangements to deal with the disposal of waste fridges and freezers. Representatives of the retail industry attended several stakeholder meetings and a number of smaller meetings to discuss the impact of the regulation on retailer take-back schemes. We are continuing to work with retailers to identify means to encourage the reinstatement of take-back schemes.

  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding Oxfordshire county council will receive in order to dispose of refrigerators. [33587]

  Mr. Meacher
  £6 million has been added to the provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 for the costs of implementing the ozone depleting substances regulation relating to the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002. This will be distributed to local authorities using standard spending assessments (SSA). The extra money has been added to the upper tier sub-block of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA. We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that.

  Hedgerow Protection
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to revise the legislation on protection of hedgerows. [33652]

  Mr. Meacher
  A consultation document that includes proposals for changes to the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 is in preparation. We hope to issue it shortly.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list for Buckinghamshire by(a) tonnage and (b) percentage, the amount of waste disposal by (i) landfill, (ii) recycling and (iii) incineration in each of the last five years. [30061]
  987W
  Mr. Meacher
  Based on estimates from the Department's Waste Management Survey, the amounts of municipal waste for Buckinghamshire are listed as follows:

  Thousand tonnes

  Landfill

  Percentage

  Recycled

  Percentage

  1996–97

  287.0

  96

  11.4

  4

  1997–98

  216.1

  96

  9.7

  4

  1998–99

  200.1

  94

  12.9

  6

  1999–2000

  206.6

  91

  20.3

  9

  Thousand tonnes

  Incineration

  Percentage

  Total

  1996–97

  0

  0

  298.3

  1997–98

  0

  0

  225.8

  1998–99

  0.3

  less than 0.5

  213.3

  1999–2000

  0.2

  less than 0.5

  227.1

  Notes:

  1. 2000–01 data are currently being collected from local authorities.

  2. Totals and percentages may not add, due to rounding.

  Information, including the amounts of industrial and commercial waste, for Buckinghamshire are published in Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000: South East, Environment Agency. Data are available for one year only and based on estimates from the Environment Agency's National Waste Production Survey.

  Industrial and commercial waste 1998

  Thousand tones

  percentage

  Land disposal

  416

  51

  Land recovery

  1

  less than 0.5

  Re-used

  29

  4

  Recycled

  253

  31

  Thermal

  6

  less than 0.5

  Other

  117

  14

  Total

  822

  100

  Note:

  Totals and percentages may not add, due to rounding.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 859W, on the Rural White Paper, what proportion of the announced funds and schemes, broken down by category, has been spent to date during 2001–02. [33778]

  Alun Michael
  For 2000–01, £80 million has been allocated to local education authorities through the small schools fund, including those covering predominantly rural areas. Information on actual expenditure of the small schools fund for 2001–02 is not available. Local education authorities will return monitoring forms in May, which will give a broad indication for the 2001–02 financial year.

  In 2001–02, £30 million has been allocated (by means of a formula) under the rural policing fund to the 31 rural police authorities. Forces are expected to include in their best value annual policing plan information on how they expect to spend or have spent the additional funds. The
  988W
  Home Office do not routinely keep information on how much has been spent in any financial year—it is a matter for each individual police authority.

  The £2 million Government fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in rural areas came into operation in September 2001. Since then just over £29,000 has been spent on five initiatives.

  The child care figure of 8,728 new places refers to the financial year between April 2000 and March 2001. From April 2001 to September 2001 Cornwall, Devon, Durham and Lincolnshire partnerships have reported the creation of 4,804 child care places. Figures for October to December are not yet available.

  For 2001–02 £62 million has been allocated to improve rural bus services. Up until the end of January £28.8 million had been spent on Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and £8.8 million on Rural Bus Challenge. I understand that the DTLR expect to spend a total of £60 million by the end of the financial year.

  The new Countryside Agency Grant schemes have spent the following up until 31 December 2001: Community Services Grant £597,000; Parish Plans Fund £143,000; and Parish Transport Fund £80,000.

  Information on expenditure and assistance to date on market towns is not currently available.

  Abandoned Cars
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she(a) has taken and (b) plans to take to reduce the number of abandoned cars; and if she will make a statement. [31587]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government recently consulted on a package of measures to help deal with the abandoned vehicles problems. The main proposals were: reducing the notice periods used by local authorities so that abandoned vehicles could be removed more quickly; enabling local authorities to use DVLA's powers to remove unlicensed vehicles and to provide better access for them to DVLA's records; and promoting exchanges of best practice between local authorities with a view to deterring vehicles from being abandoned, bringing forward changes to vehicle registration and licensing procedures to ensure greater accuracy of DVLA's vehicle record.

  The consultation period closed on 31 January and the Government are now considering the responses.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list, by constituency, the number of landfill sites accepting(a) domestic and (b) toxic waste, within a two mile radius of residential property; [32225]

  (2) if she will list, by constituency, the number of domestic residences located within a two mile radius of landfill sites accepting (a) domestic and (b) toxic waste. [32240]
  989W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Department does not hold this information and to collate it would be disproportionately costly.

  The Small Area Health Statistic Unit study on "Health Outcomes in Populations Living Around Landfill Sites" published last year found that about 80 per cent. of the population of Great Britain lived within 2 km of a landfill site. However, the majority of these sites are closed and therefore are no longer accepting any waste for disposal. This figure includes sites that accept both special (hazardous) waste and non-special waste or have taken such wastes in the past.

  Carbon Trust
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the work programme is of the Carbon Trust; and if she will make a statement. [33352]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Carbon Trust is setting up a range of initiatives to accelerate the take up of cost effective, low-carbon technologies and measures in the non-domestic sector. The strategy is published on the Carbon Trust's website www.thecarbontrust.co.uk.

  The Carbon Trust is currently preparing a business plan outlining programme work for the next financial year.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has for the provision of free farm business and environmental assessment advice by her Department on Common Agricultural Policy support for individual farms; what plans she has to increase environmental and rural development scheme funding via the redirection of CAP subsidy payments; and if she will make a statement. [33382]

  Alun Michael
  The report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food has made recommendations both on the provision of free farm business and environmental assessment advice and increasing funding for agri-environment schemes by increasing the rate of modulation of CAP subsidy payments. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when the report was launched on Tuesday 29 January, the Government will publish their strategy for sustainable farming, in response to the report, in the summer.

  UK Nuclear Plants
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the levels of radioactive contamination are around UK nuclear plants; and what the best safety distance is. [25249]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no simple, direct relationship between the dose arising from any radioactive discharges from UK nuclear plants and proximity to them. All radioactive discharges from UK nuclear plants are well within the national and international limit of 1 millisievert a year. In setting discharge limits, the Environment Agency has to be sure that no one would be exposed to a dose from man-made sources of ionising radiation greater than this. (There are separate dose limits for a single site and for a single new source of ionising radiation of 990W
  0.5 and 0.3 millisieverts respectively). There are no cases in the UK where any of these limits are breached. In all cases the most exposed members of the public receive a dose which is considerably below the appropriate limit.

  The Environment Agency has recently published its report "Radioactivity in the Environment Report for 2000". This is the latest in a series of such reports and contains a summary and radiological assessment of the agency's monitoring programmes.

  The principal conclusions were that discharges of radioactivity into the environment reported by the operators of the major sites during 2000 were well below the authorised discharge levels; concentrations of radionuclides in water, sediment, soil and grass were broadly similar to those in previous years; activity concentrations in air, rain, and sources of drinking water remained low during 2000; and all the estimated doses from radionuclides in sediment, soil and water were below the public dose limit and in many cases the estimated doses were much less than 1 per cent. of the dose limit.

  Foot and Mouth
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to review the existing contingency plans for foot and mouth disease. [34740]

  Margaret Beckett
  An interim operational contingency plan is being prepared, based on current policy and experience of the recent disease outbreak, and building on existing relationships with other Government Departments and stakeholders. The plan in no way seeks to prejudge the outcomes of the official inquiries, but is a sensible interim response. It codifies and pulls together the operational response regime that was developed during the recent outbreak to compliment the existing strategic framework and the detailed veterinary guidance and instructions.

DEFENCE

  Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers were(a) sent to and (b) withdrawn from Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; what plans he has for the further reduction of army presence; what provisions have been made for the return of military personnel; and if he will make a statement. [31630]

  Mr. Ingram
  The level of armed forces personnel in Northern Ireland fluctuates throughout the year depending on the security situation. I have therefore based the answer on the number of personnel under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI) at 31 December in each of the last five years:

  As at 31 December

  Number of armed force personnel

  1997

  17,183

  1998

  16,824

  1999

  15,910

  2000

  15,112

  991W

  As at 31 December

  Number of armed force personnel

  2001

  14,551

  These figures include those troops stationed in Northern Ireland as well as those troops under the command of the GOC NI that are rear based in Great Britain and can be called forward to the Province as and when required. In addition, other troops can be made available to the GOC NI from Land Command if required, for example, during the height of the summer marching season.

  The armed forces are in support of the police who have primacy for security and liaison between the PSNI and the Army which ensures military support is kept under review and at the right level. When it is assessed that the level of threat has reduced sufficiently, consideration will be given to further reductions in the number of armed force personnel based in the Province. Should it be assessed that the level of threat has increased, consideration will be given to returning military personnel that are currently rear based.

  Scottish Barracks
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to alter barrack accommodation in Scotland; and where these alterations are located. [32449]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]Plans to alter or expand barrack accommodation in Scotland were included in the Single Living Accommodation improvements that were announced by the Secretary of State on 14 March 2001.

  On current plans the programme in Scotland includes an investment of around £170 million in 5,200 bed-spaces in the period 2002–10. 11 service establishments are involved: HMNB Clyde, HMS Caledonia Rosyth and RM Condor Arbroath, the Army barracks at Edinburgh Castle, Craigie Hall and Glencorse, and the RAF stations at Kinloss, Lossiemouth, Saxa ford, Leuchars and Buchan.

  The bed-spaces will be delivered by prime contracts, including the new Defence Estates Regional Prime Contract for Scotland, which is expected to be awarded in autumn 2002.

  No-fly Zones (Iraq)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions(a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have (i) detected violations of the no-fly zones, (ii) a direct threat to coalition aircraft and (iii) released ordnance, in each quarter since January 1999 to date stating for each quarter the tonnage of ordnance released; in percentage terms what has been (A) the nature of the violation detected, (B) the nature of the threat detected and (C) the category of target attacked; and if he will make a statement. [31015]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is as follows:

  (i) The numbers of southern NFZ violations by quarter since January 1999 are:
  992W

  1999

  2000

  2001

  First quarter

  35

  3

  3

  Second quarter

  9

  0

  2

  Third quarter

  6

  4

  4

  Fourth quarter

  3

  1

  1

  Total

  53

  8

  10

  No-fly zone (NFZ) violations can be detected in several ways, including by tactical aircraft. 100 per cent. of violations were incursions into the NFZ by Iraqi military aircraft.

  (ii) We do not hold information in the form requested about recorded threats prior to 2000. In 2000 and 2001 coalition aircraft recorded threats on a total of 918 occasions. Reports from UK aircraft indicated that they were threatened or attacked as follows, by quarter:

  2000

  2001

  First quarter

  4

  73

  Second quarter

  8

  71

  Third quarter

  36

  45

  Fourth quarter

  28

  15

  Total

  76

  204

  In 2000 and 2001, 7 per cent. of the total were radar threats; 6 per cent. were attacks by surface-to-air missiles; and 87 per cent. others, primarily attacks by anti-aircraft guns.

  (iii) The tonnage of ordnance released by coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, by quarter, is as follows.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Coalition

  UK

  Coalition

  UK

  Coalition

  UK

  First quarter

  120.5

  31.5

  35

  3.5

  50.5

  8.5

  Second quarter

  79

  21

  45.5

  6

  11.5

  2.5

  Third quarter

  135

  23.5

  42.5

  5

  39

  13

  Fourth quarter

  45

  12.5

  32

  6

  6

  1

  Total

  379.5

  88.5

  155

  20.5

  107

  25

  100 per cent. of ordnance released was in self-defence responses by coalition aircraft against military targets in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, since January 1999, coalition aircraft patrolling the(a) northern and (b) southern no-fly zones in Iraq have hit targets that were different from the intended target, stating in each case (i) the nature of the intended target, (ii) the nature of the actual target hit, (iii) the estimated number of civilians killed and (iv) the reason why the unintended target was hit; and if he will make a statement. [31016]

  Mr. Ingram
  All targets attacked in self defence by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones are military elements of the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System.

  On the rare occasions where ordnance has failed to hit the intended target, it has almost invariably landed on open ground. It is extremely difficult to assess collateral damage, or numbers of civilian casualties caused by the remainder, despite the painstaking Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) that the coalition carries out every time ordnance is released. However, it is possible to

  993W
  demonstrate categorically that many of the Iraqi claims of collateral damage and civilian casualties are untrue. There have, for example, been several instances when Iraqis have claimed civilian casualties when coalition aircraft have not been flying, or when BDA has confirmed that only military targets were hit. Indeed, there is good evidence that, on several occasions where Saddam has made claims of civilian casualties, it has been caused by Iraqi artillery shells or missiles, recklessly fired at coalition aircraft, falling to earth in built up areas.

  In all cases of failure to hit the intended target by ordnance released from UK aircraft, the failure was caused by ordnance malfunction. We do not hold information for coalition partners.

  Coalition aircraft only attack military targets in self-defence. We make every effort to select targets and to employ precision guided munitions in order to minimise the possibility of collateral damage and civilian casualties. Despite these efforts, regrettably, on occasions civilians may have suffered as a result of coalition activity. However, this would be completely avoided if the Iraqis desisted from attacking coalition aircraft.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of changes to the nature and strength of Iraqi air defences since January 1998; whether improvements to the Iraqi air defence system constitute a threat to coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones; what contribution strikes against Iraqi air defences by coalition aircraft in response to violation of the no-fly zones have made to his assessment; and if he will make a statement. [31017]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since January 1998, Saddam has continually sought to upgrade his air defence system. Developments since January 1998 include increased use of digital technology and greater mobility and dispersal of radars and weapons.

  Its capability is very carefully monitored to assess the impact of any changes on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The danger to our aircraft is demonstrated by the fact that the Iraqi air defence system has threatened coalition aircraft on around 1,000 occasions over the last two years. The coalition has on occasion responded purely in self-defence using high precision weapons against elements of the Iraqi Air Defence System. There is no doubt these self-defence responses do have an impact in terms of reducing the threat posed to aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Other important initiatives, including the UN-sponsored arms embargo on Iraq, also have an impact on the capability of Saddam' s air defence infrastructure.

  As long as the Iraqis persist in attempts to shoot down our aircraft, the coalition will continue to take action in self-defence to ensure the safety of our aircrew.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what activities are deemed violations of the no-fly zones in Iraq; from what date every such activity has been deemed to be a violation; what changes have been made to the definition of a violation of the no-fly zones since January 1998; what changes have been made to authorised reaction to any particular violation since January 1998; and if he will make a statement. [31013]

  Mr. Ingram
  A violation of the no-fly zones is defined as entry into a zone by Iraqi military aircraft. These activities have been considered violations since the 994W
  inception of the zones, in April 1991 (north) and August 1992 (south) respectively. There have been no material changes to this definition since January 1998.

  From time to time minor adjustments are made to the authorised self-defence responses to violations of the no-fly zones. I am withholding details for reasons of operational security in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, the basis for any coalition response—self-defence—remains unchanged.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what activities are deemed to be threats to coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones in Iraq; from what date every such activity has been deemed to be a threat; what changes have been made to the definition of a threat in the no-fly zone since January 1998; what changes have been made to the authorised reaction to any particular threat since January 1998; and if he will make a statement. [31014]

  Mr. Ingram
  Threats to coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq include attacks from Iraqi aircraft, Anti-Aircraft Artillery and/or Surface To Air Missile fire, and acquisition by radar. These activities have been considered threats since the inception of the zones, in April 1991 (north) and August 1992 (south) respectively.

  Detailed procedures governing the operations conducted by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones are reviewed and amended from time to time. I am withholding details for reasons of operational security under Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. But there have been no fundamental changes to the definition of a threat justifying a response in self defence since January 1998.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total external spend by his Department was on Private Finance Initiative consultants in each of the last four years; how many full-time equivalent consultants were employed over this period; how many billed consultancy days there were per year; what the implied average cost of each PFI consultant was; how many consultancy firms were used by his Department over this period; and if he will make a statement. [31044]

  Mr. Ingram
  The recorded expenditure on External Assistance specifically in support of PPP/PFI projects in the financial year 2000–01 was £42.67 million. This information was not recorded as a discrete category in the preceding three years.

  The recorded number of consultancy companies used by the Ministry of Defence over the last four years in support of PPP/PFI projects is 52, which includes 18 firms providing legal advice.

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. More general information is published in the Ministry of Defence's "External Assistance—Expenditure" report; copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32010]

  Dr. Moonie
  Our current estimate is that civilian salary costs and pension contributions will account for 11.5 per cent. of departmental spending.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the most senior serving officer in the Territorial Army; and when he was appointed to his post. [31803]

  Dr. Moonie
  The most senior serving officer in the Territorial Army (TA), by virtue of the date he was appointed, is Brigadier the Duke of Westminster OBE, TD, DL. His appointment is Brigadier AG HQ and his seniority date is 17 January 2000. The Brigadier serving in the most senior TA appointment is however, Brigadier J. R. Thomson, TD, ADC, BA (Hon), MBA, MIMGT, MCIM. His appointment is Brigadier Private Office, Headquarters Land Command and his seniority date is 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the latest actual strength of the TA by unit and location set against its establishment. [33086]

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

  Armed Forces (Outflow)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net outflow was of(a) officers and (b) other ranks from the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Navy, (iii) Royal Air Force and (iv) Royal Marines in 2001. [31805]

  Mr. Ingram
  The net flow for officers and other ranks over the last 12 months is as follows:

  Strength as at

  1 December 2000

  1 December 2001

  Net flow over 12 months

  Naval Service

  Officers

  7,714

  7,753

  39

  Other ranks

  34,791

  34,037

  -754

  Army

  Officers

  13,844

  13,894

  50

  Other ranks

  95,531

  95,627

  96

  RAF

  Officers

  11,007

  10,833

  -174

  Other ranks

  43,200

  42,346

  -854

  Notes:

  Naval Service includes both Royal Navy and Royal Marines.

  Figures are for UK regular forces (including both trained and untrained personnel), and therefore excludes Gurkhas, full-time reserve service personnel, the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, mobilised reservists and activated reservists.

  Warships
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the trade unions' submission to his Modernising Warship Maintenance Initiative. [32413]

  Mr. Ingram
  The proposals from the trade unions have been analysed in detail and the results are being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Secretary of State plans to meet representatives of the trade unions shortly, before he reaches a decision on the way ahead.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans have been made for the use of HMS Invincible once she has been withdrawn from service; and if he will make a statement. [32134]

  Mr. Ingram
  No plans have yet been made for the use of HMS Invincible after she is withdrawn from Royal Navy service, which is expected to be towards the end of this decade. Arrangements for her final disposal will be established nearer that time after a careful examination of the most cost beneficial options.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the in-service date for HMS Bulwark will be met; if the construction cost increased during the pre-launch stage; what the final cost of the construction and fitting out stages was; what caused the increases in cost; and if he will make a statement. [32159]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is every confidence that HMS Bulwark's expected in-service date of December 2003 will be achieved. All opportunities are being taken in close consultation with the prime contractor, BAES Marine Barrow-in-Furness, to ensure that there is no slip to the vessels's programme acceptance date. There have been no cost increases during the pre-launch stage. The final construction cost of HMS Bulwark including the fitting out stages is expected to be of the order of £186 million at contract price basis.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of maintaining HMS Invincible once she is out of service; and if he will make a statement. [32133]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Invincible is not planned to leave service until towards the end of this decade. It is too early to determine the costs of any maintenance after the vessel has left service.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the training requirements of RAF pilots for the Eurofighter; what plans there are to use the Hawk 127 system for training; and if he will make a statement. [32135]

  Mr. Ingram
  The training requirements of all fast jet pilots, including the Eurofighter, are currently being assessed as part of the UK Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS) project. The project is examining the flying training needs of all three services and covers training from entry into formal flying training until arrival at the operational conversion unit. Training Needs Analyses (TNAs) have been carried out to identify the training requirements of Eurofighter pilots once they
  997W
  reach their Operational Conversion Unit. Courses are being designed to ensure their specific training needs are fully met. For UK MFTS, Hawk 127 is one of a number of options for a future advanced fast jet training aircraft. No decisions have yet been made.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions his Department has had with its US counterparts concerning Sandia National Laboratory's refurbishment programme for the W76 nuclear package and its arming, fusing and firing mechanism; [32711]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with its counterparts in the US concerning development of the W76–1 warhead; and if he will make a statement. [32710]

  Dr. Moonie
  Staff from the Defence Procurement Agency's Nuclear Weapons Team hold discussions with their US counterparts as a matter of routine. Conducted under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement and the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended for Trident, the discussions cover all issues of mutual interest, including work on the US W76 warhead, relevant to the safety and reliability of the UK's Trident warhead.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected service life is for the Mk-4 re-entry vehicle for the Trident D5 missile; and if his Department has plans to extend it. [32713]

  Mr. Ingram
  The service life for the UK's Re-entry Assembly (RBA) has been assessed as sufficient, with periodic refurbishment as necessary, to satisfy the needs of the Trident programme as defined in the Strategic Defence Review. As with other key military capabilities, studies into options for obtaining the optimum service life and value for money are undertaken as a matter of routine.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of work conducted for the UK Trident programme in the past year by(a) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, (b) Los Alamos National Laboratory and (c) Sandia National Laboratory. [29956]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence contracts with the Department of Energy (DoE) and the Department of Defense rather than direct with the US national laboratories and, as a result, the costs associated with the individual laboratories are not held by the MOD. However, the DoE has provided the following figures for expenditure on the UK Trident programme in US fiscal year 2001, which runs from 1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001:

  $

  £

  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

  0

  0

  Los Alamos National Laboratory

  401,586

  249,649

  Sandia National Laboratory

  2,343,384

  1,456,785

  Note:

  Average rate of $1.6086/£1 used for conversion.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Trident D5A missiles his Department intends to purchase. [32712]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. We have purchased 58 Trident II (D5) missiles and have no plans to purchase any more.

  Chinook
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the fleet of Boeing CH-47D Chinook helicopters is due to be replaced; and what interest the United Kingdom has in the Franco-German award of a study contract to Boeing for a jumbo Chinook. [33017]

  Dr. Moonie
  The CH-47D Chinook helicopters in service with the British armed forces comprise the Chinook Mark 2 and the Chinook Mark 2a variants. The out of service date of the Chinook Mark 2 is the middle of the next decade, but we are looking at the possibility of extending its life. The Chinook Mark 2a is expected to remain in service until the mid 2030s.

  We maintain a keen interest in defence-related technological developments and possibilities for collaboration with Allies on procurement projects. However, we do not currently foresee a requirement for a 'jumbo' Chinook.

  Aircraft (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of the working day of aircrews in C130Ks operational in Afghanistan. [33097]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently C130K aircrews are working an average of around 10 hours per day.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C130Js and C130Ks from RAF Lyneham are operational in Afghanistan; how many of them are deployable; and how many are undergoing repair. [33096]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 4 February there were eight C130Ks from RAF Lyneham flying into Afghanistan. All of the aircraft are currently serviceable, and undergo routine maintenance. NO C130Js are currently engaged on operations into Afghanistan.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 130Ks in Afghanistan have defensive aids suites. [33098]

  Mr. Ingram
  All C130Ks operating into Afghanistan are provided with defensive aids. Details vary but for all flights into Afghanistan self protection measures are adequate against the perceived threat.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Airline Disinfectants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) the commercial airline flights arriving or departing in the United Kingdom that use pesticide disinfectants, (b) the commercial flights arriving or departing the United Kingdom that require pesticide disinfectants, (c) the different methods used to apply pesticide disinfectants to commercial aircraft arriving or departing in the United Kingdom, (d) the monitoring procedures in place governing the use of pesticides applied to international flights arriving in the United Kingdom and (e) which flights arriving or departing within the United Kingdom use the chemical permthrin as a pesticide disinfectant. [25214]
  999W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 January 2002]I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Open Skies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if it is his policy to pursue an open skies agreement with the US prior to the European Court ruling on such agreements; [30028]

  (2) what his policy is on securing access to the domestic US market for UK cargo airlines as part of an open skies agreement. [30027]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 4 February 2002,Official Report, columns 727–28W.

  Railway Land Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much ex-railway land has been sold in each of the last five years. [30746]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not readily available in the form requested. However, I understand that 218 sites have been sold by the British Railways Board and BRB (Residuary Ltd.) under the revised guidelines implemented when the moratorium imposed on the sale of non-operational railway land was lifted in September 1999. The sale of operational railway land is a commercial matter for Railtrack, and other privatised companies owning such land.

  Lancet Report
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will suspend implementation of the decision of the Planning Inspectorate with regard to the land between Harris drive and Netherton way, Bootle, Merseyside until the Government's investigation has concluded, following the Lancet report on landfill sites of 26 January. [31639]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 30 January 2002]It is not possible for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to suspend implementation of the planning appeal decision to allow the landfill of derelict land between Harris drive and Netherton way, Bootle. This case was transferred to an inspector and his decision is final unless it is successfully challenged in the High Court on a point of law. Two local residents have made such a challenge and the whole matter is now sub judice.

  Council Rents
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what real terms percentage increase in each year he predicts for formula rents for council tenants in York local authority until 2011; [32033]

  (2) what real terms percentage increase in each year he predicts for formula rents for council tenants in Selby local authority until 2011. [32034]
  1000W
  Ms Keeble
  The underlying rate of increase of formula rents will be the same for all local authorities. In 2002–03, we predict that the average rate of increase in real terms for formula rents for council tenants will be 1 per cent. Taking into account the policy that registered social landlord rents increases should be limited to RPI plus ½ per cent. a year, it is likely that local authority formula rents will have to rise by an average of about 1½ per cent. a year in real terms over the next 10 years to achieve Ministers' intention that similar rents should be charged for similar council and housing association properties by 2012. This is about half the average rate of council rent increases over the last 10 years.

  However, the precise path of social rents over the next 10 years will depend, among other things, on the outcomes of future spending reviews and the decisions taken by individual landlords who retain responsibility for rent setting.

  Rail Passengers (Woodlesford)
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the new train operating franchise for trains operating on the Castleford to Leeds line will provide for sufficient capacity to allow passengers to and from Woodlesford to travel in comfort. [32221]

  Mr. Spellar
  The terms of extension of Arriva Train Northern's franchise to February 2003 included a commitment to procure 18 additional vehicles. On expiry this franchise will be replaced by two new franchises, Northern and TransPennine Express. The Strategic Rail Authority will be expecting to secure further improvements in capacity and new rolling stock in these franchise negotiations.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, columns 532–33W, on targets for improving the reliability of train services, what enforcement actions can be taken upon train operating companies if they fail to meet targets; upon which train operating companies enforcement action has been taken as a result of a failure to meet performance targets; and what the dates and the nature of the enforcement were. [32417]

  Mr. Spellar
  Franchise agreements provide for a special call-in meeting where performance in any four-week period falls below the pre-set thresholds. Call-in meetings are formal and give the Strategic Rail Authority the chance to investigate with the operator the causes or the problem and remedial measures. Three call-ins in three years may be deemed a breach of the franchise agreement. Particularly poor performance in a period can lead straight to a breach, or, in extreme circumstances, to default upon which the authority can terminate the agreement. Enforcement action under section 55 of the Railways Act is available where breaches occur. The authority's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library of the House, list the breaches of franchise agreements registered in the year and the action taken.

  Housing (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to agree with the London borough of Wandsworth that in all housing developments taking place within the borough there will be an agreed percentage of affordable housing built for local people. [32903]

  Ms Keeble
  We have made our views known to the London borough of Wandsworth on this matter for some time and have objected to the absence of an adequate affordable housing policy in the current unitary development plan review. Where schemes have been drawn to our attention we have issued Article 14 "holding" directions, to give us time to consider whether insufficient regard has been had to affordable housing needs, and we will continue to do this. In at least one of four recent schemes, the applicant has revised the scheme to include a percentage (25 per cent.) of affordable housing. We are monitoring closely the other three schemes to see if there is a case for calling them in for public inquiry.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has undertaken of the need for safety barriers on roads adjacent to railway embankments. [32773]

  Mr. Spellar
  General guidance on the provision and location of safety barriers is centrally reviewed in the light of accident statistics and the safety performance of the road network. A special review was carried out after the incident at Selby of nearside safety barriers. It is the responsibility of the highway authority regularly to review the safety of the road network in general and at specific locations such as roads adjacent to railways.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many homes in(a) the City of Westminster and (b) the City of London were valued in each of the council tax bands in 1991; and if he will estimate the numbers that would be in each band based on current market valuations. [33008]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Ever since the introduction of the council tax in 1993, dwellings have been allocated to council tax bands on the basis of their estimated values as at 1 April 1991. The following table gives figures for the City of Westminster and the City of London, as used for the first and most recent years of operation of the council tax. There are likely to have been several reasons for the changes between 1992 and 2001. These include the demolition or construction of dwellings, movements to lower bands as a result of successful appeals, the splitting or merging of dwellings, and the conversion of domestic dwellings into non-domestic properties, and vice versa.

  Valuation for council tax purposes as at 1 April 1991

  Number as at:

  Band

  December 1992

  16 October 2001

  City of Westminster

  A

  1,161

  1,486

  B

  2,845

  6,043

  C

  12,426

  15,364

  D

  20,160

  12,249

  1002W

  Valuation for council tax purposes as at 1 April 1991

  Number as at:

  Band

  December 1992

  16 October 2001

  E

  20,370

  20,292

  F

  15,436

  14,891

  G

  20,494

  20,033

  H

  13,829

  13,214

  Total

  106,721

  112,572

  City of London

  A

  0

  9

  B

  119

  238

  C

  207

  629

  D

  518

  734

  E

  1,245

  1,747

  F

  323

  835

  G

  507

  794

  H

  66

  91

  Total

  2,985

  5,077

  No estimate is available of the number of homes that would be in each council tax band based on current market valuations.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate for(a) the City of Westminster and (b) the City of London the change in council tax yield if domestic properties were assigned council tax properties on the basis of current market value rather than 1991 values. [33007]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have no information on which to make an accurate estimation of the change in council tax yield should domestic properties in Westminster and the City of London be re-valued at current market prices.

  Skateboarding
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the councils that have by-laws which restrict the use of skateboards in(a) town or city centres and (b) other areas; if he will list the councils that have skateboard parks; and how many prosecutions have taken place of skateboarders by local councils. [33001]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Baldock Bypass
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress on the construction and funding of the Baldock bypass. [32300]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 1 February 2002]The Baldock bypass was originally proposed by Hertfordshire county council to be funded through the private finance initiative. However, in re-evaluating the scheme Hertfordshire decided that conventional funding would be the best method of procurement and agreed to provide a revised estimate of costs involved.

  In order to ensure the most cost effective method of procurement and value for money for public resources we are currently discussing with Hertfordshire the details of the funding package for the scheme. We hope to be able to reach agreement on this in the very near future.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list his Department's total expenditure by month in each financial year since 1997–98.

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 692W.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of his Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32825]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Following the Performance and Innovation Unit report on active ageing, "Winning the Generation Game", DTLR is currently considering its retirement policy. Information on the current retirement ages for my Department and for the executive agencies are as follows:Grades listed at1 (5,600 to 5,650 members of staff)—normal retirement age of 65.
  Bands 3 up to 7 (and equivalents) and those not covered by the previous Grades (ie EO, HEO, SEO, G7, G6 and equivalents) (11,520 to 11,600 members of staff)—normal retirement age of 60.
  Senior Civil Servants (195 to 215 members of staff)—normal retirement age of 60.

  There are the following exceptions:
  Subject to the terms and conditions when they joined DTLR, there is a "short -;service concession" for most non-senior civil servants in Bands 3 and above with less than 20 years accumulated service to continue to work until they reach 20 years or age 65, whichever is the earlier. This is not available to Air Accident Inspectors, or those who became Crown employees working in the former Department of Transport after 31 March 1997.
  The Department may also invite staff to stay beyond the normal retirement age but not beyond age 70.

  Variations within the agencies

  The following executive agencies have these variations:
  Driving Standards Agency: Senior Driving Examiners and Supervising Driving Examiners have a normal retirement age of 63 (circa 300 staff); at present, to stay until 65 they would have to revert to Driving Examiners (circa 600 staff).
  The Fire Service College: Industrial staff have a retirement age of 65 (30 staff).
  The Planning Inspectorate: Planning Inspectors re-employed on flexible short-term contracts up to a maximum age of 65 (30 staff).
  The QEII Conference Centre: Normal retirement age of 60 for all staff (49 staff).
  The Rent Service: Those staff transferred under TUPE protection from their local Government employer have remained within the Local Government Pension Scheme. They may retire at age 65, although the scheme does allow them to retire at 60 should they so wish.
  Vehicle Inspectorate: Industrial employees Band 1 (Tester/Handy Person) in post by 1 May 1994 and over 50 can remain until 65. In other cases the retirement age is 60, with the exception of a short service concession for Band I Testers and Band 2 A VEs provided they were in post prior to 31 March 1997 (169 staff).
  1004W
  Flexible retirement

  Offers of compulsory or flexible early retirement. or approved early retirement, are made at management discretion and depend on the operational needs of the Department.

  1Notes:

  Crown employees who worked in the former Department of the Environment

  Administrative Assistant

  Administrative Officer

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Chief Typing Manager

  Communication Officer

  Communication Officer II

  Communication Officer III

  Communication Officer IV

  Personal Secretary

  Process and General Supervisory Grades

  Senior Personal Secretary

  Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent Custody Guards

  Support Manager I

  Support Manager II

  Support Manager III

  Support Grade I

  Support Grade II

  Support Grade IIA

  Technical Grade 1 and 2

  Trainee Typist

  Typing Manager

  Typist

  Crown employees who worked in the former Department of Transport

  Administrative Assistant

  Administrative Officer

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  Chief Typing Manager

  Civil Engineer (SPTO and below)

  Personal Secretary

  Process and General Supervisory Grade D

  Process and General Supervisory Grade E

  Senior Personal Secretary

  SGB2 (Cleaner—less than 10 hours weekly)

  Stores Officer Grade D

  Support Grade 1

  Support Grade 2

  Support Grade 2A

  Support Manager 1

  Support Manager 2

  Support Manager 3

  Teleprinter operator

  Typing Manager

  Typist and Trainee Typist

  Chancellor of the Exchequer
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide details of the subjects discussed at meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the weekend of 26 and 27 January; and what outcomes emerged from such discussions. [33724]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about any such discussion is exempt from disclosure under Section 2 Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  A36
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the plans he has for detrunking the A36 through west Wellow. [33629]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State confirmed in December 2000 that the A36/A46 route was to remain non-core, and would be detrunked in due course. Negotiations on detrunking between the Highways Agency and the local highway authorities commenced early in 2001. However, the South West Regional Assembly placed a holding objection to detrunking, pending the outcome of a further study into the management of the route and the traffic problems in Bath. This study, entitled the "Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study" is to be commissioned shortly, and is due to report at the end of 2002. Detrunking negotiations are therefore likely to be on hold until early 2003.

  Railtrack
  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 320W, ref 30241, from which budget within the SRA these costs are being drawn; if these funds are directly or indirectly provided (a) in part or (b) in total by public funds and on what legal basis the SRA is financing the bid costs. [33408]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 4 February 2002]The costs are being met by the SRA through its existing public funds. The SRA is exercising its functions in accordance with its statutory duties to secure the development of the railway network and to promote its use and will ensure a viable bid is put to the administrator.

  M6
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his plans are for widening the M6 motorway; and if he will make a statement. [33664]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have set up a multi-modal study to consider the transport issues of the M6 corridor. The Steering Group for the study has presented the outline recommendations to the Regional Planning Bodies for the West Midlands and North West Regions, who will consider them as part of the Regional Planning Guidance and their Regional Transport Strategy. We expect the Regional Planning Bodies to submit their recommendations to the Minister in the spring. The Secretary of State will make a statement after this date.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to extend the eligibility for transport action PowerShift grants for converting cars over five years old to use LPG. [33622]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the changes we announced last year on the future shape of the PowerShift programme, grants towards the cost of conversion to LPG have been made available for vehicles up to five years old for which quality LPG conversions are available. We have no plans 1006W
  to extend grants to cars over five years old, both because they provide fewer years of environmental benefits, and because the emissions improvements from gas conversions of older vehicles tend to be less certain.

  Inner-City Regeneration
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage regeneration in inner city areas. [33738]

  Ms Keeble
  Deprivation is so ingrained in some inner city areas that only long-term regeneration programmes rooted in the needs and aspirations of local people, can make a significant impact on these areas.

  A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan which was launched by the Prime Minister in January 2001 recognises this. The national strategy is a new long-term initiative which aims to deliver neighbourhood renewal—the process of delivering real change to England's most deprived areas. The Government's vision is reflected in its goal: to narrow the gap between deprived neighbourhoods and the rest, so that within 10 to 20 years, no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing, and better health to the poorest parts of the country.

  This approach will focus main Government programmes explicitly on deprived areas, many of which are located in inner city areas, and will require local people and public and private sectors to work in partnership. The strategy is being spearheaded by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, a cross-cutting unit based in DTLR and staffed by officials from across Whitehall and the public sector, with secondees from the private and voluntary sectors.

  In addition, the regional development agencies are providing support to deprived urban areas through the Single Regeneration Budget and physical regeneration programmes. In April 2002, the RDA's new single programme will include working with LSPs and other stakeholders to tackle poverty and social exclusion through promoting economic development in the most deprived areas.

  Concessionary Travel Schemes
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many local authorities in England and Wales provide concessionary travel schemes for public transport for(a) pensioners, (b) the blind, (c) the disabled, (d) children aged under 16 years and (e) 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education. [33556]

  Ms Keeble
  The Transport Act 2000 requires that from 1 June 2001 all local authorities provide their resident pensioners, blind and disabled people with at least half-fares on local buses. Local authorities suing their discretionary powers may also provide concessionary travel for children aged under 16 years, and for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to introduce a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents; and if he will make a statement. [33523]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a subject which my Department has addressed in the context of the Cabinet Office's review of "The Future of Emergency Planning in England and Wales". One of the proposals for consideration under that review is that existing emergency planning legislation be replaced with a new statutory duty for emergency planning. The result of the review is awaited.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) local government associations and (b) individual local authorities concerning the introduction of a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents. [33525]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since the beginning of 1998, my Department has received representations arguing for the introduction of a statutory duty on coastal local authorities to plan for or undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents from:(a) the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljoorganisasjon); and (b) Aberdeenshire council, Ceredigion county council, Devon county council, Dumfries and Galloway council, Dundee city council, Fife council, Pembrokeshire county council, Purbeck district council, Shetland Islands council, South Ayrshire council and the Tyne and Wear Emergency Planning Unit.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on local authorities of(a) the recommendations of the "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" report of 1995 and (b) the Sea Empress incident in West Wales in 1996. [33527]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government's action to address the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's 1994 report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" following the sinking of the oil tanker Braer off Shetland in 1993, and the further reviews following the grounding of the Sea Empress on rocks in the entrance to Milford Haven in 1996 (the report of the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee, and the report of Lord Donaldson's Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control) has necessarily involved consideration of the role of, and impacts on, local authorities. This process has culminated, after a wide-ranging review which included local authorities and local authority associations, in the publication in February 2000 of the UK's revised "National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations", which sets out how the relevant agencies and authorities in the UK will respond to such incidents.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if 1008W
  he will publish his Department's contribution to the Cabinet Office's review of the future of emergency planning. [33755]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am advised that copies of all the responses to the Emergency Planning Review will be placed in the House of Commons Library soon, and that a summary of the responses to the Emergency Planning Review will be put on the Cabinet Office website within the same time scale. There are no plans to publish my Department's response separately.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much funding has been awarded by central Government to local authorities to cover the expense of(a) preparing plans, (b) training staff and (c) engaging in multi-agency exercises to promote the integrated emergency management approach advocated by central Government. [33524]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  I informed the House on 23 January 2002, Official Report,column 891W, that, subject to the Civil Defence (Grant) Bill completing its passage through Parliament, the Government will maintain the total level of grant at this year's level, currently estimated at some £18.6 million. A high proportion of this year's grant is used by local authorities to meet the costs of preparing plans, training staff and engaging in exercises.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much each local authority has spent on combating benefit fraud in each financial year since 1997. [33627]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been(a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland, and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33690]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information requested is not held centrally and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Deprivation Indices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the means used by his Department to determine relative deprivation. [33073]

  Ms Keeble
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions uses the Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000) as a means of determining how multiply deprived an area is, relative to other areas in England.
  1009W
  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 is made up of:
  Six domain indices at ward level (Income, Employment, Health, Education, Housing and Geographical Access to Services),
  An overall ward level Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2000).
  A supplementary Child Poverty Index at ward level, which gives the percentage of children living in households that claim means tested benefits.
  Six summaries at local authority level of the overall IMD 2000, which allow all 354 local authority districts to be ranked according to each measure. These summaries take account of the different patterns of deprivation found in different areas.

  Each ward in England is ranked according to how multiply deprived it is, with the most deprived ward being assigned a rank of one and the least deprived a rank of 8,414, for presentation. The ranks show how a ward compares to all the other wards in the country.

  The IMD 2000 is constructed from 33 indicators using the most robust and up-to-date information available to describe deprivation at ward level. This includes information from sources such as Department of Social Security benefits data and University and College Admissions Service data. The indicators were chosen after wide consultation with a number of interested parties including central Government, local government, academics and practitioners.

  Number of clergy retiring in year

  Average age at retirement

  Number of clergy pensioners who died in year

  Average age at death

  2001 at or after age 65

  324

  65.9

  272

  83.5

  2001 total including the above

  542

  63.4

  327

  82.0

  1993 at or after age 65/60 (M/W)

  312

  66.0

  320

  81.2

  1993 total including the above

  470

  64.0

  372

  80.9

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made by the House of Commons Commission in nominating a candidate for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [34477]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission's report recommending to the House Mr. Philip Mawer, at present Secretary General of the General Synod of the Church of England and Secretary General of the Archbishops' Council, is being published at 3.30 p.m. today as House of Commons Paper 598. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Statues
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what arrangements have been made for the siting of the statue of the right hon. Baroness Thatcher commissioned by the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art. [34501]
  1010W
  The Index is based on the premise that multiple deprivation is made up of separate dimensions or `domains' of deprivation. These domains reflect different aspects of deprivation. However, low income remains a central component of the working definition of multiple deprivation for the ID 2000.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Retired Clergy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners (1) what was the average length of retirement for clergy who serve until the mandatory retirement in the last 10 years; [32675]

  (2) what the average age of retirement of clergy was in the last 10 years; and what their average length of retirement was. [32674]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy are generally obliged by law to retire no later than the age of 70. In practice, most do so at or fairly soon after the normal minimum pension age of 65.

  The following table gives data for clergy retirements and deaths in 2001 and in 1993—the earliest year for which details are readily obtainable—(1) for those who retired at or after age 65 and (2) for all cases including early retirements whether voluntarily or on grounds of ill-health. Complete statistics on which to base a 10-year average are not available.

  Derek Conway
  I am pleased to announce that in the short term the statue of the right hon. the Baroness Thatcher will be loaned to the Corporation of London for display at the Guildhall. Work is under way to identify a suitable site in the Guildhall complex.

  In the longer term, the statue will be displayed in the Palace of Westminster. Hon. Members will wish to know that Mr. Speaker has amended the "10-year rule", governing the display of representations of politicians in the main building of the Palace. A portrait, bust or statue of a politician other than a Prime Minister may be displayed once 10 years have passed after their death. A portrait, bust or statue of a former Prime Minister may now be displayed either once five years have passed after their death, or after the elapse of three Parliaments (with the proviso that this should be a minimum of 12 years) after they have left this House, whichever of these events comes first. There remain no restrictions on the siting of representations of living politicians in the outbuildings of the Palace.

  The Accommodation and Works Committee will make a recommendation to Mr. Speaker on the siting of the statue at an appropriate time.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of her Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32823]

  Clare Short
  All permanent and pensionable staff of DFID (1,596 staff) have a normal retirement age of 60. This is occasionally extended where there are particular business reasons to retain an officer's services beyond that age. In addition there are two groups of fixed term employees, Corps of Specialists (29 staff) and Technical Co-operation Officers (295 staff), who similarly have a normal retirement age of 60 which may occasionally be extended where there are particular business reasons. Staff appointed in country by DFID's offices (818 staff) are subject to a wide variety of retirement ages depending on local labour market practice or local legislation (the details are not currently held centrally and could not be produced except at disproportionate cost).

  My Department is currently reviewing its policy on flexible retirement.

  Education for All
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made on identifying the financing gap for basic education within national Education for All plans. [31669]

  Clare Short
  DFID's "Children out of school paper" makes clear what action we believe should be taken on this. The main approach for delivering on the Dakar resource commitment should be through nationally owned poverty reduction strategy papers and similar planning frameworks. They should indicate how country plans to move towards the education Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) will be met, including through the release of HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Country) savings and with the assistance of the international community. So far as possible, this should be through sector-wide approaches and budget support.

  This approach should be underpinned by detailed analysis of the funding implications for achieving UPE and gender equality in schooling at a country level. The World bank is supporting work of this nature, including the tracking of expenditures from debt relief and identification of the scope for additional national resources within countries. Where necessary, assistance should be given to help countries undertake resource analysis of this type. The bank's findings will he submitted to Governors at their spring meeting in April. We are consulting with the bank about this work.

  Humanitarian Assistance
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the pilot initiative to create an international ombudsman for humanitarian assistance to improve the accountability of agencies in emergency situations. [32788]
  1012W
  Clare Short
  The Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP) is a two-year inter-agency project launched in 2001 in Geneva in response to concerns among humanitarian organisations about the lack of accountability to crisis-affected populations. The project will investigate and test the feasibility of creating an Ombudsman for the humanitarian sector and seek to strengthen accountability towards those affected by crisis situations. It will also facilitate improved performance within the humanitarian sector and is part of a wider effort within the international humanitarian sector to improve transparency, accountability and performance.

  Over the period April 2001 to January 2002 DFID will be providing funding of up to £500,000 in support of the project.

  Global Health Fund
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what steps she will take to ensure poor countries have sufficient say on where money is distributed within their countries from the global health fund; [32118]

  (2) what progress has been made in ensuring that the global health fund will utilise countries' existing co-ordination mechanisms and experience. [32119]

  Clare Short
  An underlying principle of the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, for which the UK argued strongly, is that, except in narrowly defined circumstances, proposals must come from country co-ordination mechanisms which bring together developing country governments, private sector, non-government organisations and civil society. The fund will use existing country co-ordination mechanisms wherever possible. These mechanisms will be free to shape their applications around their own assessment and experience of in-country priorities. A final decision on which proposals to support will be made by the GFATM Board which has equal representation of donors and developing countries.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what work the global health fund will undertake to ensure necessary drugs will be more freely available in less developed countries to combat(a) HIV/AIDS, (b) tuberculosis and (c) malaria; [32113]

  (2) what direct assistance the global health fund will provide for poverty reduction in Africa. [32114]

  Clare Short
  The global fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria has been established as a new public-private partnership to mobilise additional financial resources to make more and better drugs and commodities for the prevention and treatment of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS available in the poorest countries, many of which are in Africa. It will also provide some associated health systems strengthening to ensure supplies are delivered safely, effectively and equitably. As the recent report of the Commission for Macro-economics and Health indicated', such investment in health will play a vital role in the wider fight against poverty in Africa and elsewhere.1 Macro-economics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development, Jeffrey D. Sachs, 20 December 2001, World Health Organisation

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. [32322]

  Clare Short
  All DFID permanent and pensionable employees (as well as those in non-departmental public bodies) have access to the NHS (or while overseas, NHS standards of treatment on a cost reimbursement basis) and do not have private medical insurance provided for them. In certain countries overseas some of our locally appointed employees have access to private medical insurance (where it is normal practice in those countries) on a part contributory basis. However, no details are currently held centrally and they could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Forth Rail Bridge
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), of 21 January 2002,Official Report, columns 627–28W, on the Forth Rail Bridge, if she will make a statement on which Scottish transport issues are reserved matters.[33432]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Schedule 5, Part II, Head E to the Scotland Act 1998 as amended by subsequent secondary legislation, sets out the matters of transport policy and direction within Scotland that are reserved to this Parliament. These responsibilities include the provision and regulation of rail services and rail transport security, with the exceptions set out.

  Scottish Ministers have responsibility for issuing Directions and Guidance to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in relation to passenger rail services that both start and end in Scotland, within a national framework for franchising of the railways. Funding powers and public expenditure responsibility have been transferred to the Scottish Executive in respect of the ScotRail franchise.

  The Scottish Executive has the power to issue Directions and Guidance to the SRA in respect of ScotRail sleeper services, subject to the Directions and Guidance not impacting adversely on the SRA's costs outside Scotland or the operation of passenger or freight services generally. The Scottish Executive is able to issue non-binding guidance in respect of other cross border services (currently operated by GNER and Virgin).

  The Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to determine the rail responsibilities of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and Executive and of any new such bodies which might be established in Scotland, subject to these falling within the overall framework of the new railway regulatory structure.

  The Scottish Parliament has legislative competence over grants for passenger rail services and the Scottish Executive has responsibility, under executive devolution,
  1014W
  for the payment and administration of freight facilities grants and track access grants in Scotland, working within the rules of the schemes agreed at GB level for these subsidies.

  Scottish Ministers have responsibility for appointing the Chairman of the Rail Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland (RUCCS). The reports of the Rail Users' Consultative Committee for Scotland and a copy of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee (CRUCC) are laid before the Scottish Parliament.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement. [32325]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999.

  No employees in my Department have had private medical insurance provided for them.

  Air Traffic Control (Prestwick)
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received from the National Air Traffic Services about the timetable for building the new Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. [33937]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Mr. Richard Everitt, CEO of National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS), on 16 January. Mr. Everitt confirmed that NATS remain committed to a two-centre strategy and to the construction of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick that will be brought into operation within a time scale of 2008–09. Mr. Everitt has agreed to keep me informed over the coming months about NATS plans for the implementation of the project at Prestwick.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money has been spent on housing benefit by local authorities in each of the last 15 years. [25009]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit expenditure since 1988–99

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1988–89

  3,774

  1989–90

  4,300

  1990–91

  5,147

  1991–92

  6,494

  1992–93

  7,877

  1993–94

  9,210

  1994–95

  10,104

  1995–96

  10,876

  1996–97

  11,380

  1015W

  Housing benefit expenditure since 1988–99

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  11,176

  1998–99

  11,068

  1999–2000

  11,177

  2000–01

  11,172

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with, and underlie, the forecasts published in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, November 2001.

  2. The figure for 2000–01 is estimated. All other figures are actual annual expenditure but are subject to change as local authority activity is fully audited.

  3. Information is not available for years prior to the introduction of the current housing benefit scheme in April 1988.

  source:

  Annual subsidy returns by local authorities to Department for Work and Pensions; Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and National Assembly for Wales.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the expenditure was, inclusive of outturn or estimated outturn expenditure, on(a) housing benefit rent rebates, and (b) housing benefit rent allowances for (i) housing association tenants and (ii) private tenants in each year from 1992–93 to 2000–01. [25276]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit expenditure

  £ million

  Rent allowance

  Rent rebates

  Registered social landlord tenants

  Private tenants

  Total

  1992–93

  4,593

  —

  —

  3,284

  1993–94

  5,019

  —

  —

  4,195

  1994–95

  5,228

  1,309

  3,567

  4,876

  1995–96

  5,430

  1,641

  3,806

  5,446

  1996–97

  5,569

  1,991

  3,820

  5,810

  1997–98

  5,495

  2,208

  3,473

  5,681

  1998–99

  5,403

  2,427

  3,238

  5,665

  1999–2000

  5,362

  2,725

  3,090

  5,815

  2000–01

  5,319

  2,988

  2,865

  5,853

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with, and underlie, the forecasts published in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, November 2001.

  2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
  1016W
  3. The figures for 2000–01 are estimated. All other figures are actual annual expenditure but are subject to change as local authority activity is fully activity is fully audited.

  4. The split of total rent allowance expenditure between tenants of social landlords and those of private landlords has been estimated.

  5. No estimate is available for the split in rent allowance paid prior to 1994–95.

  6. Figures for rent allowance paid to social landlord tenants includes housing association and non-housing association accommodation. Separate data on rent allowance paid to housing association tenants only are not collected.

  Source:

  Annual subsidy returns by local authorities to Department for Work and Pensions; Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and National Assembly for Wales.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the budgeted expenditure is for(a) housing benefit rent rebates, and (b) housing benefit rent allowances for (i) housing association tenants only, and (ii) private tenants in each year from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Planned housing benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Rent allowance

  Year

  Rent rebates

  Registered social landlord tenants

  private tenants

  2001–02

  5,361

  3,385

  2,932

  2002–03

  5,275

  3,827

  3,086

  2003–04

  5,048

  4.477

  3,248

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with, and underlie the forecasts published in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, November 2001.

  2. Figures for rent allowance paid to social landlord tenants include housing association and non-housing association accommodation. Separate data on rent allowance paid to housing association tenants only are not collected.

  Source:

  Estimated outturn expenditure calculated using actual and forecast caseload information.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 376W, on housing benefit, what the estimated expenditure on the housing benefit under occupation pilot is expected to be in 2001–02. [30134]
  1017W
  Malcolm Wicks
  For 2001–02 the estimated expenditure on the under-occupation pilot is £255,000.

  Council Tax Benefit Restriction Scheme
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the savings to his Department in 2001–02 as a consequence of the council tax benefit restriction scheme. [26954]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is estimated that the council tax benefit restrictions for people living in properties in Bands F, G and H will reduce spending on council tax benefit by £7 million in 2001–02.

  Since 2 July 2001, local authorities have been able to make discretionary housing payments to those people entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit who require additional financial assistance with their rent or council tax. This includes those whose council tax benefit has been restricted. These payments are at the discretion of the local authority and subject to an annual cash limit.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Disability Rights Commission on the work of Government Departments. [30906]

  Maria Eagle
  The Disability Rights Commission is working closely with a range of Government Departments and has made a positive contribution in a number of areas. For example, it has prepared statutory Codes of Practice for my Department to support the October 2004 duties under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act and for the Department for Education and Skills on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act. It has responded to a range of government consultation exercises including on the future of social care and charging, the operation of the Human Rights Act, transport reform and disputes resolution. The commission has also been working extensively with the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive on a range of cross-cutting disability issues of particular relevance to those countries.

  Appeals Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional(a) staff and (b) money have been allocated to the Appeals Service in anticipation of the child support reforms. [30957]

  Maria Eagle
  Additional funding of £1.7 million has been allocated for 2002–03. This sum includes the staffing costs for 50 additional staff. A further £398,000 has been allocated to implement the necessary changes to IT procedures, and develop new training material for staff and panel members, resulting from the new child support legislation.

  CSA
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many CSA cases from(a) the Angus constituency and (b) Scotland have been considered by the Independent Case Examiner in each year since the creation of the post. [31580]
  1018W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Details of the number of cases received by the Office of the Independent Case Examiner

  Complaints received

  Accepted for investigation

  Angus constituency

  1997–98

  4

  2

  1998–99

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  0

  2000–01

  1

  1

  2001–021

  1

  1

  Scotland

  1997–98

  70

  31

  1998–99

  102

  46

  1999–2000

  86

  34

  2000–01

  108

  57

  2001–021

  80

  42

  1Position as at 28 January 2002

  Note:

  Figures subject to a small amount of error

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what is the average time taken by the Independent Case Examiner to issue a deter mination in cases referred to him from(a) Angus and (b) Scotland in each year since the creation of the post. [31581]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Details of the average time taken by the Office of the Independent Case Examiner to clear cases accepted for investigation

  Complaints accepted for investigation

  Average clearance time (weeks)

  Angus constituency

  1997–98

  2

  20

  1998–99

  0

  —

  1999–2000

  0

  —

  2000–01

  1

  36

  2001–021

  1

  21

  Scotland

  1997–98

  31

  29

  1998–99

  46

  41

  1999–2000

  34

  38

  2000–011

  57 (46 completed)

  33

  2001–021

  42 (12 completed)

  17

  1 Position as at 28 January 2002

  Note:

  Figures subject to a small amount of error

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees in(a) his Department and (b) his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if he will make a statement. [32329]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department of Work and Pensions has no policy which would allow employees to have medical insurance provided for them. Therefore, no employee has had medical insurance provided for them since 1997 to date.

  Personal Capability Assessments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many successful appeals there have
  1019W
  been in each of the last four years against personal capability assessments involving people whose medical condition fluctuates or varies in severity; and what proportion this represents of the total number of successful appeals. [32664]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  It was not possible to obtain specific information detailing cases where an appellant's medical condition fluctuates or varies in severity.

  Pensions Schemes Registry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the work of the Pensions Schemes Registry in tracing lost pensions contributions. [33718]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Schemes Registry helps people trace the contributions they have paid to occupational or personal pension schemes that they have lost touch with. The registry does this by providing—at no cost—the current name and address of the relevant pension scheme. The person concerned can then contact the scheme to find out what pension they may have.

  In 2000–01 the registry received over 21,000 tracing requests and found a contact name and address in 92 per cent. of cases, responding to 100 per cent. of requests within four days.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the decision by an employer whether to contract-out from the state second pension scheme is(a) a matter of negotiation between the parties involved in that employment and (b) is subject to fiduciary duties to maximise benefit to employees. [33720]

  Mr. McCartney
  The decision on whether or not an employer wishes to set up an occupational pension scheme through which his employees may contract out of the state second pension, is entirely a matter for the employer. Any subsequent change in the contracting-out status of the scheme would require a change to the scheme rules. Such a change could only be made if an actuary certified to the trustees that, in his opinion, the change would not adversely affect any member of the scheme, without his or her consent, in respect of his or her entitlement.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cold weather payments have been triggered this winter as a result of low temperatures, broken down by(a) weather station and (b) nation and region of the United Kingdom. [25948]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 January 2002, c. 631–32W; holding answer 11 January 2002]Cold weather payments are a key part of our strategy to tackle fuel poverty. They provide extra help towards heating costs for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in periods of exceptionally cold weather. They are paid to pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee, and to people receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who have children under the age of five or who have a premium for disability or long term sickness.
  1020W
  The payments are made automatically and are triggered when the average temperature is recorded as, or forecast to be, 0 degrees centigrade or below over seven consecutive days at the weather station linked to the customer's postcode. So far this year we estimate that payments to the value of almost £16.8 million have been triggered. Available information on the breakdown of the payments is in the tables.

  Estimated number and value of cold weather payments triggered by weather station

  Weather station

  Estimated number of payments triggered from 1 November 2001 to 14 January 2002

  Estimated value of payments triggered (£)

  Andrewsfield

  39,790

  338,215.00

  Aviemore

  3,099

  26,341.50

  Bedford

  60,529

  514,496.50

  Bingley

  86,283

  733,405.50

  Bishopton

  178,525

  1,517,462.50

  Boltshope Park

  9,370

  79,645.00

  Boulmer

  10,793

  91,740.50

  Bracknell

  53,193

  452,140.50

  Braemar

  228

  1,938

  Brize Norton

  22,139

  188,181.50

  Carlisle

  9,896

  84,116.00

  Cassley

  208

  1,768.00

  Coleshill

  249,130

  2,117,605.00

  Coltishall

  34,663

  294,635.50

  Dumfries

  5,128

  43,588.00

  Dyce

  22,024

  187,204.00

  Edinburgh Gogarbank

  65,607

  557,659.50

  Eskdalemuir

  8,712

  74,052

  Fylingdales

  25,142

  213,707.00

  Great Malvern

  37,578

  319,413.00

  Lake Vyrnwy

  1,398

  11,883.00

  Leeds

  143,964

  1,223,694.00

  Lerwick

  829

  7,046.50

  Leuchars

  32,244

  274,074.00

  Linton on Ouse

  62,637

  532,414.50

  Loch Glascarnoch

  525

  4,462.50

  Lyneham

  24,040

  204,340.00

  Marham

  14,914

  126,769.00

  Newcastle

  122,657

  1,042,584.50

  Nottingham

  147,861

  1,256,818.50

  Redhill

  32,551

  276,683.50

  Ringway

  199,291

  1,693,973.50

  Salsburgh

  12,027

  102,229.50

  Sennybridge

  47,119

  400,511.50

  Shawbury

  48,288

  410,448.00

  Tulloch Bridge

  1,931

  16,413.50

  Waddington

  95,223

  809,395.50

  Wattisham

  35,582

  302,447.00

  Wick Airport

  1,956

  16,626.00

  Wittering

  30,163

  256,385.50

  Total

  1,977,237

  16,806,514.50

  Estimated number and value of cold weather payments triggered by country

  Country

  Estimated number of payments triggered from 1 November 2001 to 14 January 2002

  Estimated value of payments triggered (£)

  England

  1,595,677

  13,563,254.50

  Scotland

  333,043

  2,830,865.50

  Wales

  48,517

  412,394.50

  Total

  1,977,237

  16,806,514.50

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available by Government office region.

  2. Those weather stations where cold weather payments have not been triggered are excluded from the tables.
  1021W
  3. Cold weather payments are payable for periods of cold weather between 1 November and 31 March each winter.

  4. Social security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  5. The figures provided are estimates. The final number and value of actual payments made will be reconciled after 31 March 2002.

  Source:

  Estimates are based on a scan in November 2001 of income support and jobseeker's allowance live load linked to weather station postcodes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  EU Policy
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent meetings Ministers in his Department have held bilaterally on European union policy with representatives of other EU Governments. [32594]

  Mr. Wills
  Baroness Scotland and I met Jose Maria Michavila, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice in Spain on 1 November 2001. Baroness Scotland also met Diogo Machado, the Portuguese Secretary of State for Justice, on 30 July 2001.

  The Lord Chancellor has not had any recent meetings with representatives of other EU Governments.

  Crown Dependencies
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his estimate is of the cost of his Department's responsibilities for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. [32047]

  Mr. Wills
  The estimated costs incurred since my Department assumed responsibility in connection with the Crown Dependencies on 8 June 2001 are as follows:

  £

  Staff costs, including legal advice

  240,428

  Visits by Ministers and senior officials

  5,985

  Other (non-pay) running costs

  213,369

  Total costs

  459,782

  Law Commission
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who(a) sits on and (b) appoints those who sit on the Law Commission; and what criteria are used to select those who sit on it. [32566]

  Mr. Wills
  The Law Commission is an advisory non-departmental public body which is governed by the Law Commissions Act 1965. The 1965 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to appoint five Commissioners of which one is the Chairman. Currently the Chairman is Lord Justice Carnwath CVO, and the Commissioners are: Professor Hugh Beale; Judge Alan Wilkie QC; Professor Martin Partington and Mr. Stuart Bridge.

  The 1965 Act further requires that the Commissioners be chosen from those who are either a holder of judicial office, or a barrister, or a solicitor or a teacher of law in a university. The Lord Chancellor also considers the
  1022W
  specialist skills, experience and expertise of prospective Commissioners against the requirements of the Commission's programme of work.

  Church Issues
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Church issues have been referred to him since taking office. [32591]

  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor has made appointments to 77 livings and six canonries which are in his Patronage. Additionally he has been involved in 167 other Church appointments by virtue of the fact the Royal Warrants are addressed to him as Keeper of the Great Seal. The other main Church issue concerns the Report on Royal Peculiars chaired by Professor Averil Cameron which was submitted to the Lord Chancellor last year.

  Council on Tribunals
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what functions the Council on Tribunals performs; and what its budget was in each year since 1992–93. [32056]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Council on Tribunals keeps under review, and reports on, the constitution and working of tribunals under its supervision, and where necessary considers and reports on the administrative procedures of statutory inquiries. The Council seeks to ensure, through the advice it gives, that tribunals and inquiries meet the needs of users through the provision of an open, fair, impartial, efficient, timely and accessible service.

  The budget of the Council in each year since 1992–93 has been as follows: 1992–93: £485,055; 1993–: £568,970; 1994–95: £537,866; 1995–96: £547,682; 1996–97: £566,700; 1997–98: £575,401; 1998–99: £601,270;1999–2000: £651,600; 2000–01: £681,719.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who(a) sits on and (b) appoints members of the Council on Tribunals; and what criteria are used to select those who sit on it. [32564]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The current membership of the Council is as follows: Lord Newton of Braintree PC OBE (Chairman); Mr. John Elliot DKS (Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Council); Mrs. Carolyn Berkeley JP; Mr. Michael Brown JP; Mr. John Eames; Mrs. Anne Galbraith; Mrs. Susan Howdle; Mr. Ian Irvine CA; Mr. Samuel Jones CBE DL; Mr. Stephen Mannion; Mr. Douglas Readings; Professor Genevra Richardson; Mr. Emrys Roberts; Mr. Sandy Russell CB; Mr. Patrick Waring and Mr. Michael Buckley (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration).

  (b) Appointments to the Council are made jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Scottish Ministers. The criteria for appointment to the Council depend upon the vacancy but all candidates will need to have proven communication skills, a record of effective committee work and some knowledge of tribunals and inquiries. Supplementary criteria will be needed for certain posts.

  Public Guardianship Office
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training she has arranged for staff at the Public Guardianship Office in dealing with the public in an efficient and courteous manner. [33297]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Guardianship Office recognises the need to train its staff to ensure efficient, effective and proactive customer service. All PGO staff have attended a one day training event in Customer Service and training in letter writing and telephone skills has been arranged for staff in Client Services. In addition, leadership and team building programme is under way, focusing on new ways of working and all staff have attended, or are due to attend, a one day diversity awareness session, helping them to recognise and appreciate the needs of the diverse society the PGO serves. Following the recent relocation to Archway Tower and changes to the way staff in the Client Service area work, a specialised call centre training session has been devised.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what performance indicators she uses to monitor the performance of the(a) Legal Services Commission, (b) Law Commission,(c) Judge Advocate-General, (d) Public Guardianship Office and (e) CAFCASS. [32044]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Legal Services Commission's objectives are framed in the context of the Public Service Agreements (PSAs), the Lord Chancellor's Department's Service Delivery Agreements and the Lord Chancellor's Strategic Objectives. The Commission's Annual Concordat, signed by the Commission's Chair and the Lord Chancellor, establishes the key outputs and performance targets the Commission will deliver in order to meet its objectives, and sets milestones against which the Commission's progress is reviewed. The Commission publishes an annual report each year reporting on progress against targets in its corporate plan, which can be found in the Libraries of both Houses.

  (b) The Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to approve the Law Commission's programme of work which sets out the terms of reference and the timetable for each individual project and the Law Commission's targets for its consolidation and statutory revision work. The Law Commission's programme of work, currently the 8th Programme, is laid before Parliament and published by the Stationary Office.

  (c) Performance indicators for the Office of the Judge Advocate-General are:

  "1. To ensure that we are able to provide a judge advocate to conduct hearings as requested to meet the demands of the Army, Air Force and Royal Marines. We aim to appoint the judge eight weeks before the hearing date.

  2. Monitor the military justice system so that wherever possible a fair and consistent approach is taken. Tender judicial advice to reviewing authorities in respect of findings and sentences of courts-martial and Standing Civilian Courts on the 29th day following trial or within three days of receipt of a petition.

  1024W

  3. To provide information and documents from courts-martial files in response to inquires from the public or other interested parties.

  4. Contributing to the development of primary and secondary legislation affecting the Criminal Justice Systems of the Army and Royal Air Force.

  5. Monitoring the criminal justice system of the Army and Royal Air Force so as to ensure the efficient and proper working of it.

  6. Maintaining contact with foreign military lawyers, especially in Eastern Europe, attending foreign conferences and direct visits.

  7. Recruiting and training part-time Judge Advocates/Judicial Officers. Hold a one day training event for all judges."

  (d) The Public Guardianship Office's Key Performance Measures and Targets 2001–02 were announced to Parliament on 29 March 2001. Two additional key performance indicators were announced on 18 December 2001, Official Report, column 257W. A full list has today been placed in the House Libraries.

  (e) The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the Lord Chancellor's Strategic Objectives and the Lord Chancellor's Department's Public Service Agreements provide the framework within which CAFCASS's Key Objectives are set out in its Framework Document, which is available in the House Libraries. Key Performance Indicators relating to these will be set out in CAFCASS's Corporate Plan for 2002–06. CAFCASS will also publish its first annual report in the summer.

  Official Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what official foreign visits his officials from the International Legal Service have undertaken since 1997; at what cost; and for what purpose. [32399]

  Mr. Wills
  In the course of their everyday duties and consistent with the Government's active membership of the EU, those officials concerned with international trade in legal services, international legal policy and international legal relations attend meetings outside the United Kingdom, including regular and frequent meetings of European Union and Council of Europe working groups in Brussels and Strasbourg. Travel costs for the majority of these meetings are met from European Union and Council of Europe funds. Information is not held centrally in the form demanded, and it would be disproportionately expensive to provide it in that form.

  International Legal Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the caseload is of the international legal services section of his Department; and how many staff are employed(a) whole-time and (b) part-time on international legal services work. [32569]

  Mr. Wills
  In the Lord Chancellor's Department there is one official working specifically on international trade in legal services and 15 officials employed across the wider field of international legal policy and international legal relations. Their work includes matters of policy advice and discussions and negotiation. The officials are involved in opening up the market in international legal services, which earn the UK significant sums of foreign earnings, in promoting the rule of law and human rights in emerging economies and democracies, and in the detailed
  1025W
  formulation and negotiation of policy in respect of European Community initiatives. This very important work is not measurable in terms of a caseload.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many judicial appointments she has made since taking up office; what criteria are used to select people suitable for judicial appointments; and how many judicial appointees she has made who are(a) women and (b) from ethnic backgrounds. [32582]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Drawing on information currently held on the judicial appointments database, we estimate that the Lord Chancellor has appointed or recommended for appointment a total of 15,703 judicial officers in the courts and tribunals, between 2 May 1997 and 31 January 2002. This figure includes full-time and part-time professional legal judicial officers and professional non-legal judicial officers (including first appointments and re-appointments), lay magistrates and General Commissioners of Income Tax. Of all these appointments, the database shows that 5,326 were women and 1,530 declared themselves as from minority ethnic backgrounds, with 2,953 appointments being of unknown ethnic origin.

  The criteria and personal qualities against which candidates for judicial office are assessed are as follows:

  Professional judicial appointment

  Criteria
  Legal knowledge and experience, intellectual and analytical ability, sound judgment, decisiveness, communication and listening skills, authority and case management skills.

  Personal qualities
  Integrity and independence, fairness and impartiality, understanding of people and society, maturity and sound temperament, courtesy and commitment, conscientiousness and diligence.

  Lay magistracy

  Personal qualities
  Good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgment, commitment and reliability.

  General Commissioners of Income Tax

  Personal qualities expected include:
  Good reputation, personal integrity, a manner which inspires confidence, the ability to identify and comprehend relevant facts reasonably quickly, the ability to think logically, ability to communicate effectively, the ability to advance views firmly but tactfully, combined with a readiness to listen to and take on board others' views, the ability to work with others, awareness of personal prejudices and readiness to put them aside, the ability to reach a decision reasonably quickly having weighed all relevant evidence and arguments, some experience, understanding or knowledge of life outside the candidate's own immediate circle of family and work.

  Statutory Publications Office
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff from the Statutory Publications Office are located outside London. [32572]
  1026W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no staff from the Statutory Publications Office located outside London. All staff of the Statutory Publications Office are located within the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters in Selborne House in central London.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff are employed(a) whole-time and (b) part-time in the Statutory Publications Office. [32571]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total number of(a) whole-time staff employed by the Statutory Publications Office is 25. The total number of (b) part-time staff employed by the Statutory Publications Office is two.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many publications were processed by the Statutory Publications Office in each year since 1992. [32570]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Responsibility for all hard copy publications previously processed by the Statutory Publications Office was, with one exception, transferred on 1 April 1997 to Her Majesty's Stationery Office within the Cabinet Office. The exception related to the publication "Statutes in Force" (SIF) which contained the revised text of all in-force UK Acts and Measures. All revision work on SIF was suspended in September 1993 when the work had been revised to 1 February 1991. Work in relation to the issue of newly enacted Acts for inclusion in SIF continued until the end of 1999. Except as mentioned above, during the period mentioned in the question, the Statutory Publications Office has been concerned solely with the development of the Statute Law Database, a historical database of in-force statute law which represents the electronic successor to SIF.

  Official Solicitor
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what official foreign visits the Official Solicitor has made since his appointment; and what was the purpose of such visits. [32398]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Official Solicitor has made one foreign visit. In April 2000 he attended and spoke as the sole representative for England and Wales at the 4th International Conference of Public Trustees and Public Guardians held in Singapore.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) whole-time and (b) part-time staff work in the Official Solicitor's office; and how many were employed (a) whole-time and (b) part-time when he took up his office. [32568]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 1 August 1999 there were 99 full-time staff and five part-time staff in the office of the Official Solicitor. On 1 April 2001 30 members of staff left the Office of the Official Solicitor for the newly established Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), and on the same date 90 staff from the former Trust Division of the Public Trust Office transferred into the office of the Official Solicitor, which became the office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee. There are currently 154 full-time staff and nine part-time staff working in the combined office.
  1027W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the case load has been for the Official Solicitor in each month since he took up his office. [32567]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Official Solicitor's records show that his active cases (in all areas of his then work) as at August 1999 numbered 3,921; as at December 2001 the active cases for the combined office of the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee numbered 5,647. Annual figures are published in the Official Solicitor's annual reports, which are available in the Library of the House. A monthly breakdown, if required, may be obtained from the Official Solicitor and Public Trustee's office.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal aid applications have been(a) granted and (b) refused in each year since 1992. [32578]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of legal aid applications granted and refused was as follows:

  Granted

  Refused

  Civil legal aid applications>1

  1991–92

  382,642

  101,715

  1992–93

  431,072

  125,869

  1993–94

  379,908

  125,961

  1994–95

  400,813

  123,126

  1995–96

  387,614

  125,103

  1996–97

  334,469

  133,975

  1997–98

  277,847

  156,289

  1998–99

  315,084

  97,870

  1999–2000

  277,336

  65,477

  2000–01

  174,017

  52,087

  Criminal applications2

  19923

  144,938

  7,638

  19933

  140,148

  6,691

  19943

  150,784

  6,343

  19953

  158,190

  6,606

  19963

  150,863

  7,502

  1997

  543,549

  49,013

  1998

  506,124

  42,903

  1999

  596,861

  45,339

  2000

  585,704

  31,608

  1Financial year

  2Calendar year

  3Excludes applications granted or refused in the magistrates courts as these figures are not available prior to 1997.

  Domestic Legal Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff employed on domestic legal services are located outside London; and in which locations. [32577]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Court Service has staff located throughout England and Wales, providing a wide range of services to court users, including family related work. We are unable to provide a breakdown of the number of staff working on family related work, although the total number of staff employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, by region of the UK, was provided in an answer given to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1017W.

  Community Legal Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff employed by her Department on community legal services are located in offices outside London; and in which locations. [32576]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor's Department employs nobody outside London on community legal services. The Community Legal Service is delivered by the Legal Services Commission through the Community Legal Service Partnerships and contacted suppliers, and these include both lawyers in private practice and organisations in the not-for-profit sector.

  Public Trustee Office
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many trusteeships the Public Trustee Office holds; and under what categories. [33296]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Public Trustee holds 1,472 trusteeships divided into the following categories:

  Executorships with continuing Trusts—647

  Will Trusts—265

  Settlement Trusts—445

  Statutory Trusts—17

  Supreme Court Declarations of Trust—44

  Declarations of Trust—45

  Custodian Trusts—5

  Miscellaneous Trusts—4.

  In addition, the Public Trustee is conducting 105 Executorships and 24 Pension and Institutional Funds.

  Family Court Casework
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to ensure that magistrates courts continue to carry out the function of family courts. [32999]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are considering the future work of the magistrates courts, including family work, in the light of the recommendations in Sir Robin Auld's Report of his Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales. The Government will announce their conclusions on the report by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Departmental Retirement Ages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the retirement ages that apply to the employees of the Lord Chancellor's Department and its agencies, including how many and which categories of employees are affected by each; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on flexible retirement. [32819]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The normal retirement ages for the Lord Chancellor's Department and its executive agencies are as follows.
  1029W

  Retirement age

  HEO equivalent and above1

  60

  EO equivalent

  62

  AO equivalent and below

  65

  1Including Senior Civil Service

  However, staff can stay on above the normal retirement ages at management discretion, subject to business needs.

  The table shows the numbers of staff affected.

  Age of retirement

  Business area

  65

  62

  60

  Grand total

  Court service

  6,774

  2,083

  1,591

  10,448

  LCD HQ

  248

  263

  759

  1,270

  Public G'ship Office

  165

  50

  107

  322

  Grand total

  7,187

  2,396

  2,457

  12,040

  Flexible retirement policy

  Our Corporate Board will shortly be considering proposals to create greater flexibility in our retirement policy, in line with the recommendations set out in the Performance and Innovation report entitled "Winning the Generation Game". The new retirement policy will allow the retention of staff who are performing to the required

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Reports issued by the LSO containing recommendations/orders/ criticisms1

  54

  226

  241

  260

  260

  399

  464

  542

  557

  659

  Number of complaints which the LSO has declined to investigate2

  122

  106

  107

  157

  135

  156

  117

  157

  107

  77

  Number of cases where the LSO was satisfied with the professional body's investigation

  116

  535

  339

  579

  781

  989

  1,055

  1,116

  965

  1,019

  1 Reports may contain more than one recommendation

  1 Figures relate to complaints received where the professional body has completed its investigation

HEALTH

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how(a) the extra accident and emergency nurses and (b) the elective operations to be placed in the private sector will be distributed, broken down by health authority.[10927]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have set out a strategy for reducing long waits in accident and emergency departments. £40 million of a £118 million investment will be used to fund an additional 600 or more nursing posts in accident and emergency. Allocations for each accident and emergency department, of the distribution by health authority are set out in the table.

  Health authority

  Extra A&E nurses

  Bradford

  4

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  6

  County Durham

  20

  East Riding

  2

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  4

  Leeds

  16

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  2

  North Cumbria

  4

  1030W
  standard who want to stay beyond 60; have the flexibility to keep staff on for key posts and open up choices for staff about the ages at which they may retire.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many employees in(a) her Department and (b) her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have had private medical insurance provided for them in each year since 1997–98; what the total cost is; and if she will make a statement.[32323]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In accordance with paragraph 7.17 of the Civil Service Management Code, the Lord Chancellor's Department, including its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, does not provide private medical insurance to any of its staff..

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases the Legal Services Ombudsman has(a) found in favour of, (b) declined to investigate and (c) rejected after investigation in each year since his office was established. [32579]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Health authority

  Extra A&E nurses

  North Yorkshire

  8

  Northumberland

  4

  Sunderland

  2

  Tees

  6

  Wakefield

  2

  Barnsley

  2

  Doncaster

  6

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  6

  North Derbyshire

  2

  North Nottinghamshire

  2

  Nottingham

  8

  Rotherham

  2

  Sheffield

  2

  South Derbyshire

  8

  South Humber

  4

  Birmingham

  20

  Coventry

  2

  Dudley

  2

  Herefordshire

  2

  North Staffordshire

  2

  Sandwell

  2

  Shropshire

  4

  South Staffordshire

  4

  Walsall

  2

  1031W

  Health authority

  Extra A&E nurses

  Warwickshire

  4

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Worcestershire

  4

  Bury and Rochdale

  10

  East Lancashire

  4

  Liverpool

  8

  Manchester

  12

  Morecambe Bay

  4

  North Cheshire

  2

  North West Lancashire

  10

  Salford and Trafford

  4

  Sefton

  10

  South Cheshire

  6

  South Lancashire

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  8

  Stockport

  2

  West Pennine

  4

  Wigan and Bolton

  4

  Wirral

  2

  Bedfordshire

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Hertfordshire

  32

  Norfolk

  6

  North Essex

  12

  South Essex

  10

  Suffolk

  4

  Barking and Havering

  16

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  24

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  24

  Brent and Harrow

  16

  Camden and Islington

  6

  Croydon

  2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  26

  East London and The City

  24

  Hillingdon

  8

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  4

  Kingston and Richmond

  8

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  24

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  18

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  8

  Berkshire

  4

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  East Kent

  6

  East Surrey

  16

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  18

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  4

  North and Mid Hampshire

  4

  Northamptonshire

  10

  Oxfordshire

  16

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  8

  West Kent

  14

  West Surrey

  26

  West Sussex

  6

  Avon

  22

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2

  Dorset

  6

  Gloucestershire

  4

  North and East Devon

  4

  Somerset

  4

  South and West Devon

  4

  Wiltshire

  4

  £40 million has been allocated to buy additional elective cases in the private sector this year. It has been targeted on those health authorities most in need of short term support.

  The funding will be used to free up NHS capacity but the exact number of cases purchased is not yet known. This will depend on the final details of contracts negotiated with the private sector. We will make the final
  1032W
  figures available after the end of the financial year. However, the allocations by health authority are shown in the table.

  Health authority

  £000

  Avon

  2,650

  Barking and Havering

  534

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  989

  Bedford

  669

  Berkshire

  235

  Birmingham

  1,607

  Brent and Harrow

  586

  Bromley, Bexley and Greenwich

  577

  Buckinghamshire

  1,150

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  310

  Cambridge

  460

  Camden and Islington

  424

  Coventry

  300

  Croydon

  197

  Dudley

  320

  Durham and Darlington

  285

  East London and City

  245

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  850

  East Kent

  1,590

  East Surrey

  488

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,245

  Herefordshire

  144

  Hertfordshire

  600

  Hillingdon

  282

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth, South East Hampshire

  816

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  894

  Kingston and Richmond

  207

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,010

  Leeds

  500

  Leicestershire

  219

  Lincolnshire

  420

  Liverpool

  2,04

  Manchester

  1,958

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  604

  Morecambe Bay

  400

  Newcastle and North Tyne

  500

  Norfolk

  265

  North and Mid Hampshire

  438

  North Cheshire

  525

  North Cumbria

  228

  North Derbyshire

  150

  North Essex

  562

  North Staffordshire

  1,516

  North Yorkshire

  350

  Northamptonshire

  74

  Nottingham

  800

  Oxfordshire

  1,425

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  520

  Salford and Trafford

  300

  Sheffield

  882

  Shropshire

  42

  Solihull

  50

  South and West Devon

  250

  South Cheshire

  270

  South Essex

  573

  South Humber

  90

  South Staffordshire

  460

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  672

  Suffolk

  164

  Tees

  261

  Wakefield

  300

  Walsall

  250

  Warwickshire

  180

  West Kent

  372

  West Surrey

  1,470

  West Sussex

  579

  Wirral

  300

  Worcestershire

  1,200

  1033W
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of NHS patients treated privately by allowing consenting patients to contribute a part of the cost; and if he will make a statement. [33532]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no plans to increase the number of national health service patients treated privately by allowing consenting patients to contribute a part of the cost of treatment.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the saving to public funds in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 is from the abolition of 14 administrative forms, referred to on page 17 of the 2001 departmental report. [14910]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information on the savings to public funds from this measure. The 14 forms abolished were administrative forms which the Department issued in respect of applications for grants, licences, registration etc. These forms were abolished in pursuance of Government policy to reduce regulatory burdens on business, charities and voluntary organisations including reducing the burdens of form filling where this can be done without removing the necessary controls.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost in 2001–02 of the NHS Pensions Agency. [16938]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total costs of the national health service Pensions Agency for 2001–02 are estimated to be £16,743,000.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the performance of NHS trusts in meeting the external financing limits set by his Department. [16947]

  Mr. Hutton
  The performance of national health service trusts against 2000–01 external financing limits is shown in the table.

  2000–01 trust external financing limits

  Number

  Percentage

  Total NHS trusts meeting EFL

  343

  96

  Total NHS trusts meeting EFL after £10,000 de minimus applied

  350

  98

  Note:

  The data are taken from the 2000–01 NHS Trust Summarised Accounts. The data remain provisional, and are subject to continuing audit by the National Audit.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what performance indicators NHS trusts are required to publish regularly. [31727]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the past we published a number of clinical indicators at national health service trust level. The national figures for the first full set of NHS trust performance indicators were published on 1 February 2002. The indicators for each NHS trust will he published 1034W
  develop over time as more data become available, and will in future be published by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  In addition, NHS trusts are required to publish an annual report, which must include financial information and information on the number of complaints received. It is also recommended that the report include information on waiting times and cancelled operations.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government are taking to recruit more(a) nurses, (b) physiotherapists, (c) occupational therapists and (d) GPs in the North East; and if he will make a statement. [17406]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's plans for modernising the national health service work force are set out in the document "Investment and reform for NHS staff—Taking forward the NHS plan" published on 15 February 2001. This details activity in hand to modernise work force planning including the establishment of work force development confederations at local level. These bring together NHS and non-NHS employers to plan the healthcare work force. They will work with health authorities (HAs) to produce an integrated work force plan which underpins the service plans set out in their Health Improvement Programme (HimP).

  The Northern Workforce Development Confederation is engaged in a number of initiatives to recruit more nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists in the north-east. The confederation is running four return-to practice nursing courses and in-house returner training for some physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Study courses for nursing assistants to train to access pre-registration nursing courses are being run and two trusts are seconding nursing assistants onto nurse training.

  Individual trusts in the north-east are recruiting nurses from the Philippines and holding fast track recruitment days for all professions. Open days at hospitals are being held emphasising family friendly working and support groups. The confederation and three trusts were represented at the Evening Chronicle Jobs Event at the Telewest Arena in Newcastle on 23 and 24 November. One trust is recruiting newly qualified nurses over establishment for expansion plans.

  The confederation is also giving presentations to schools and colleges, careers fairs and recruitment days; placing posters/leaflets in various public places such as libraries, sports centres, general practitioners surgeries, village halls, and running an advertising campaign on the back of buses until the end of December for general recruitment in all careers and for return to practice advertisements.

  We are committed to boosting GP numbers and have already introduced a number of measures to encourage more doctors into primary care. These include a "Golden Hello" scheme which will give £5,000 to every GP who joins the NHS, with an extra payment of up to £5,000 if they work in an under-doctored area and a new £22 million GP training package whereby new GPs will be eligible for additional training of up to 20 days a year. We have also given a commitment to ensure trainee GPs'

  1035W
  pay is increased in line with that of junior hospital doctors in the future and increased funding for locum cover for family doctors on maternity, paternity and adoptive leave.

  The Northern Workforce Development Confederation has allocated £12,000 to fund recruitment and retention initiatives within primary care in the North East. The flexibilities afforded by the Personal Medical Services pilots allow opportunities for further GP recruitment, particularly as employees rather than independent contractors. Sunderland, which has the highest average GP patient list sizes in England, has been particularly successful in boosting its GP numbers through this scheme.

  The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 5 November to improve the quality of, and expand, GP premises, especially in under-doctored areas, are likely to act as a lever in boosting GP recruitment to hitherto difficult to recruit areas. The northeast health authorities have, in the two years to September 2001, increased GP numbers by over 90 additional GPs, representing an increase of seven per cent. in the GP work force.

  Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding will be available in the NHS Plan for the future funding of walk-in centres in England. [18477]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS walk-in centres are being piloted as a new initiative to offer convenient access to primary care services. 42 centres are now open. As pilots, they are being independently evaluated, and are funded in part locally and in part by the Department. Decisions on their future development and funding will be informed by the independent evaluation and by the outcome of the current spending review.

  Number of patients waiting over 6 months

  Number of patients waiting over 26 weeks =6 months)

  Health authority

  Expenditure per weighted head of population(£)

  For in-patient treatment

  For in-patient treatment per 1,000 head of weighted population

  For 1st out-patient appointment following GP referral

  For 1st out-patient following GP appointment referral per 1,000 head of weighted population

  10 health authorities with highest expenditure per weighted head

  Morecambe Bay

  1,346.04

  1,067.88

  3.4

  722

  2.3

  Camden and Islington

  1,067.88

  1,147

  2.3

  821

  1.6

  Sefton

  1,040.25

  1,811

  6.1

  779

  2.6

  Dorset

  1,023.69

  47

  0.1

  19

  0.0

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  1,011.24

  838

  1.7

  324

  0.6

  Bromley

  971.74

  1,913

  6.5

  186

  0.6

  Barnet

  959.87

  1,298

  3.9

  654

  2.0

  East Surrey

  958.66

  3,009

  7.9

  184

  0.5

  Sheffield

  956.59

  1,868

  3.3

  1,236

  2.2

  Croydon

  925.44

  2,145

  6.5

  92

  0.3

  10 health authorities with lowest expenditure per weighted head

  Stockport

  759.28

  1,389

  5.0

  605

  2.2

  Solihull

  756.17

  473

  2.4

  16

  0.1

  Buckinghamshire

  755.09

  3,419

  5.6

  559

  0.9

  Hillingdon

  753.76

  987

  4.0

  421

  1.7

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  749.06

  1,782

  4.7

  1,140

  3.0

  West Pennine

  746.22

  1,939

  4.0

  449

  0.9

  North Derbyshire

  744.33

  1,649

  4.5

  221

  0.6

  East Lancashire

  740.66

  2,405

  4.3

  613

  1.1

  1036W

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting(a) more than six months and (b) more than 12 months for in-patient treatment in the South Cheshire health authority in (i) March 1997 and (ii) September 1997 and in each reporting period in between. [16532]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of residents of South Cheshire health authority recorded as waiting more than six months and 12 months for in-patient and day case treatment at the 31 March, 30 June and 30 September 1997 is shown in the table.

  Over 6 months

  Over 12 months

  March 1997

  4,043

  338

  June 1997

  5,126

  978

  September 1997

  5,148

  914

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 10 health authorities with the(a) highest and (b) lowest expenditure by weighted head; and if he will estimate the number of people waiting for more than six months in each of these health authority areas for (i) in-patient treatment and (ii) out-patient treatment; and if he will make a statement. [32561]

  Mr. Hutton
  For the reasons set out in the notes to the table, expenditure per head cannot be reliably compared between health authorities, nor necessarily be correlated with waiting times information.

  The 10 health authorities with the highest and lowest expenditure per weighted head of population in 2000–01 are shown in the table. The numbers of people waiting for more than six months for in-patient and for out-patient treatment are shown both as total numbers waiting and also as the numbers waiting per 1,000 head of weighted population.
  1037W

  Number of patients waiting over 6 months

  Number of patients waiting over 26 weeks =6 months)

  Health authority

  Expenditure per weighted head of population(£)

  For in-patient treatment

  For in-patient treatment per 1,000 head of weighted population

  For 1st out-patient appointment following GP referral

  For 1st out-patient following GP appointment referral per 1,000 head of weighted population

  County Durham and Darlington

  738.32

  1,852

  2.8

  441

  0.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  732.65

  2,638

  4.3

  1,601

  2.6

  Notes:

  1.In many health authorities there are factors which distort the expenditure per head. These include:

  the health authority acting in a lead capacity to commission healthcare or fund training on behalf of other health bodies; asset revaluations in NHS Trusts being funded through health authorities; and some double counting of expenditure between health authorities and primary care trusts within the health authority area.

  Allocations per weighted head of population provide a much more reliable measure to identify differences between funding of health authorities.

  2. Expenditure is taken from health authority and primary care trust summarisation forms which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from allocations in the year. The expenditure is the total spent by the health authority and by the primary care trusts within each health authority area. The majority of General Dental Services expenditure is not included in the health authority or primary care trust accounts and is separately accounted for by the Dental Practice Board.

  3. Health authorities and primary care trusts should account for their expenditure on a gross basis. This results in an element of double counting where one body acts as the main commissioner and is then reimbursed by other bodies. The effect of this double counting within the answer cannot be identified.

  Sources:

  Health authority summarisation forms 2000–01

  Primary care trust summarisation schedules 2000–01

  Weighted population estimates 2000–01

  QFO1/QMO8R Waiting times data quarterly returns, end March 2001.

  Protection of Children Act
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to ensure that employers of child care workers report to the police suspicions concerning a child care worker under the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999. [19094]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Protection of Children Act 1999 makes no provision for the reporting of concerns by employers to the police. The Act requires child care organisations to notify the Secretary of State when they have dismissed a person from a child care position on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of his employment) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm. They are also required to notify my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in certain other circumstances specified in the Act.

  GPs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of GPs due to retire over the next 10 years. [19969]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect information about retirement intentions of general practitioners. All unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) have to retire as a principal by the age of 70. Around 2,200 UPEs will reach 70 by 2011.

  In addition there are a further 8,880 doctors who are currently aged between 48 and 58. We might expect a proportion of these doctors to also leave by 2011. A number of doctors continue to work in the national health service after they have claimed their NHS pension until they retire fully.

  The target increase in the NHS Plan for GPs is at least 2,000 more by 2004. The increases are based on an assessment of what is deliverable given the numbers
  1038W
  expected to come out of training, and what is achievable through action on recruitment and retention. This assessment is set against the number of staff we expect to leave the NHS (leavers and retirements).

  Procurement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's partnering relationships with the private sector to achieve better capital procurement and value for money. [15762]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's partnering programme was launched in "Sold on Health" in May 2000, and included proposals to pilot partnering frameworks in schemes in the west midlands and north-west. Final selection is currently under way, and we expect to appoint the successful partners in April 2002. Our programme follows best practice in the public and private sectors, and we anticipate that once partnering is fully developed it will delivery significant time savings, greater value for money, and better facilities for patients.

  Equal Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the expenditure level of the Equal Opportunities Fund in(a)2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c)2003–04. [17165]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan to spend £10,000
  in each of the three years 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04 to employ staff whose costs will be reimbursed from the Employment Opportunities Fund.

  Reforming Emergency Care Allocation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional allocation for 2001–02 under Reforming Emergency Care has been given to(a) Forest health care

  1039W
  trust, (b) Redbridge hospital trust and (c) Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authority; and for what purpose they will be used. [20014]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Forest health care national health service trust and Redbridge hospital NHS trust ceased to exist in April 2001. Acute services are now provided by Whipps Cross university hospital NHS trust and Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a £118 million package for Reforming Emergency Care over two years. Whipps Cross university hospital NHS trust received £78,563 for 2001–02 and £322,110 for 2002–03 for additional accident and emergency nurses and £4,100 as a contribution towards providing the infrastructure in emergency care networks and local leadership through emergency care leads for 2001–02 and £16,600 for 2002–03.

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS trust received £154,203 for 2001–02 and £632,243 for 2002–03 for additional accident and emergency nurses and £4,100 as a contribution towards providing the infrastructure in emergency care networks and local leadership through emergency care leads for 2001–02 and £16,600 for 2002–03.

  This money was distributed directly to trusts with accident and emergency departments, not through health authorities.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the Public Service Agreement target of a national average annual increase of 10 per cent. on whole-time equivalent GPs from 1997 to 2002; [14885]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Public Service Agreement target for the number of new practice nurses by 2002; [14908]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the improvement of primary care premises in areas of deprivation. [14907]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Public Service Agreement target on general practitioner numbers relates to a "1 per cent." annual increase not "10 per cent.". We are currently on course to achieve all of these targets.

  Doctor's Incomes
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average income is for(a) a hospital consultant and (b) a GP. [23896]

  Mr. Hutton
  We estimate that at August 2000, medical consultants were paid, on average, £65,000 basic salary, £72,000 total earnings, by national health service employers.

  Note:

  Doctors figures relate to medical consultants

  Source:
  1040W
  Department of Health's August 2000 NHS staff earnings survey

  For 2000–01 the intended average net income for a full time general practitioner principal delivering general medical services is £60,655.

  Citizens Council
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the Nolan principles will not be applied to the appointees to the Citizens Council. [24608]

  Mr. Hutton
  The appointment of members to Citizens Council is a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but we would expect the appointment process to be equitable, open and transparent. We understand that the creation of a pool of members will rely on a mixture of open advertisement and then selecting from the electoral register to ensue that there is a cross-section of society in the membership. We believe this process would satisfy the Nolan principles.

  Nursing
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether, in those areas covered by NHS professionals, NHS trusts will continue to be allowed to contract directly with private nursing agencies for the provision of services. [24425]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts are undertaking joint procurement processes in order to ensure temporary staffing is better co-ordinated and more consistent. It is believed that this will minimise local anomalies, lower administration costs, and in turn lead to better quality patient care and value for money, whatever the source of supply, private nursing agencies included.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the(a) average length of time and (b) longest time it has taken to (i) process applications by nurses to be put on its books and (ii) pay nurses for placements by NHS Professionals for each month since its establishment. [32882]

  Mr. Hutton
  Currently this information is not collected centrally. Improvements in collecting management information will be made following a review of the early implementation sites.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NHS Professionals will be required to comply with the Nurse Agency National Minimum Standards and Regulations; and if NHS Professionals will be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission. [32884]

  Mr. Hutton
  As NHS Professionals is a national health service employer it does not have to comply with the Nursing Agency Minimum Standards and Regulations nor will it be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission. The standards required of NHS Professionals will be those required of any other NHS employer.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if nurses registered with NHS Professionals but not directly employed by an NHS organisation will be covered by the nurse agency standards and regulations. [32883]

  Mr. Hutton
  As NHS Professionals is a national health service employer nurses registered with it will not be covered by the Nursing Agency Minimum Standards and Regulations. However because those nurses will be
  1041W
  working for an NHS employer and within the NHS they will be required to meet the standards expected of full time NHS nurses.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if(a) the Commission for Health Improvement and (b) the National Care Standards Commission will be responsible for monitoring compliance with standards for agency nursing staff supplied by a private agency but placed by NHS Professionals. [32881]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) considers staffing and staff management issues when carrying our clinical governance reviews of national health service trusts. In a routine clinical governance review, CHI may look at how agency bank and locum staff are inducted, and what training they have.

  The National Care Standards Commission will be responsible for inspecting private nurses agencies on the basis of the national minimum standards. These standards will govern the operation of agencies and how they conduct the supply of temporary nursing staff. The standards will apply to an agency whether or not NHS Professionals uses that agency's services.

  Palliative Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new training is available for district and community nurses dealing with palliative care. [24343]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: We have made £6 million available over the next three years to support over 10,000 nurses in primary care to take part in new training in the general principles and practice of palliative care.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district and community nurses have received new training in palliative care. [24342]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and health Visiting records nurse post registration training information. However, their records do not differentiate between different types of nurses.

  We have funded a £2 million initiative to provide training to help nurses support people with cancer at home for as long as possible during their illness. We expect that over 10,000 nurses in primary care will take part in the training programme over the next three years.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) annual cost and (b) total value of the empty properties owned by (i) his Department, (ii) his agencies and (iii) other public bodies for which he has had responsibility in each of the last four years. [30071]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department, its agencies and executive non-departmental public bodies have only one property that has been empty since July 2000 at an annual cost of £321,000 and a value of £3.7 million. This property is intended to be used by the national health service shortly.
  1042W
  No information is available centrally on vacant properties held by NHS bodies.

  Health Bodies (Composition)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency sit on(a) local health trusts and (b) other health bodies sponsored by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [30972]

  Jacqui Smith
  Six people who live in the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency currently serve on national health service boards. The bodies involved are given in the table.

  NHS body

  Number of members

  Aintree Hospital Trust

  1

  North Mersey Community NHS Trust

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community NHS Trust

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority

  1

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  Total

  6

  Laura Touche
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government proposes to take following the coroner's verdict on the death of Laura Touche at the Portland hospital, London. [30854]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have already taken steps to improve the regulation of private health care services. From 1 April this year, a new independent body, the National Care Standards Commission, will take over from health authorities the regulation of independent health care providers.

  For the first time, providers will have to meet national minimum standards. The guiding principles when producing these standards was that the needs of patients were paramount, and that the standards must be compatible with national health service standards where possible. The standards comprise core standards with which all independent health care providers will have to comply, including the requirement that they have in place a formal complaints policy and procedures. Complainants who are dissatisfied with a hospital's complaints system may approach the Commission direct.

  Apart from core standards, providers will be required to meet standards specific to the services they provide. For the first time, the owners and managers of private hospitals will be held accountable for the quality of care provided in their establishment.

  NHS Concordat
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated to date under the NHS concordat in(a) the south-east,(b) the south-west, (c) London, (d) Trent, (e) the west midlands, (f) the north-west, (g) north and Yorkshire and (h) England. [31107]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 29 January 2002]: Since November 2000 the Independent Healthcare Association has collected monthly data from independent health care

  1043W
  providers about the number of national health service patients treated by them. A breakdown of the information will shortly be placed in the Library.

  According to this data, at least 80,000 procedures have been treated in the independent sector in England, paid for by the NHS. This figure includes out-patient appointments, day cases and in-patient treatment. Information for the regions requested is in the table.

  The Department has recently surveyed health authorities and trusts on the amount of activity they are purchasing for NHS patients within the private sector and will make available key results soon. The Department is also currently reviewing its information needs as far as NHS-funded activity in the private sector is concerned.

  Region1

  Procedures2

  London

  3,162

  North-west

  18,542

  Northern and Yorkshire

  15,172

  South-east

  19,047

  South-west

  6,636

  Trent

  6,978

  West Midlands

  7,029

  1May differ slightly from NHS regions.

  2Procedures undertaken by the independent sector facilities in each region (may differ slightly from NHS regions) paid for by the NHS between November 2000 and December 2001 (including out-patient appointments, day cases and in-patient treatment).

  Parliamentary Questions (PFI)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written parliamentary questions regarding private finance initiatives have been tabled since 1 January 2000; and in answer to how many of these information has not been provided on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. [31855]

  Mr. Hutton
  No information has been withheld on the grounds of commercial confidentiality to all the 109 written parliamentary questions which have been tabled since 1 January 2000 relating to the private finance initiative.

  Departmental Salary Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 will be accounted for by salary costs and pension contributions. [32006]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total departmental expenditure limit in 2001–02 is £49.8 billion. The current estimate of the hospital and community health service paybill in 2001–02 is £22.7 billion (45 per cent. of the planned expenditure).

  The estimate of the HCHS paybill includes all salary costs—including pension contributions.

  Children in Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in care turned 16 in the academic years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e)2000–01. [31763]
  1044W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information in the table approximates to the number of school children in their GCSE year, who had been looked after at any time during their secondary education up to and including that year.

  Estimated number1,2 of children who were looked after at any time during their year 11 at school, or at any time during the previous four school years

  Academic year

  Estimated number

  1996–97

  12,100

  1997–98

  11,300

  1998–99

  11,100

  1999–2000

  11,000

  2000–013,4

  10,400

  1The table excludes children who were looked after under a series of short term placements.

  2 All figures in the above table have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3All CLA data for financial year ending 31 March 2001 are provisional.

  4Incomplete year. Latest information on DH database relates to year ending 31 March 2001. The estimated figure relates to children who were 16 during the period 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001, and were looked after at any time during the period 1 September 1996 to 31 March 2001.

  Source:

  CLA Episode system.

  Silicone Cosmesis
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated to each health authority for silicone cosmesis from the funding for 2001–02; and how much has been spent. [31664]

  Jacqui Smith
  On the 9 January 2001 the Government announced that funding totalling £4 million to provide silicone cosmesis to prosthetic limb users was to be made available over the next three years. The funding started with £0.5 million for 2001–02, £1.5 million for 2002–03 and £2 million for 2003–04. This was an addition to the baseline allocations to the 99 health authorities. Each local health authority will provide funding to individual disablement service centres (DSCs) to provide silicone cosmesis.

  The contract for purchasing silicone cosmesis covers was awarded on 1 October 2001. To support this initiative officials in my Department wrote, on 12 December 2001, to all health authorities reminding them that this funding has been provided to them in their allocations.

  The contractor is required as part of the contract to provide the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency with quarterly contract sales figures which will include:
  total sales figure in £s;
  £s spent by each DSC; and
  what span of products are purchased.
  These data are currently being collected by the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency.

  Strategic Health Authorities (Board Papers)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if members of the public will have the same right of access to the board papers of strategic health authorities as they currently do to the board papers of health authorities. [32296]
  1045W
  Mr. Hutton
  Yes. The provisions relating to open board meetings and access to board papers will be exactly the same for strategic health authorities as currently apply to health authorities.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were(a) admitted to hospital for formal detention and (b) informally admitted to hospital in each year since 1997. [32751]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department collects and publishes information annually relating to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The most recent publication "In-patients formally detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Act 1983 and other legislation, England: 1990–1991 to 2000–2001" summarises the position at 31 March 2001.

  Table 1 of the publication shows that all formal admissions to national health service facilities, during the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2001 increased from 25,415 to 26,707.

  Table 7 of the publication shows that the numbers of patients whose legal status changed from informal to formal admission, during the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March, increased from 68,027 to 73,751.

  The total number of admissions to NHS hospitals for treatment for mental illness is shown in the table.

  Mental illness

  1997–98

  203,800

  1998–99

  188,700

  1999–2000

  187,600

  2000–01

  181,500

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines were issued to health authorities and mental health trusts following the House of Lords judgments in the Bournewood case. [32753]

  Jacqui Smith
  The House of Lords gave its decision in the case of Lv. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS trust on 25 June 1998. On 10 July 1998 the Department issued a circular (HSC 1999/122) informing the chief executives of national health service trusts and other interested parties of the decision of the House of Lords. It also gave "preliminary guidance" on the practical consequences of the House of Lords decision.

  Further guidance was included in the "Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983" published in March 1999. The code provides guidance on the admission to hospital and the treatment of patients who are mentally incapable of giving consent.

  Autism
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research projects into the causes of autism have been supported by the Government since 1997. [32420]

  Jacqui Smith
  Details of research projects on autism can be found on the National Research Register (NRR) at www.doh.gov.uldresearch.nrr.htm. The NRR includes information on research commissioned through the 1046W
  national and regional programmes of national health service research and development and the Department's Policy Research Programme, as well as work supported by NHS Support for Science funding that has been commissioned by the Medical Research Council (MRS) and others. The NRR shows that there are currently 58 on-going and 109 completed projects on autism.

  The MRC (which is largely funded by Government) published a detailed review of the epidemiology and causes of autism on 13 December 2001. The report, commissioned by the Department in March 2001, provides a clear, authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the occurrence and causes of autism spectrum disorders. The report encourages the research community to develop high quality research proposals that address the key issues identified in the report.

  We are discussing with the MRC the implications of their report for their research programme.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of(a) a grade F nursing home place and (b) a residential home place, paid for by each county social services authority in England in (i) 1997, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2001; and what the county average was. [32706]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Health Bodies (Budgets)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to NHS regional chief executives on(a) the need for health bodies to balance their budgets and (b) advice to give where overspends are anticipated. [32703]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department issued "NHS Plan Implementation Programme" which provided guidance on priorities. Within this guidance, a target of financial balance has been set which is managed in year by the Department's regional offices.

  Where health bodies require support at year-end this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service.

  Primary Care Trusts (Overspending)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he expects overspends by primary care trusts to be offset by savings by other health bodies. [32704]

  Mr. Hutton
  By the end of this financial year we expect all primary care trusts to live within their agreed resource limits. Where they require support at the year-end this will be provided principally through brokerage from elsewhere in the national health service. This is normal practice in managing the end of year financial position.
  1047W

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to public health professionals in the event of a large scale smallpox outbreak. [33338]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The Department issued guidance to all health authorities and regional directors of Public health on the procedures to be followed in the event of a deliberate release of smallpox and other biological agents on 17 October 2001. At the same time, guidance for medical and laboratory staff was issued by the Public Health Laboratory Service on 17 October 2001. This is available on the PHLS website: http://www.phls.co.uk/advice/smallpox guidelines.pdf

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 410W, how many smallpox vaccine doses are held by his Department. [33337]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: It is not possible to expand upon the answer given on 22 November 2001, as details concerning quantities of vaccine could aid planning of a bioterrorist attack. A strategic stock of vaccine is held which could be rapidly deployed to contain an outbreak.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 410W, whether Britain will have a smallpox vaccine stockpile ensuring a dose for every citizen by January 2003. [33333]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]It is not possible to expand upon the answer given on 22 November 2001, as details about vaccine supplies could aid planning of a bioterrorist attack. A strategic stock of smallpox vaccine is already held which could be deployed to contain an outbreak, and this is being kept under review together with the United Kingdom's future requirements for smallpox vaccine.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of the population which has some protective immunity to smallpox. [32973]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]Routine vaccination for smallpox stopped in the United Kingdom and in all countries by 1980 when eradication was declared by the Word Health Organisation. We now have a population which either has never been vaccinated or who were vaccinated 20 or more years ago and who have waning immunity.

  A Departmental funded study by the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research has been looking at how best to estimate the protective immunity within the UK population, as part of a wider study on microbial risk assessment. Recent estimates put the level of immunity at about 18 per cent., though it must be stressed that this is only a crude estimate.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 410W, how many smallpox vaccine doses would be required to contain a smallpox outbreak in the UK. [33332]
  1048W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 February 2002]: The number of smallpox vaccine doses depend on a number of factors including scale of release, number, time to disease recognition, location and site. Such factors and the need to consider different scenarios are integral to the Department's contingency planning.

  The use of smallpox vaccine would depend upon the circumstances of the outbreak of the disease and whether or not it could be confined to a particular location.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam on 6 November 2001, ref. 13108, concerning beta interferon. [32668]

  Ms Blears
  I replied to the hon. Member on 31 January 2002,Official Report, column 560W.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent social work staff there were on local authority establishments in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these posts were left unfilled in each year. [32662]

  Jacqui Smith
  For the numbers of whole-time equivalent social work staff, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on 18 January 2002,Official Report, column 530W. Information on the number of unfilled social work staff posts is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the trends in the use made by social services departments of agency staff in each of the last four years. [32663]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the use of agency staff by local authority social services departments is not held centrally.

  Health Authority Budgets (London)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest forecast figures are for(a) underspending or overspending for the present financial year, (b) recurring funding pressures which impact on the 2002–03 planning round and (c) deficits in the local health economy in each health authority in London submitted to the London regional office. [32677]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 793W.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacists the National Care Standards Commission employs; and when the full complement of pharmacists will be in post. [32670]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission has a complement of 66 pharmacist inspectors and one national pharmacist professional adviser. None are currently employed by the NCSC, as the responsibility for regulation will not be passed until 1 April 200. The national post is due to be advertised in
  1049W
  mid-February. The full complement of pharmacist inspectors is unlikely to be in post for some time, as there are insufficient pharmacist inspectors eligible to transfer to the NCSC from 1 April 2002. Pharmacy inspection services will therefore be obtained by various local arrangements to fulfil the complement from 1 April.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new outcome measures for residents in care homes will be collected by the National Care Standards Commission. [32889]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Minimum Standards for care homes focus on achievable outcomes for service users constructed around separate topics, for example, choice of home, health and personal care, daily life and social activities and environment. The standards will form the basis for judgments made by the National Care Standards Commission concerning registration. The standards are not only qualitative, providing a tool for judging the quality of life of service users, but also measurable.

  Strokes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure that every hospital that cares for older people with strokes will have established clinical audit systems by April 2003, as required by the National Framework for Older People. [32975]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's Priorities and Planning Framework 2002–03, issued 6 December 2001 sets the achievement of the milestones of the National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People within one of the three major priorities for local action. The initial milestones set for the improvements in stroke care, provide that:by April 2002 every general hospital which cares for people with stroke will have plans to introduce a specialised stroke service as described in the stroke service model from 2004;
  by April 2003 every hospital which cares for older people with stroke will have established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of the Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for stroke care.

  The achievement of each of the milestones will be monitored.

  The NSF for Older People recommended that the clinical audit methodology developed by the Royal College of Physicians be used as the basis for agreeing
  1050W
  local priorities for action in ensuring the establishment of integrated stroke services and for the continued auditing of service improvement.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources will be made available to support the continuation of the National Sentinel Audit for Stroke. [32976]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department provided £233,000 for the initial development of the stroke audit. Responsibility and funding for the National Sentinel Audits was transferred from the Department to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in December 1999. Following a review last year by NICE of their completed audits topics, the Department is considering a proposal to commission further work on the stroke audit.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to further(a) his Department's policy research and (b) the NHS Research and Development Programme to deal with strokes; and if he will make a statement. [32974]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have set standards to improve the provision of integrated stroke services in the National Service Framework for Older People, and research will underpin this strategy. The Department continues to support stroke research through the national health service health technology assessment programme (HTA), the Department's policy research programme and other NHS research and development programmes. In addition to the new research referred to in the reply given on 1 February 2002,Official Report, column 624W, the HTA programme has recently advertised further calls for proposals for primary research in the treatment of high blood pressure immediately after stroke.

  The NHS research and development programmes use a range of methods to identify, prioritise and commission work in all areas including stroke. Further details can be found on the website www.doh.gov.uk/research.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will reply to the letter of 28 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Walsall, North, regarding a constituent, ref: P0001146; [27311]

  (2) pursuant to the interim reply of 15 January (ref: PQ 4078/2001/2002), when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 28 November 2001 (ref: P0001146 (27311)). [31287]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 15 January and 29 January 2002]: A reply was sent on 30 January 2002.

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.

Haemophiliacs: Recombinant Treatment
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, as president of the Haemophilia Society.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they now expect to provide recombinant treatment for people with haemophilia irrespective of age or where they live in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are considering the case for extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors to all haemophilia patients in England.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not cruelly wrong in principle that people with the same disability are given or refused safer medical treatment according to whether they live in Scotland and Wales or in England? And more especially so when contaminated blood products that were prescribed for them have already taken the lives of over 1,000 haemophiliacs in the NHS's worst-ever treatment disaster. Is it not also plainly wrong that even the current policy of entitling children in England to the safer recombinant treatment is sometimes ignored? What have Ministers done to protect such vulnerable children? When will right be done?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I acknowledge the force with which my noble friend and the Haemophilia Society have put forward the case over recent years. There is no evidence that recombinant clotting factors are more efficacious than plasma-based products. My noble friend is certainly right to suggest that policy varies in different parts of the United Kingdom, with Scotland and Wales committed to providing recombinant treatment for all haemophilia patients. As I said, we very much understand the concerns of the people who have been so tragically affected, and we are considering the position in England.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that patients with haemophilia are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining dental treatment? When those patients have been refused and have taken up the matter with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, they have
630
been told that the matter should be referred to the CJD Incident Panel. Is that because they are being treated with non-recombinant factor or would all haemophilia cases be so referred, and why are such referrals made to the variant CJD treatment centre?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the reference to variant CJD has come about because consultation on risk assessment in relation to the use of medical instruments has just concluded. However, I shall be happy to follow up this matter with the noble Baroness. If she has specific cases to bring to my attention, I shall certainly be prepared to look into them. In relation to access to dental treatment, I would also expect community dental services at local level to be asked to look into matters which affect people locally.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this matter concerns the basic safety of the treatment? As recombinant treatment is seen to he safer and more efficient, is it not the case that a group who historically have suffered so badly should receive that treatment straightaway?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. As I said, the matter is being considered carefully by the Government at present. However, the advice that I have received is that there is no evidence that recombinant clotting factors are more efficacious than plasma-based products. But, of course, I recognise the feelings of those in the community and the fears of parents of children and, indeed, of all those who receive blood products through infectious agents. That is why the Government are considering the matter.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. Is the Minister aware that in Newcastle upon Tyne 75 per cent of haemophiliacs have contracted HIV? In addition, bearing in mind the problems of CJD and hepatitis C, is it not time that haemophiliacs were given the safest possible form of clotting agents?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to the response that I gave to the noble Lord. As I said, the advice that I have received is that as yet there is no evidence to suggest that there is an issue of safety between the different products. We understand the feelings of those in the community who are involved and affected by the tragic events that have occurred. We are obviously considering the matter.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, if it is now possible for the manufacturers of recombinant factor 8 to produce a sufficient amount of the treatment for everyone who might need it, is there now any reason why that material should not be available to all haemophiliacs, regardless of age?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right in identifying that a shortage of

631
recombinant factor 8 has limited supplies to the UK over the past year. My understanding is that that shortage has now eased up and that manufacturers have increased production. Obviously that is one of a number of issues that needs to be taken into account.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, if the Minister and his colleagues are prepared to consider beta interferon for MS sufferers, why should the Government not enter into a novel risk-sharing arrangement over recombinant clotting factors as they have done in relation to beta interferon?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is certainly an interesting suggestion. I would say only that at present these matters are under consideration by the Government.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, further to my noble friend's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, can he tell the House how many people with haemophilia have received blood that was donated by donors who have since died of variant CJD?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures so far are that eight people with variant CJD are known to have been blood donors and 22 people have been identified as having received transfused blood from donors who later developed variant CJD. I understand that the total number of deaths from variant CJD is 106.
Earl Howe: My Lords, have the Government estimated the additional cost of recombinant treatment to haemophiliacs were it to be available in England?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the cost that has been made available to me is in the region of £50 million a year.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Contingency Planning
2.43 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have fully implemented the European Union Foot-and-Mouth Disease Contingency Plans for Great Britain (last revised in July 2000) and, if so, when this took place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the contingency plan provided a general overview of our planned response to an outbreak and was approved by the European Commission. It was a strategic plan supported by detailed operational guidance and veterinary instructions. An interim contingency plan is now being
632
prepared based on recent disease experience and current policy and it will build on existing relationships between interested parties. It codifies the operational regime developed during the recent outbreak and since, and will complement the existing strategic framework and the detailed instructions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am puzzled. The Minister has not answered my question. I asked whether the contingency plan has been implemented and, if so, when. I have the impression that it never was implemented. Am I correct?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The noble Countess should listen more carefully. I indicated that the contingency plan provided the general overview by which we responded to the disease. I have told the House before that part of the problem with the original contingency plan was that we assumed that we were faced with a new outbreak, whereas in fact the outbreak had been spreading for some considerable time due to the trading patterns within the industry at that time. Nevertheless, it provided the strategic overview that we followed. Therefore, it was implemented in line with what we had told the European Commission. Since then, in some respects we have had experience of the shortcomings of that plan, although the bulk of it still stands. We are learning those lessons and we are now drawing up a new contingency plan.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, being "smidgy"— sharp—to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, as he did not answer her Question. The guidance clearly states that the person in charge should be the chief vet. Can the Minister confirm that, at the beginning of the outbreak, the chief vet was in charge but was removed, that the chief scientist then took charge and was removed, and that the Prime Minister then took charge and everything went wrong?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I was wasting my "smidginess", if that was the expression, on the noble Countess. Perhaps I should be more negative in my reaction to the noble Baroness, but hers was such a hilariously misleading view of history that I do not believe it is sensible for us to pursue it. The Government are presenting their own evidence to the Anderson inquiry, as will other parties, on the sequence of events. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that the original contingency plan required the chief vet to be in charge. In the event we were dealing with the kind of outbreak that was not really covered by the contingency plan, which is what I said earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is relevant to consider whether the implementation of this plan was in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and, if so, why?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my view the actions taken during the course of the disease came under

633
legislation that was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. In so far as the contingency plan is relevant, it was cleared with the European Commission in advance. No doubt we shall return to this topic when we deal with the latter stage of the Animal Health Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Why?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how and at what stage local authorities were involved in discussing the contingency plan, given their role in relation to animal health and as the highway authority that had to close footpaths? Will he also tell the House at what stage they will he involved in discussions on the current contingency plan so that they can include it in their emergency planning?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her finger on one of the problems with the process of contingency planning prior to the disease. The contingency plan had been discussed with various parties, including the local authorities, but the dry runs of the plan that have been conducted with the vets and with other officials were entirely internal. From that experience we have learned that we need to engage not only in the planning process but also in the testing of the process with the local authorities, the farmers, the hauliers and everyone else. Therefore, in the future we need a stakeholder-based contingency plan. Future contingency plans will pursue that.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I was surprised to see that Article 9.2 of the contingency plans for Great Britain estimates that specimens can be delivered to the laboratories within a maximum of eight hours. Clearly, that was not the experience of farmers who desperately wanted to know whether their animals were infected or not. Can the Minister tell the House why there is a considerable divergence between what the European Union is saying on this subject and what actually happened?
Lord Whitey: My Lords, two or three different issues are wrapped up in that question. The European Commission's guidelines would relate to delivering samples as quickly as possible to the laboratory. In the early stages, there were only one or two sites to which they could be delivered. As the disease progressed we stepped up the capacity from about 400 tests a week to over 200,000 tests a week. In the beginning there was the problem of having to travel some distance and there were other logistical delays in delivering samples. As a result of the disease we have learned of techniques that would mean quicker testing.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that after the 1969 outbreak Western Command produced for the Army its report on the lessons learned. Can the Minister say whether, in connection with the absolutely crucial role played by the Army in trying to bring the disease under control,
634
the Government's response will contain a separate report from the Ministry of Defence on the lessons it learned in tackling the outbreak?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Defence has internally drawn tip its own assessment of the disease and of the Army's role. That will be fed into the committees of inquiry and will be part of the overall government response. But certainly it has drawn those lessons together.
Lord Soulsby of Swaftham Prior: My Lords. will the Government take note of the findings of the various committees that are looking into the lessons learned, especially those from the Royal Society, before they draw up the final contingency plans that are on the board?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the process I described was an interim contingency plan which will take into account from the Government and other bodies the lessons learned up until now. Clearly, any final or definitive contingency plan will have to take into account the outcome of both the Royal Society and Dr Anderson's considerations and, indeed, of the assessment being made by the EU of the contingency planning and other matters. So the final version will have taken those points into account.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following upon my noble friend's question, will the Ministry of Defence findings be published?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will be an overall government response which will incorporate the Ministry of Defence's part of that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: Well, my Lords, I referred carefully in response to the noble Lord, Lord King, to an internal document from the Ministry of Defence which will form part therefore of the overall response. Whether or not that gets published will be a matter for Dr Anderson and his inquiry. Certainly, the Government would have no objection to the Government's submission being published with the eventual report.

Marine Environment
2.52 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and as a trustee or member of other environment charities.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the value of the marine environment in the seas around the British Isles in terms of

635
employment, industrial activity, leisure and recreation and cultural heritage, and what action they are taking to protect and enhance this asset.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no standard definition of the marine environment within the standard industrial classification, which provides the basis for official statistics on specific industry sectors. The marine-related activities undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to GDP and to employment.
Our seas are also rich in biodiversity. A range of measures is in hand to afford them further protection. The forthcoming marine stewardship report will set out our strategy for the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, will he not agree that there is a crisis threatening this very special asset? Will he further agree that this crisis is evidenced by declining fish stocks, in toxic poisoning of marine mammals and in the disappearance of wetlands, not to mention the accumulation of radioactive waste and the effects of climate change? Is not responsibility for managing this asset spread through too many authorities and departments? Should there not be designated Ministers in every department in Westminster and in devolved administrations to ensure the application of strategic policy with clout?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on these occasions, I am always advised that the demarcation of government departments and ministerial responsibility is a matter for the Prime Minister. I am not supposed to comment further. However, I believe that in this area there is a degree of co-ordination and that the pressures which my noble friend rightly describes on the marine environment are catered for by the responses of the various agencies, the majority of which come under the aegis of my department.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, last March the Prime Minister announced that there would be a series of marine stewardship reports. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to a series of Written Questions from the noble Lord, the Minister referred to,
"the forthcoming marine stewardship report".
Can he tell us, first, when that report will come out; and, secondly, what that and the other reports will cover and what the timetable is for them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the report to which my replies to my noble friend refer is the first of a series of
636
reports which will address the full range of impacts placed on the marine environment, including shipping, climate change and some of the other pressures that he referred to. We hope to publish that first report in the spring.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, first.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, do the Government contemplate any change in the jurisdiction over Rockall and the surrounding seas?
Lord Whitty: I think that the answer to that is, "No", my Lords. If I am misinformed on the matter I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government include in their estimate those assets which are on and under the seabed—for example, oil, gas and substances used in medicine?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, the economic exploitation of some of the resources of the marine environment are particularly important. So it is not just a question of conservation; it is also a question of carrying out the economic activities ranging from oil and gas right through to very precious materials which can be used in smaller quantities with environmental protection in mind. Certainly that is the major dimension of our approach to the marine environment and a major source of employment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report by 150 international leading marine scientists which has drawn attention to the fact that fisheries benefit greatly from the proximity of marine nature reserves? Can he explain why the seven marine nature reserves, which were identified over 20 years ago in 1981, have not yet been attended to? Only two have been designated from that list of seven. One more was added in Northern Ireland and that has since been designated. What is the hold up? Why have the Government not carried forward the programme which was under way when they took office?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are committed to improving nature conservation of marine nature reserves. We are considering ways in which conservation out to 200 nautical miles can be improved. Hitherto we have concentrated on the 12-mile limit. We are considering over 100 Natura 2000 sites. They are special areas of conservation under the habitats directive and the special protection areas for birds under the birds directive. To date, there

637
are 62 candidates for special area conservation status. So this is an ongoing programme which will protect the most important sites already identified.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in the Session 1998–99 produced a report on sea fishing which recommended that,
"the Government establish for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy for the management and development of the UK fishing industry"?
In January 2001 the Fish Industry Forum produced a draft strategy which included its requirements. Can the Minister tell the House whether this strategy has been developed by the Government; and, if so, when will it be published?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that on the one hand the common fisheries policy is largely determined at the European level and that there is a review of the common fisheries policy which is starting this year. The Fisheries Council and my colleague, Elliot Morley, who is involved in that, are beginning to focus on that matter. So that is one dimension. Other aspects of how we develop and protect the British industry will be followed in that context. Fisheries is also a devolved matter. Therefore, both the Scottish and Northern Irish authorities have their own strategic approach to these matters.

Postcomm
3 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they believe that Postcomm's proposals for the Royal Mail will be in the interests of residents in rural areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, Postcomm's primary statutory duty, laid down in the Postal Services Act 2000, is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. Subject to that primary duty it also has a duty to further the interests of postal users where appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators. It is for Postcomm to decide how it carries out these two duties. Postcomm's document, Proposals For Effective Competition in UK Postal Services, published on Thursday 31st January, is for public consultation and we would expect any concerns about the universal service obligation to be thoroughly considered.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, my Question asked whether the Government believe that the proposals will he in the best interests of residents in rural areas. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what feedback he has had from such residents, because the feedback that I have received is that they do not
638
believe that the proposals will be in their interests. Nothing else that has happened to what was the Post Office has been in their interest, from the closure of hundreds of post offices to the mess that cabling for rural areas, which is being undertaken by the private sector, is now in. So the lesson of privatisation, without even considering the railways, suggests to them that Postcomm's proposals are hasty, ill thought-out as to their effect on rural areas and certainly not in their interests.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the reason for setting up Postcomm was for it to advise or take action in such areas. It has put forward these proposals and they are being consulted on. It is clearly inappropriate for the Government, having appointed Postcomm to do that job and given it the necessary authority, immediately to state their own view on the matter. The reason for the consultation is clearly to decide whether the two duties given it by Parliament are being handled in the right way.
Although we may blame the Post Office for many things, to blame it for broadband, which is of course a telecommunications matter, is carrying its responsibility too far. As for issues concerning the rural network, which I think is what is of concern to the noble Baroness, they have nothing to do with this issue. They have to do with declining customer numbers for rural post offices. We tackled that difficult issue through the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, which we accepted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that 547 sub-post offices have closed, that the Post Office or Consignia has shown a heavy loss for the first time in 25 years, that 63,000 days have been lost through industrial action—all of that since April 2000, when the Postal Services Act 2000 came into force—can the Minister say whether the Government think that the Act was a success? Apart from asking what the Government are doing to help those in the country, what are they doing to help anyone in any part of the country—in rural or urban areas?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figures that we now have for the closure of rural post offices are actually rather better than that. During the first half of this year, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of closures—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was not asking about that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was going to give the noble Baroness the figures; I thought that there was some dispute about them. I have already dealt with the Act: first, it is a good Act; secondly, there has been rather a short time in which to judge it. As I was about to point out, on the subject before us the performance is better.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, first, may I ask my noble friend to convey to the Post Office my

639
congratulations—and, I am sure, those of many noble Lords—on the excellent issue of stamps for Her Majesty the Queen's Jubilee today? Having said that, does my noble friend think that the seven weeks left for consultation on opening up the post are sufficient or constitute undue haste that is likely to cause more difficulty? The recent National Audit Office report expresses concern that introducing competition could affect rural services. Will the Minister give us an assurance that rural services will be protected if the fears of the National Audit Office are confirmed?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the report was published at the beginning of January and the consultation period lasts until the end of March, which seems to me reasonable. As I said, the issue of competition is not directly related to the closure of rural post offices. The issue there is the finances of not Consignia but rural post offices—the difficulty that they have in being profitable with falling customer numbers. It is worth remembering that 56 per cent of the rural post offices that closed last year were already open for only restricted hours and had no shop and fewer than 70 customers per week. That is the nature of the problem; it is not to do with the finances of Consignia.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Layard and the Lord Hunt of Chesterton set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Poverty
3.6 p.m.
Lord Layard Lord Layard rose to call attention to developments since 1997 in tackling poverty and supporting families; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is nothing more shocking than poverty in the midst of plenty. It is shocking in any country, yet that is what existed when Labour came to power in 1997. During the 18 years of the previous government, relative poverty in this country had doubled, so that a quarter of our population was living at below one-half of the average income. Worst of all, child poverty had more than doubled, so that one in three of our children was in poverty on that definition—more than anywhere else in Europe except Italy.
Faced with that situation, the Government had to set priorities and, rightly, they put child poverty at the top of the list. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society and they are also our future. So the Prime Minister made a bold and courageous
640
commitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. That is an extremely formidable challenge, but the Chancellor has devised a powerful strategy for heading us in the right direction. The strategy has three prongs: first, get more people into work; secondly, improve their pay through better education; thirdly, where people are still poor, transfer income. If we consider each of those elements, we can see how much has been achieved.
On the work front, our problem is with workless families—families in which neither parent is working. In 1997, nearly one child in five in Britain lived in such a family. That is one of the highest rates in Europe. What a terrible start to life, but, also, what a cause of poverty. How to get more people into work? Obviously through a stable macro-economic policy, which has been achieved, but also through supply-side measures to mobilise those who are not in work. It is on the supply side that our Government have done especially well compared with, for example, France and Germany. In recent years, there have been high levels of job vacancy in all three countries, but Britain has mobilised the unemployed to fill those vacancies by a mixture of active help and reasonable pressure.
The Employment Service now provides more help, advice and chivvying than ever before. Through the New Deal, it has largely prevented the tragic drift of people into long-term unemployment, guaranteeing activity to every young person within roughly nine months of their becoming unemployed and to every adult within roughly two years. That is now a right for the unemployed, but there is a corresponding responsibility to make use of that help if they want to receive any help from the state. There is no fifth option. That is the formula. It worked in Denmark and Holland, for example, and it is working here.
For other claimants who are not in work, particularly single parents and people with disabilities, the Government now rightly insist that they attend work-focused interviews at which they consider whether to seek some kind of work. They can take advantage, where relevant, of the more generous support that the Government now provide for child care.
What are the results? They are not bad. There are a million more people in work; the proportion of children living in workless households is down from 18 per cent to 15 per cent, a 3 per cent drop, corresponding to the fall in worklessness; and 52 per cent of lone parents are now in work, compared with 46 per cent in 1997. Of course, that is only a beginning. Five per cent unemployment is very high, compared with what we could have. We still have too many people outside the labour force. We know from other countries that we can go much further in mobilising the non-employed. The Government have committed themselves to an integrated approach to the problem, creating Jobcentre Plus, which brings together work and benefits, and the Department for Work and Pensions.
Work will not end poverty if income in work is too low. During the 1980s, there was an extraordinary increase in pay inequality in this country. It became

641
more unequal than at any time since records began. That was mainly due to the scandalous neglect of the skills of at least a half of our young people. Although our higher education was the best in Europe, our vocational education below degree level was among the worst. Half our young people got no serious education beyond 16. However, since 1997, a major educational revolution has been afoot, with proper standards of literacy and numeracy achieved by 70 per cent of 11 year-olds in 2001 and a stronger expansion of sub-degree vocational education, modern apprenticeship and basic skills for adults as compared with more academic forms of education for the group that will end up at the higher income level.
That policy, if continued resolutely, will, at long last, reduce the disgracefully unequal nature of our education system, one of the most unequal in Europe, which has done so much to produce unequal incomes in later life. Of course, it will take years to affect the overall pattern of wages. If pay is too low to sustain a family, there is no alternative to income transfer. The national minimum wage can play some role, but the main burden must fall on the Exchequer. That is why the Government have hugely increased the scales of assistance to poor families, in work and out of work. I am thinking of the working families' tax credit, child benefit and benefits for the workless. Those increases have gone far beyond the adjustments for price inflation that were provided by the previous government. As a result of the changes in benefits and in personal tax, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than if benefits and taxes had been indexed to prices. That is a big number.
One thing is clear: such generosity must be repeated again and again, even if we want just to keep poverty constant. We will have to run just in order to stand still because of the logic of the situation. Unless benefits rise at roughly the same rate as average incomes, relative poverty must, by definition, increase unless it is cut by having more people in work or reductions in low pay. Although higher employment rates can make a contribution in the short term, it is unlikely that pay will become more equal at all soon. The main point I make is that if we want to reduce poverty—not just hold the line—-we must see a steady rise in the share of national income going to child support. That is not always realised, but it is a logical implication of the Prime Minister's pledge.
In the context of benefits, the argument that we should reduce the poverty trap by further reducing the steepness of the benefit tapers must be strongly rejected. I am sure that someone here will advocate that, but it must be resisted. It is expensive and ill targeted, and it raises the implicit rate of tax for some at the margin, even as it reduces it for others. One problem that must be faced is housing benefit. It traps people into non-employment more than any other benefit, and it distorts the housing market. It must be gradually absorbed into the existing cash benefits.
What can he said about the overall results of the Government's anti-poverty policies? Unfortunately, there is a long lag before the data come. We have had no really good data since 1999–2000. That is over two
642
years ago and before many of the policies that I mentioned began to bite. However, we do have some crude data from the family expenditure survey for 2000–01 that are encouraging when compared with those for the previous year. For all households, the disposable income of the lower income groups appears, at last, to have risen significantly faster than for the middle and higher groups.
The figures cover pensioners, as well as people of working age and their children. As there is no time to look further at every group of poor people, I want finally to consider the record on pensioners. A number of us in the House are pensioners. It is important to realise that the world has changed and that the pattern of poverty has changed; it is remarkable. Today, most poverty is due to low pay or worklessness. Only 20 per cent of the poor are pensioners, which compares with a half in the 1970s. That is because of the increase in other forms of low pay. The risk of poverty for a pensioner is barely higher than it is for the average person. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of all pensioners are in the top half of the overall income distribution. So the Government's policy towards pensioners must he targeted as it is on other groups in the population.
We have debated the subject several times, and the strategy is well known. Pensioner poverty is being attacked by the minimum income guarantee, which is to be indexed to earnings for the duration of this Parliament. About 2 million people now benefit from that guarantee. By next April, those people will be over 20 per cent better off, in real terms, than they would have been under the price index policies that the Government inherited. Of course, the guarantee does nothing for those who fall just above it but are still on the margin of poverty. For those whom it affects, it renders useless any savings that they may have made, which is why, from 2003, the Government will introduce the pensioner credit. It will provide the minimum income for people who have only the state pension, hut, for others, it will provide an income that rises by 60p in the pound for additional income that a person may have, up to a maximum. A half of all pensioners will benefit from the pensioner credit.
In the war against poverty, much has been achieved. Looking back, one dreads to contemplate the situation that would have existed had previous policies been continued. Our task is like turning round a liner that was heading in the wrong direction. It will take serious money to deliver the Prime Minister's guarantee. Benefits for children must rise faster than earnings; that is the logical necessity that I mentioned. Real money must go into vocational education for the 50 per cent who are not going to university. A government committed to eliminating poverty should have not only a target for the percentage going to university, but a target for the other group not going to university that demonstrates that we will give them all a skill.
The Government deserve real praise for the radical measures that they have already adopted. However, if they are really to abolish child poverty, they must go much further. I trust that they will not flinch or fail. I beg to move for Papers.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for bringing this debate before us today. Tackling poverty and supporting families is a prime concern for any government. As John Prescott wrote:
"Improving the quality of life for the people of this country is perhaps the most important duty of Government".
However, the figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that there has been "no consistent change" since 1996–97 in the number of children living in poverty, while the number of working-age people in poverty has "remained broadly constant". Millions of people have been trapped on means-tested benefits without any significant impact on poverty trends.
Among individuals living in households with below 50 per cent of mean income, four out of 10 were not in work; between 20 and 25 per cent lived in households without access to a bank account; and between 50 and 60 per cent lived in families in receipt of one or more income-related benefits.
The failure of this Government to improve the situation was expressed recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, who is not in his place today, when writing in the Guardian. He commented:
"New Labour has fulfilled the party's historic destiny to redistribute income. Unfortunately, it has not happened in quite the way that the founding fathers intended … If the prime minister knew how wide the gap had become, self-preservation may have persuaded him to dismiss inequality as unimportant rather than acknowledge that he has presided over a tragedy".
Equal concern was expressed by Child Poverty Action Group. Its report of 26th February last year showed that in 1998–99 4.5 million children in the UK were living in poverty. That figure was an increase of 100,000 during Labour's first two years in office. Those are bleak figures. But what do they mean in practical terms? I suggest that suitable housing and poor health are the major issues, followed closely by under-achievement at school, the difficulty in obtaining jobs and the fear of crime.
I start with housing. We recognise that a warm home in reasonable condition is something we all value, whether through private ownership or through the rental market. But have the Government had any success in achieving an increase in the availability of single-occupancy units and of new affordable houses?
In rural areas the lack of provision of affordable homes is acute. Developers have tended to build three, four or five-bedroom houses. But the new PPG3 regulations require them to build more houses per acre and may increase the number of affordable houses for those who are in work and can afford them. Have the Government any plans to change the rules for the very rural villages by reducing or removing the ratio requirement of large to small homes so that local councils will be able to stipulate small units where they are needed?
The rural housing trust has pointed out that local authorities are often unaware of shortages of suitable accommodation in villages until the people
644
affectedshow up when they move to the town. That was confirmed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which concluded that,
"the most important role for registered social landlords in addressing concerns about social exclusion and the sustainability of socially balanced communities in rural areas, is still undoubtedly the provision of more affordable housing of good quality for low income households".
In another place, on 20th July 1999, Miss Armstrong stated the Government's determination to reduce the number of empty government homes and supplied targets. Can the Minister tell us whether those targets have been met? Lastly on this topic I ask what progress has been made in the rented sector, either private or social housing. In passing, will the Minister comment on the Government's plans for dealing with the problems of the housing benefit system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Layard, referred? Over 4 million tenants rely on housing benefit to pay their rents. For many of them, eviction has been the result of failures in the benefit payments system.
One of the ills of poverty is poor health. We are becoming a sedentary population, overweight and exposing our children to an increased likelihood of ill health in later years. Current research indicates that that will be worsened by the reduction of sport in schools. Will the Minister tell us how many school sports fields have been sold since 1997? Will he also tell us how the new SEN—special educational needs—code squares with the need for poor children to take more exercise?
Given the housing conditions and the health problems experienced by many of our poorer children. a good education is vital for them. The Education Bill, shortly to arrive in this place, is a mighty tome. But I wonder whether the measures contained therein will actually reduce teachers' burdens. Unruly and violent behaviour, bullying and teachers struggling to control their class are still with us despite the Green Papers, the White Papers and performance-related pay. Education is key to helping children, especially those from poorer homes, to learn and gain skills that will enable them to get a job and succeed in ways that were perhaps not open to their parents.
There are other important issues with which families on low incomes have to deal. Debt, or "living on tick", for some is the only way they can get by. I have been greatly concerned, as, I suspect, have many other noble Lords, by reports of the levels of interest charged by private individuals and should be grateful for the Minister's comments on whether or not the Government have any proposals to deal with that situation.
As noble Lords will be aware, I have a hobby horse and cannot resist the temptation, following on from the fourth Question taken in the House this afternoon, to refer to how we make welfare benefit payments. Poorer families rely on the post office to keep them solvent. There is nowhere else for them to go. The closure of sub-post offices and the proposed reorganisation of Consignia fills me with horror; nay, rage. I shall not be affected and suspect most other noble Lords will not be affected either. But millions

645
will. In the four-and-a-half years since 1997 to October 2001, 1.564 post offices have closed. That is over 7 per cent of the total open at the beginning of that period.
I have already referred to benefit payments and remind your Lordships that one of the most important forms of benefit is the distress payment, the emergency handout, sub, or whatever we call it. A cheque or giro cashed in the post office has provided food for infants, a bed at night, a pair of shoes and many other things besides. Time and again I read of delays caused by the new computerised systems. They may be harder to cheat, but that is not much use if one is starving and needs help.
Post offices also pay pensions to many older people who have never had and do not want a bank account. In view of the many choices which this Government insist we are open to as parents, children or refugees, I am appalled that they are preparing to close the choice of post offices in that way.
I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for giving us the opportunity today to raise some of the important issues that are daily trials for those on low incomes.
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing the debate on this extremely important subject. It is an issue on which more and more data are being published which enable us to track precisely what is happening.
It is right that we should pay tribute to what the Labour Government have achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, in 1997, 4.7 million children in this country—one in three—lived in poverty. By 2001, this had been reduced to 3.2 million children—one in four. It is still an awful statistic of which we should be genuinely ashamed.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the net effect of the five Labour Budgets has been to increase the income of those in the poorest 10 per cent by some 13 per cent, with the increase going disproportionately to single parents and to full families with large numbers of children, which are the two largest poverty groups.
Three factors have contributed substantially to these improvements. These were acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. The first is the increase in employment—perhaps above all the increase in employment. The drop in unemployment has made a great deal of difference. This has been substantially due to the economic cycle and much less to any of the new deals which have been put into effect. Secondly, the working families' tax credit and the minimum wage between them have helped very considerably to increase the gains of those in work at the lower end of the income scale. This again is a major improvement. Thirdly, the minimum income guarantee has been an important gain for those not in work and, particularly, for poor pensioners.
646
However, there is no room for complacency. As I said, one in four children living in poverty in this country is a shocking statistic. At 25 per cent—at one in four—we have the highest rate of child poverty in Europe. In Sweden it is only 5 per cent— one in 20. Overall rates of deprivation and poverty, as measured by Eurostat, put Britain, at 14.6 per cent, above only Ireland and Portugal; Spain, Italy and Belgium are above us at the 11 to 12 per cent mark; and the Netherlands and the Scandinavians are at the top at 7 to 8 per cent.
It is also notable that while new Labour's measures have helped to lift some of those at the very bottom of income distribution out of poverty, the gap between rich and poor has not decreased but increased. Whereas the net incomes of the poorest 20 per cent increased by 1.4 per cent during the first four years of the Labour Government, those in the top quartile grew by double that amount, 2.8 per cent. So inequality has increased, not decreased.
The big question is whether inequality matters. Can we achieve what we want to achieve by just raising the floor? My noble friend Lord Russell will address this matter later, but we should bear that question in mind during our discussions.
One of the features of the poverty population is that it is surprisingly mobile. Half of the people in the lowest 10 per cent of income in any one year are not among the same 10 per cent the following year. Inevitably, unemployment, illness and family problems mean that there is a degree of mobility among those at the bottom. However, the mobility tends to be among those at the bottom; you do not find people moving from the lowest 10 per cent to the highest 10 per cent. On the whole, they move from the lowest 10 per cent to either the next lowest or the next lowest after that. They move in and out of those brackets.
There is considerable evidence of persistence in economic fortunes from one generation to another. If your father or your family is poor, your chances of being poor are greater than of being better off. Similarly, if your parents are well to do, your chances of being well to do are very much greater.
In the 1960s, I worked at the LSE with people such as the noble Lord, Lord Moser. When we talked about poverty then, the euphemism was "deprivation" or "multiple deprivation", and we talked about the "cycle of deprivation". It was clear from all the studies made in the 1960s and 1970s—it is still true today—that those who were poor were more likely to suffer not only from low income but from poor housing, poor health, poor healthcare, poor diet, poor schools, low educational achievement and lower paid jobs. One was interactive with the other; they were mutually reinforcing of poverty.
This has not changed today. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, made clear, the attack on child poverty is not only about income and inequalities but about improving life chances. The Government are paying a lot of attention to other areas, such as education, and I shall concentrate the remainder of my remarks on that

647
vitally important subject. If we are to increase life chances, education can provide that very important route out of poverty.
Many of the initiatives undertaken—Sure Start, the numeracy and literacy hours and the new Connexions Service—are doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said; that is, they are trying to help those at the bottom end of the scale to get a better start, to get training behind them and to get into new jobs. The danger, however, is that, for all the rhetoric, some of the measures that have been taken will reinforce inequality rather than promote greater equality.
I am particularly worried by the preference for performance indicators and the fact that schools are listed constantly in league tables. Those schools which have the greatest difficulties are inevitably at the bottom of the league tables, and that tends to reinforce their position.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of specialist schools. One thousand out of the total of 3,500 secondary schools designated as specialist schools are to receive an extra half a million pounds over four years when they are specialist schools. Half a million pounds for a secondary school is a lot of money. Those schools are, disproportionately, the higher achieving schools; they tend to be middle-class schools.
Let us contrast the numbers of free school meals in the least achieving schools with those in specialist schools. or even in average schools. Of those in the least achieving schools, 44.8 per cent have free school meals—nearly half of them are classified as in poverty under free school meals—compared to 15.3 per cent in the average state school. Some 33.18 per cent of children in the least achieving schools have special educational needs, compared to 14.1 per cent in ordinary state schools.
The problem with the specialist schools programme is that it involves a disproportionate number of middle-class schools. The schools that are not achieving are the ones that need the extra half a million pounds. We need positive discrimination in favour of the lower achieving schools rather than the other way round. I know that the Excellence in Cities programme is doing this, but it is only doing it in a small minority of schools in city areas. There are schools in rural areas that need this help.
From these Benches we applaud the aims of the Labour Government in tackling poverty and supporting families. We congratulate them on what they have achieved to date, even if we feel that they have been lucky with their share of the upward trend in the economic cycle and that they have been too cautious in some of the measures they have pursued. We warn them, however, that they will need to be bolder in the pursuit of their targets. In particular, they cannot tackle poverty without also tackling inequality. Unless they are prepared to tackle inequalities in the factors contributing to long-term poverty—I have highlighted the inequalities in the education system
648
but it applies equally to health and to housing—they will never achieve their ambition of abolishing child poverty within this country within this generation.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Moser: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing this important debate. The noble Lord and I have worked together on various statistical projects over many years. Therefore, I start by believing the kind of statistics that he uses, and I have confidence in them up to a point. The noble Lord has taken us to the heart of the problem.
The very word "poverty" has many different uses. It is difficult at the present time to talk about poverty without at least a sidelong glance at poverty in its serious form in the developing countries. We cannot forget that half the world's population now lives on less than two dollars a day. Over a million live on less than one dollar a day. As President Clinton reminded us in his remarkable Dimbleby lecture, every day 14-billion people do not have sight of a glass of clean water. That is poverty in its most abject form. Let none of us forget it. In this debate, however, we are talking about this important topic in a national context—in the context of a rich society.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has brought us up to date. He rightly bases his analysis and conclusions on the official definition of poverty—usually referred to as "relative" poverty. It is quite different from what is normally referred to as "absolute" poverty, under which definition basic needs are valued and then translated against incomes. In a study of relative poverty, low incomes are compared with the general standard of living. On that basis, some 18 per cent of households and 23 per cent of children are below the poverty line. That is the background to the Government's aims to abolish child poverty within 20 years and to halve it within 10 years—seven or eight years from now.
The noble Lord reminded us of the range of policies that are necessary to achieve those targets. Some, as he told us, bear on employment—getting poor people into work—and others on various tax and welfare schemes. Although the figures are not totally up to date, the indications are that the combination of the policies is beginning to bear fruit, with a significant effect on distribution and on inequalities. As a result, some 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, thus defined. That is a fine achievement on the part of the Government. However, the challenge of a further two million to be lifted out of poverty remains.
I want to put these material measures of poverty in the wider context and to comment on what they mean in terms of health, housing, education and life opportunities. It is notable, and cheering, that every speaker has emphasised the importance of education in the context of poverty. I wish to do the same. I declare my interest as chairman of the Basic Skills Agency—a remarkable organisation which has done key work over many years on literacy and numeracy.

649
All children deserve a good education. Above all, they deserve the ability to read and write and to cope with numbers. Yet we have lived through decades when a substantial minority of children—some 15 per cent—have left school without these abilities. It is not surprising that they have been led down the road to low incomes, unemployment and social exclusion.
The situation is becoming slightly better, especially in schools. A great deal has been done by the Government, largely through the Literacy Hour, so that now fewer and fewer children are leaving school unable to read and write. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, said that 70 per cent of 11 year-olds now have these basic abilities. That is a good figure, but I am more concerned about the remaining 30 per cent of children who still leave school with basic skills impaired as the figure should be nil.
As regards adults, a recent report by a committee which I had the honour of chairing indicated that, in this rich country, between six million and seven million adults have poor functional literacy, resulting in major disadvantages to their lives. The links with poverty are all too obvious. Compared with a person with good normal literacy, someone with poor literacy is five times more likely to be unemployed; and, if employed, he or she is twice as likely to be in the lowest income bracket. I mention this simply to remind your Lordships of the importance in relation to poverty of the whole set of government policies on education—notably literacy and numeracy—as well as other social factors hearing on life opportunities.
I want to make two further points. The first is statistical. It is most important that we all understand how poverty comes about—indeed how all inequalities come about—-and the complex underlying causes, as well as the complex consequences of being in poverty. Much of this has been set out in the excellent work of the Social Exclusion Unit and by the Office for National Statistics.
Secondly, I want to mention a statistical source of enormous importance; namely, longitudinal surveys. These are surveys in which the same people are asked questions over a number of years. This country has the best such surveys in the world. We have four sequences of surveys, the most recent beginning with the birth cohort last year. This is the ideal method of assessing life opportunities and the consequences, as well as the causes, of poverty.
Finally, returning to policy, like other speakers I pay tribute to the Government for seeing poverty reduction as a central aim, and for their evident achievements so far. To focus on relative poverty, however, means that progress has to be judged in relation to overall rises in living standards. Therefore, it is important to know from Ministers, first, whether the plan is to continue to assess progress in tackling child poverty in the way in which it has been judged so far, applying the same measures; and secondly, whether, with only eight years to go, the Government's judgment is that this enormously ambitious target is still realistic arid whether we are on track towards it.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for creating an opportunity for us to reflect on what has been achieved. I also pay tribute to him as one of the architects of some of the most imaginative strategies that have been put in place for employment, and which are making such a difference.
My argument is that the Government have been radical. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, although possibly for different reasons, that they have not been redistributive. The Government have not made poor people richer by making rich people poorer. What they have done is to release resources and to direct resources to the poorest. And we are beginning to see the difference in what is happening to some of the poorest children in society.
The debate provides an opportunity to ask ourselves what makes a radical and sound social policy as a whole. I suggest that there are a few defining criteria. One is to tackle the causes of poverty and to break the inter-generational cycle of worklessness, hopelessness and powerlessness in young people. The second is to create a coherent framework, so that policies that tackle poverty directly and indirectly can work together to have the most beneficial effect.
The Government have begun to do both. That is the major difference that they have made. It is a cultural and political difference as much as a technical difference. That is what makes it radical. It has been cast in the European context and the language of social inclusion, which is relatively new in this country. That enables us to place the concept of raising incomes within a framework that demands that we deal with the relationship between poverty, health and education, as many noble Lords have already said.
I agree that by setting a target of abolishing child poverty within 20 years, the Government have taken a mighty risk. They have raised the profile of tackling poverty beyond the obsession of a few highly dedicated and highly skilled campaigners to make it the natural target of everybody who cares about social justice and about how government works. It will be a task against which the Government are measured.
It is fair to reflect on how far we have come on creating incentives for work as well as opportunities for work and on raising living standards in work. I shall take three examples of that process. We are moving towards an integrated tax and benefit system. A Bill will shortly come before your Lordships' House to introduce an integrated child tax credit system. That is a hugely challenging undertaking. II was discussed for decades, with endless academic papers and government initiatives on how it might be done, but it was never seriously countenanced because it was too difficult. We have begun that process.
The minimum wage was the target of a lot of negative propaganda for years, but it is in place and is raising living standards. It is not raising them high enough or fast enough in my opinion, but it has introduced a new ethic to the workplace on what is payable and how well it is paid.

651
We have also seen moves to tackle the poverty of that group of pensioners who for years were the largest and poorest group in poverty. Through the minimum income guarantee and now through the state pension credit scheme we have a genuine possibility of raising all poor pensioners out of poverty.
It has been difficult to make a judgment about the cumulative effect of all the measures that have been put in place since 1997, because the statistics flow at a glacial rate. They are very suspect, not to say slippery, and one has to look at a number of different triangulated points to get a fix on them. There is a major time lag between policy and effect. I never thought that the Government would be accused of doing good by stealth, when they are so much more frequently accused of over-egging their achievements to the point of beginning not to be believed, but they have done a great deal of good by stealth.
When making those judgments, it is not necessary to rely only on people who would say that, wouldn't they. Just before the election, the Child Poverty Action Group, which has been a critical friend to many governments—often more critic than friend—wrote:
"There is no doubt that when the election takes place there will have been a substantial reduction in poverty, particularly child poverty, by any measure you care to use. This is a great achievement—partly the result of a buoyant economy with falling unemployment, but mainly the result of pursuing redistributive social and fiscal policies".
We do not have the statistics that we would love to have to take us up to 2002, but we have a model drawn up by reputable academics, who have extrapolated data to estimate with confidence that 1.2 million children will have been lifted out of poverty. We have to say "Thank God", because, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out, by the middle of the 1990s, after 20 years of redistributive policies flowing in the other direction, Britain had the highest child poverty rate of any country in the European Union and one of the highest in the industrial world. Even after two years of a Labour Government, that situation appeared not to have shifted much.
Significantly, in contrast with other governments, which had managed to use social policies to protect and improve the living standards of children, our governments had not done so. Children were poor not because of global economic trends, but because of the failure of policy makers. We have made a start on reversing that, tackling the causes of family poverty and making the right framework.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have also tackled the inexorable link between the failure to thrive and the failure to learn. In that respect, I warmly welcome yesterday's Ofsted report and the statement that there has never been better teaching in this country, as well as the expansion of those initiatives that are directly targeted on the poorest children in the most disadvantaged areas. I hope that those initiatives will not be national projects, but will become national programmes. For too long, we have been a nation of projects and not a nation of sensible and sound
652
policies. Those policies will address the real but diffident talents of children who do not think that they have a right to a place at university.
At the same time, the Ofsted report rang loud warning bells about persistent and growing truancy, much of which is condoned by parents. That illustrates perfectly the difficulty of framing education policy outside family and social policy as a whole.
Tempting though it is, there is no time for a debate on the links between educational failure and poverty. It is diagnosed beyond dispute, but some interesting recent research suggests that the impact of child poverty depends in some ways on the age of the child in poverty, but more certainly on the length of time that the child spends in poverty. As Robert Walker put it:
"While poverty in childhood may not always be a significant problem, poverty throughout childhood most certainly is".
If that is so, we need to look carefully at where and how we intervene to break the cycle of poverty and what instruments we choose to support families. Extending Sure Start and making extra and differential help available for families with primary and adolescent children are part of the answer.
We may agree that economic and social policies are having the intended effect of lifting families out of poverty, but we must ask how far and how fast that is happening and at what point it will make a significant and permanent difference to families.
The New Deal is achieving a lot on behalf of lone parents, who now make up such a significant proportion of society. We know that 122,000 lone parents had found work through the New Deal by last October. They need more accessible education and training and they need to know that, in due course, the childcare strategy will help to provide them with support not just for formal care but—as I hope—for the informal care that many of them have to draw on. Lone parents have to be very careful about where they put their children and whom they trust.
To adapt a phrase, much has been done and much remains to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, called for serious money and other noble Lords have called for serious thought. I call for serious action to sustain and maintain the momentum that I think we have established towards closing the gap. If we have coherent policies, we can have equality as well.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have two comments at the outset. First, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. Secondly, in anticipation that there will be a lot of detail in many speeches and a lot of bandying of statistical information for and against what the Government have done, I have decided that in my short contribution I shall largely express what I consider to be conviction and motivation.
When I decided to take part in this debate on tackling poverty and supporting families, I was reminded of a speech that I made on poverty a number of years ago, when I first came to the House. It was a

653
speech that received, as expected, a mixed response. My noble friend Lord Puttnam—whom I did not know at the time, but who had entered the House at the same time as I did—passed me a note congratulating me on my speech and stating that he was glad to be reminded why he was sitting on these Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, attacked my speech, describing it as "old Labour". That may very well happen again today. On that occasion, however, the late Lord Beloff disagreed with his noble friend and, commenting on my speech, said that someone had to speak up for the poor. I remember thinking that that statement was a little odd as I felt that speaking up for the poor was something that we should all be doing. However, on contemplating the matter further, I reflected on the fact that we are all to some extent products of our environment and that there may well he some who have never experienced poverty or under-privilege or even come close to such circumstances. Those people may feel that poverty arises from individual irresponsibility. They may think that laziness, drunkenness, neglect are but a few of the characteristics that lead to the poverty suffered by the wives and children of such men.
I have no doubt that such cases exist. However, the truth is that poverty arising from such circumstances represents a small minority of those who have suffered the deprivation of poverty over the centuries. The indignity of poverty suffered by whole communities down the ages has clearly resulted from the operation of market forces and unfettered capitalism without the application of the measures needed to establish the necessary social justice. Although that description may seem harsh to some, it was not all that long ago that a leader of a party opposite coined the phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism". Industrial change from the 19th century onwards has from time to time created widespread poverty, damaging both individual families and whole communities.
With the historical development of this country, none of us can be surprised today at the way in which the trade unions mushroomed in the 19th century. It was not only the individually irresponsible or the unemployed who suffered poverty; millions of workers who worked long hours in hard and often dangerous jobs also suffered poverty. Yet at the same time a few were amassing vast fortunes.
Is it any wonder that the Labour Party was born of the trade union movement, in the knowledge that if social justice and the eradication of poverty were to be achieved, political decisions would have to be taken? These values have been with the Labour Party since its inception and they are still part of Labour's mission today, 100 years later. Although the circumstances have changed, the values have not. They are as important to Labour today as they were a century ago.
As we all know, just about halfway through the 20th century, a Labour government with a landslide victory were elected to form the government who laid the foundation stones of Labour's historical mission: to remove poverty and establish universal social justice. Regrettably, it took another 50 years for another
654
Labour landslide. Last year, for the first time in Labour's history, a landslide was repeated in a subsequent election. This Government are determined to complete the job that the Attlee government started. The measures may be different, because circumstances are different, but the values are the same. For 18 long years, the Conservative Party had every opportunity to tackle poverty and support families. In my view, they failed. I shall not speculate now on whether they did not want to succeed, or whether they did not know how to succeed. However, in 1997, the electorate demonstrated their view. The British public made their decision. It was not the poor, the most disadvantaged or the most under-privileged who voted the Conservative government out of office; it was those who were well off or reasonably well off and those who were relatively comfortable. It was those who were ashamed at what was happening to this country and to large numbers of people living in it, reflected in slogans such as, "Get on your hike" and, "There's no such thing as society".
It is clear to me that, since 1997, this Labour Government have been introducing measures that are consistent with their core values: to remove poverty and to establish social justice by focusing on support for people— individual men, women and children— and collectively focusing on families.
I know that, in his reply, my noble friend Lord McIntosh will where necessary emphasise once again the Government's record—particularly on bringing more people into work, providing minimum levels of income and improving benefits for pensioners and benefits for families. I shall therefore not go into those details, which have already been clearly expressed by my noble friend Lord Layard in introducing this debate.
I should, however, like to say how much I welcome the action of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on world poverty. In the developing world, poverty is very often caused by famine, drought, disease and other natural disasters, as well as by exploitation and abuse. Such poverty is far worse than anything that we experience. Whatever its cause, however, that poverty very soon becomes the breeding ground for fanatical terrorists. I therefore warmly welcome the Prime Minister's proposed tour of Africa, and I warmly welcome the Chancellor's attempts to establish a world-wide, funded coalition to attack world-wide poverty.
Last Sunday, at the church I attend, during his sermon, the minister quoted Martin Luther King, saying:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
In the context of this debate, I say that poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. If 11th September 2001 has not taught us that lesson, it has taught us nothing.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, poverty and its attendant ills ought always to be a matter of concern to us all. I agree with very much of what the

655
noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has just said perhaps pausing only very briefly to remind him, in the most gentle possible way, that Lord Beaverbrook was a Liberal—
Noble Lords Noble Lords: Lord Beveridge.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I meant of course to say that Lord Beveridge was a Liberal; Lord Beaverbrook is certainly not the right Peer in this context.
Often in the House, the argument revolves around details of a Bill and how they impact on different groups. Today, thanks to this debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, we can take a broader view of this terrible social ill. I shall talk about lone parents, most of whom are women, and about their children. Lone parents have now overtaken pensioners as the poorest members of society. The fact is that 61 per cent—two-thirds—of people in one-parent families live in relative poverty. In other words, three million people, including 1.9 million children, are living below the official poverty level, compared with 442,000 in 1979. Put differently, one-parent families make up 21 per cent of those in poverty, although they comprise only 9 per cent of those in society.
There has been much argument recently about the emotional and social impact upon children caused by single parenthood. I do not propose to enter into that argument except to point out that, on the one hand, family breakdown is the single greatest predictor of offending behaviour, but that, on the other hand, analysis seems to indicate that it is poverty and the burden that it imposes upon the single parent that really does the damage to children. Three fifths of children in lone-parent families are poor, compared with one in four where couples are together.
According to the National Council for One Parent Families, the poorest fifth of the population has seen no real increase in spending on children's clothes, shoes, toys and important dietary items such as fruit in 30 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, gave a vivid impression of the wider impact of poverty on those who suffer from it.
The cause of poverty for those families is the loss of a partner. It is worth mentioning that most lone parents have been in partnerships. An aggravating cause is the fact that most lone parents are women. It is an acknowledged and documented fact that women still earn less than men, even in comparable jobs, and that they are disproportionately concentrated in lower paid work. That is even more the case when we talk about women with sole charge of children. They must try to find work locally. Only 30 per cent of them have access to a car and running a car is expensive. They need flexible working hours to fit in with children's school hours and holidays. Some 90 per cent of them want to work, but, interestingly, fewer lone mothers than mothers in couples actually do so. Obviously, the burden of managing the work/life balance is particularly acute for these lone mothers.
656
One-third of lone parents, and 44 per cent of those not in work, have no academic qualifications. Many noble Lords have referred to the importance of education in that situation. There is also the difficulty of suitable training opportunites, and the recent government initiative to deal with that problem by allowing lone parents to train on income supplement is therefore most welcome.
When the Government first started their drive to encourage lone mothers to work, the manipulation of benefits to encourage them to do so appeared likely to disbenefit large numbers of mothers and, therefore, their children. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and others pointed out, the increase in benefits targeted towards children has been a welcome change. The increased child element of working families' tax credit, the increase in child benefit itself and the ability to receive maintenance while also receiving working families' tax credit have been a great help. Unfortunately, the latter point will help only the one-third of lone parents who actually receive child maintenance.
Although the results have not yet shown up in the statistics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, modelling of the effect of these changes suggests that about half a million children in lone parent families will be lifted out of poverty—part of a total of 1 to 1.5 million children. That is something upon which the Government are to be congratulated, as no doubt they will be if the figures turn out as expected.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter. To move into greater security, lone mothers need better jobs and to get and hold them they need above all affordable, flexible and reliable child care. It is not an accident that only 51 per cent of lone mothers are in work in this country compared with 70 per cent of mothers who are in couples. The figures for lone mothers in work in France and Sweden are 80 and 70 per cent respectively. The problem is lack of child care. If you have no one with whom you can share child care, you need affordable child care provided by someone else. Child care at a recently reported average cost of £6,000 per annum will not do for the parents about whom I am speaking. What can the Government tell us that will encourage us to feel that locally based, affordable and flexible quality child care is a major part of their programme of poverty reduction? Do they recognise that neighbourhood nurseries could also have a positive effect in terms of community building?
I turn briefly to the subject of the treatment of mothers and expectant mothers by some employers, particularly smaller employers in lower grade occupations. The CAB, responding to the Government Green Paper, Work and Parents, pointed to a gap in that paper's approach to improving and simplifying maternity benefits. Every year the CAB handles about 700,000 employment inquiries, of which tens of thousands are related to maternity or parental rights. Women are being penalised for visiting their doctor during pregnancy. They are even being sacked because they are pregnant—a case was reported this very day—and they are being refused the ability to return to work.

657
I was reminded by my noble friend Lord Russell, who will speak later, that in reply to my Starred Question last week the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, suggested that British people might have no need of the option of an appeal to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. However, I am talking about existing rights which are being flouted and ignored by employers. I agree with the CAB that as well as extending maternity and paternity benefits, the Government should take steps to monitor the application and implementation of those that exist. My final question, therefore, to the Minister is to ask whether the Government have taken that point of view on board and whether they will do anything about it.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layard, on introducing the debate. This is an important matter and it is high time that it is addressed in a debate of this kind.
It also gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as I substantially agree with what she said. I refer to the extraordinary difference in statistics as regards the UK and the EU on the matter of single mothers. The number of single mothers in Britain is miles above that of any other country in Europe and twice the European average. Those statistics constitute social problems in a rather pure form in some respects but they have major economic consequences.
The raw data have been described in a number of ways, but I do not think that the data I shall discuss have been mentioned. I refer to an article in the April 2001 edition of Economic Trends issued by the Office for National Statistics entitled, The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1999–2000. The article states:
"Before government intervention, the top fifth of households have an average of £54,400 per year in original income (that is from sources such as earnings, occupational pensions and investments). This is around 19 times as great—"
I am not just talking about David Beckham, but the top fifth of households—
"as the figure of £2,800 for the bottom fifth. However, after taxes and benefits, the ratio is greatly reduced to four to one".
Of course, a tremendous amount of work is carried out by staff through the tax and benefits system to reduce that ratio considerably. They undertake a huge task to arrive at a situation which most people may consider is not a million miles away from a relatively satisfactory distribution, although many of us would like to see bigger strides made towards greater equality. I repeat that before government intervention the figure of original income for the top fifth of households is 19 times as great as that of the bottom fifth. That increase grew exponentially in the Thatcher years of 1980–1990. We now have to climb a mountain to get back to the income distribution, the GINI coefficient, that pertained at he start of that period.
658
The official Economic Trends states,
"Inequality of disposable income was fairly stable in the first half of the 1980s. This was followed by a period where it increased rapidly, reaching a peak around 1990. Inequality then fell slightly in the first half of the 1990s, although the fall only reversed a small part of the rise seen in the previous decade. However, the latest figures show that inequality of disposable income rose again in the late 1990s".
As my noble friend Lord Layard mentioned at the start of this debate, that information is probably out of date. One must give credit where credit is due for the enormous amount of work done by the Government and the Chancellor in particular.
Perhaps I may mention a couple of statistics. There are 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty now than in 1997. On average, families with children are £1,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off in real terms. A family with two young children with half average earnings (£12,700) is £3,000 a year better off in real terms. By April 2002, pensioner households will be £840 a year better off on average with the poorest pensioner households being £1,000 a year better off in real terms since 1997. One could continue with other major statistics and commitments for the future such as maternity provision, parental leave arid so forth.
I now wish to look at some of the fundamental questions from my perspective on these matters. I have taken it as axiomatic, as many speakers have done, that poverty is part of the bigger problem of inequality. The issue of public expenditure and public services all come into the question in a world of advancing globalisation. My position on the issue goes back to the three years I spent on the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth in the late 1970s under the very distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Diamond.
At that time we made one of the important breakthroughs on the question of family poverty, which was the "wallet to the purse" provision. Noble Lords may recall that we in the trade union movement agreed, with some major difficulty, to a big transfer of money from the wallet to the purse and a large expansion in the role of child benefit. There have been many important moves under the present Government to extend some of that thinking to the working families' tax credit, pensioner credit and so forth.
But we cannot tackle poverty in isolation from the great changes in society both at home and abroad. The question of single mothers has been mentioned. But we have to look at inequality per se because poverty of esteem always follows inequality. It is not just a question of having absolute increases. We need a background social philosophy in which we can address the problem. I would include as an important part: of discussions the European social model. Jacques Delors got it absolutely right. He said that the problems of atypical, marginalised workers, fixed and short-term contract workers, part-time workers and other issues such as maternity leave and parental leave were central to dealing with poverty.

659
The social policy questions are linked with those of the labour market. All the self-serving propaganda against these measures by the Institute of Directors et al is proving to be grossly overstated. Indeed, many employers now admit that the challenge of giving proper mainstream terms of employment, which I call quality terms of employment, to many atypical workers is a big incentive for them to undergo training and improve the value added, in order to justify the outlay on the minimum wage and other benefits.
I now turn to the philosophy to which the noble Lord, Lord Moser, alluded. It is reasonable to have a relative concept of poverty. There is the idea that it is ridiculous to say that one is poor because one does not have a washing machine or motorcar. Nobody had them 100 years ago. Even the upper and upper-middle classes did not have such things 100 years ago. We now say that to be deprived of something which others have is a way of considering poverty. So the relative concept of poverty must be accepted side by side with the absolute level of poverty.
Finally, it would be useful if the Minister were to say a little more about mobility. It is very important although we must not caricature the situation by saying that this generation's poorest can be the next generation's plutocrats. A very important study by the Cabinet Office indicates that there are many barriers to income mobility. We have heard about that as regards the education system. In the professions the phrase is "hoarding opportunities". In the debate about inheritance tax there is an argument for the redistribution of income through increasing income tax and inheritance tax. I do not believe that that would be universally popular, but we have to look at what obstructs people from changing their position as regards wealth distribution.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Layard on introducing this debate. One of the reasons that I, along with many others on these Benches, joined the Labour Party was in the interest of social justice and what needs to be done to tackle poverty and to support families. So I am proud to rise this afternoon to speak about the advances this Government have made during the past five years in strengthening British families and combating the blight of poverty, both at home and abroad.
In 1997, when Labour took office, United Kingdom unemployment was widespread and the level of child poverty was high. Homelessness was growing at an alarming rate, as was the gap between rich and poor pensioners. These problems were unfolding against a backdrop of global poverty that was being left largely unattended.
Between 1997 and 2002, Labour has not only slowed these damaging trends, but reversed them. Over one million new jobs have been created, helping employment to rise to record levels. Long-term unemployment among young people has fallen by
660
75 per cent, 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, and the families supporting them have been given the smallest direct tax burden since 1972.
On the world stage, the Government are taking great strides to fight global poverty, committing much more of their resources to foreign aid and ensuring that the world's most heavily indebted nations are not punished for the aid they are given.
Along these lines the Labour Government have cancelled the debt owed to Britain by 42 troubled countries and have pledged to halve the number of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015. Here I congratulate my friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that he is doing towards that.
Homelessness—Britain's most visible manifestation of poverty—has been alleviated in the past five years through a series of sensible measures that include the Rough Sleepers Unit, which has reduced the number of people sleeping on the streets by about 30 per cent in the past three years. There are new laws to ensure that councils will accommodate homeless persons until suitable long-term housing becomes available.
As president of Family Service Units, I have paid special attention to the ways in which the Government have sought to improve the lives of Britain's children, especially the many children living in poverty. I am proud, then, that we have raised child benefit for the first child by more than 25 per cent since 1997 and have made the children's tax credit worth up to £520 per year. Both changes dramatically improve the quality of life for children.
I also commend the Government on introducing SureStart, their programme to ensure that infants in the most under-privileged areas get a good start in life, and on their extension of the disability living allowance to three and four year-olds, which will go a long way towards providing improved care for disabled children.
After all, it is families that need the most support if we are to prevent child poverty and cycles of youth unemployment. In 1997, Labour pledged to advance policies that would build strong families and strong communities. And I am happy to report that it has done just that, through introducing such policy measures as the working families tax credit, parental leave and extended maternity leave. That is a powerful show of support for Britain's families.
Our minimum income guarantee has made the poorest pensioners at least £15 better off than they were in 1997. Over the past five years, our commitment to combating poverty has not ceased at our borders. As I mentioned, Labour has reversed the trend of shrinking foreign aid and has extended debt relief to dozens of heavily indebted countries. Our foreign aid is being used to support education in developing countries and to improve healthcare for the poor, specifically in the fight against HIV and AIDS. In addition to increasing aid for developing nations, the Government have increased government involvement in international development through the creation of the Department for International Development. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development.

661
But, no matter what has been achieved so far in eradicating poverty and raising the quality of life for families, there is still a lot to do. We must push for further initiatives at home, such as the pension credit for pensioners who want to save money and the neighbourhood renewal action plan for deprived communities that want to pull themselves out of decline. And we must continue to couple our goals for fighting poverty at home with the desire to light poverty across the globe. As the Prime Minister said only this week,
"you can no longer divorce foreign policy from domestic policy".
We must craft our anti-poverty and pro-family measures with a view towards their global applications.
Truly, we cannot claim to be working for families if we work towards the improvement of only our own family and not our neighbours. Likewise, we cannot claim to be fighting poverty if we are fighting only our own nation's poverty and not the poverty of our neighbouring nations. I commend the Prime Minister on taking the trip to Africa tonight and I wish him all success.
Labour has made a good start and set us on the path toward lasting progress. Let us make sure that we do not impede that progress and that we work to extend it to more communities within Britain and to more of the global community.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for this opportunity to celebrate the Government's achievements over the past five years in supporting families and tackling poverty. I shall concentrate on what more can be done rather than on what has already been achieved. I should be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to read my speech in Hansard of 19th December, at col. 256, in which I took trouble to describe at length the great achievements that have been made.
I should like to concentrate on the importance of a child-centred approach to child poverty and to the association between poverty, family dysfunction, prison and the care system. In the Government's drive to combat child poverty, I am concerned that we should not overlook the needs of the child. During the past 18 months I have been attending seminars at the Anna Freud Centre, which is a centre of excellence for child psychotherapy and the psychotherapy of parents. It was established by Anna Freud at the end of the Second World War for refugee children. I have been trying to understand the rudiments of child development. The more I learn, the more aware of my ignorance I become. But one thing is clear: the relationship between an infant and his primary carer is most important. Ideally, the primary carer should be available to give his or her attention—individual and undivided—to the needs of the infant in the first two or three years of life.
I believe that although the Government are well aware of that need of the very young child, they are determined to encourage as many parents as possible to work. That is the best way to relieve child poverty,
662
as demonstrated in Scandinavia and other countries. Their tax reforms in that area have lifted many children out of poverty. However, do we really want to encourage the lone parent of, for example, a four month-old baby to leave her child in inadequate child care so that she—most probably, the person will be a "she"—can work to provide an adequate income for herself and her child? Surely, with such a young child, she should feel that she has an adequate income to sustain herself and her child if she chooses to work at home caring for her infant.
I understand that in Norway there are substantial financial incentives for a parent to work at home caring for his or her child until that child reaches the age of three. On the Continent—this is a very important point—it is very much less the practice that the primary carer of a very young child goes out to work.
Is there not a danger of our perpetuating our culture of child neglect—albeit inadvertently—in this area? Today, the National Childcare Trust announced that our child care costs are the highest in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, drew attention to that. The cost of child care provision has risen by 10 per cent during the past year. Demand for places is exceeding supply.
Barnardo's reports that last year there were 42,000 free or subsidised child care places for under 3 year-olds. In 1999, there were 600,000 children in poverty. While SureStart and other initiatives are indeed most welcome, even when they are taken into account there will still be a large gap to fill, according to Barnardo's.
Does it makes sense in those circumstances not to balance incentives for all parents to return to work with incentives for the primary carer of very young children to work at home caring for his or her child if that is the parent's choice? At the very least, they should surely be able to afford to make that choice, and the income support scale rate—or whatever now replaces it—should be set at such a rate as to enable them to do so.
Could more be done to enable mothers of young children to work part-time when they so wish? I know that there have been improvements in that area; that matter too was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether he will take up these concerns with those of his colleagues with responsibilities in the area of child poverty and family support.
I turn to my concerns with regard to the association between poverty, family dysfunction, the prison system and the care system. According to my information, 32 per cent of young offenders have been in care. The percentage of fathers under 21 who are in prison is 25 per cent, which is far above the national average. While researching for the Adoption and Children Bill, I learnt that most children being taken into the care system, and most of the 2,000 or so adopted each year, come from families in poverty. Further, it is often the case that these children's parents have been in care; indeed, often those parents had parents who were put in care.

663
Again, rates of pregnancy in teenagers who are, or have been, in care are far higher than the deplorable, but happily decreasing, national average. It appears to me that there is a nexus of deprivation within the group of those who have been in care, in prison and in poverty. The Government have been giving welcome attention to this area but, as they admit, there is still a long way to go. For example, information accompanying the launch of the report by the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners' Family Support Group into prison visitors' centres published last week suggests that the number of prison visits has declined by one-third since 1997; yet prison numbers have soared. We have the second highest imprisonment rate in Europe.
Moreover, of member states of the Council of Europe, only Romania, Estonia and Lithuania have higher rates of imprisonment than England for those under the age of 21. About one-third of these will have been through the care system; 25 per cent of them are fathers. Family breakdown and inadequate corporate parenting may be an important factor in their incarceration. What more could the Government do to address this nexus, and break the cycle of family dysfunction and poverty of this group? They could make a positive response to the suggestions in the Just Visiting report, the review of the role of prison visitor centres.
In particular, the Government could do even more to encourage the many young fathers in prison to have regular contact with their children. For example, I am told that many teenage girls arrive at Feltham Young Offenders' Institution during visiting hours. Much more could be done to make such visits attractive to these young girls and to introduce parenting support during those visits to their partners. They could ensure that the Quality Protects Initiative is made a permanent part of the care system. Further, as Professor Sonia Jackson, the authority on education for children in care, suggests, they could ensure that our system of care becomes more similar to that on the Continent. The professor would especially like to see an immediate injection of large numbers of graduates into the residential social work profession, with a clear career path made available for them, as well as a raising of the educational attainment as regards foster parents.
I see that my speaking time has run out. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I apologise, again, for not taking more time to praise the many important achievements of this Government.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, why should the Government tackle poverty and support families? Is it a matter of economics, or is it a matter of morality? My noble friend Lord Layard is an eminent economist and I think that he has demonstrated that it is actually a matter of both. I congratulate him on moving the Motion. I join my noble friend Lady Andrews in congratulating him on researching and stimulating government action on poverty.
664
I agree with my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that tackling poverty means tackling inequality. This is what this debate is all about. A belief in equality is the boundary that separates the political left from the political right. Perhaps that explains why there is relative lack of interest on the Tory Benches opposite in this debate—apart, that is, from the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I know that it is something that is done but, to be honest, when it is a debate on agriculture, it is not something that I do. Some people have a greater interest in one topic than they do in another. There are two of us on these Benches this afternoon, and there are three Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. I believe that there was a great empty Bench behind the Minister on the previous agricultural debate.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on participating in this debate.
We on the left—the old left and the new left—do not seek uniform equality of outcome. Our aim is rather to create social conditions that give very different individuals an equal chance for a full and flourishing life. So the economic and moral case for tackling poverty stems from our belief in equality. A belief in equal worth—equal worth not only between the rich and the poor but also between men and women. This belief in equality between men and women is one reason why I welcome the Government's support for families. The new deal for young people, for the long-term unemployed, for lone parents, and for the over-50s is rooted in this belief. So is the national minimum wage.
Since 1997, the Government have increased child benefit, introduced the children's tax credit, and the working families' tax credit and raised children's allowances in income support. Those initiatives are all rooted in support for equality. That is only right. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. If there is no support for the family, it is women who become less equal than men. The benefits of all this are not difficult to find. They relate to breaking the cycle of disadvantage about which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, spoke.
In traditional societies every person born has an allotted place in society. All this does is pass poverty and inequalities from one generation to the next. There is much research that charts this course. My noble friend Lord Layard told us that working-class children do worse at school than do middle-class children. The death rate from coronary heart disease is three times higher among unskilled men than among professional men. Other speakers have explained that the sons and daughters of high earners are far more likely to become high earners themselves than the children of parents on low incomes. This is what I mean by the "cycle of disadvantage".
All this was forcefully brought home to me by some research carried out by academics John Bynner and Heather Joshey. Their extensive work was based on

665
two longitudinal surveys mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moser: 16,000 people born in single weeks in 1958 and in 1970 were tracked throughout their lives. The research analysed the obstacles and opportunities affecting those people. One of the most striking revelations to emerge from that work confirms the extent to which child poverty haunts people through their lives. The children of parents on low incomes performed worse at school. Children whose parents had the same occupational level and the same educational background still did significantly worse on average if they had financial problems than if they did not. That is why the government policy to raise the income of families with children is so important—not only does it tackle inequality and poverty, it also breaks the cycle of disadvantage.
The research also demonstrated very clearly that, as well as income, there is another very important element in tackling poverty; namely, education. That point has been made by nearly all noble Lords who have spoken today. The research showed that educational achievement is now the single most important factor in determining later success. Those who do well at school early tend to finish with good qualifications, and those who gain good qualifications do much better in the labour market later on. According to the research, men with no qualifications were 12 times more likely to be out of work by the age of 26 than those with qualifications. Indeed, the research showed that in some areas the detrimental effect of inequality of opportunity is growing stronger and more debilitating.
That point is illustrated, in particular, in the findings on teenage pregnancy. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of that. The research showed that the relative risk of a girl from an unskilled family compared with a professional family becoming a teenage mother almost doubled between the 1958 and the 1970 cohorts. Daughters born in 1970 whose fathers were unskilled were an astonishing nine times more likely to become teenage mothers than girls whose fathers were more highly qualified.
Much of this is not new. Previous governments and social reformers have all been aware of it. Indeed, people can argue that, in fact, it does not matter because we are all better off today as income and living standards rise across the board. I do not agree. There is still a large gap. My noble friend Lord Lea and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke of that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp: that gap matters.
Raising the income of families through employment, education, childcare and the tax and benefit system helps to close the gap. I agree with my noble friend Lord Paul that education increases the opportunities for children growing up on a low income and, together with programmes such as Sure Start, gives them an important advantage. It also helps to close the gap. Closing the gap by tackling poverty and supporting the family has an enormous moral and economic pay-off. That pay-off is breaking the cycle of disadvantage. If we do nothing about it, it will span the generations.
4.52 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing this extremely important debate. I say at the outset that I agree entirely with everything that he said about the proportion of support which must go to children. In the reference in his Motion to supporting families, I congratulate him on avoiding the definite article, to which I am allergic.
The definition of a family is, of course, a matter of discussion. I want to recommend to the noble Lord and to the Government a phrase from St Augustine:
"An assemblage of reasonable beings united by a common agreement as to the object of their love".
That was, in fact, St Augustine's definition of the state, but it seems to me that it serves equally well as a definition of a family.
I want also to thank the noble Lord for his kindness in making available to me and for discussing with me off-prints of a number of his articles. I do not believe that it will surprise him greatly that do not entirely agree with them. That happens among academics and I believe that we are quite used to it. But I am well aware—I have read enough criticism of my own work to know it very well—that, in criticising work a little outside one's field, one may misrepresent it. If I do so, even in a timed debate, I shall willingly give way to the noble Lord.
My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford pointed out that the Government have been applying these measures in an exceptionally benign economic climate. It is not easy to disentangle the effect of the Government's policies from the effect of the economic climate. The question must be asked: how high could unemployment go without exceeding the budget which the Government have set for the New Deal?
I must admit that in relation to the Government's measures I am very much of a sceptic. I believe that they rest largely on a mistaken diagnosis. I consider that they are misapplied in practice and that they consistently miss major problems to which they should be paying attention.
The theoretical part is, first and foremost, the work of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. He sees a clear link between the length of time for which unemployment benefit is payable and the length of time for which people remain unemployed. These are his exact words:
"The longer unemployment benefits are available the longer unemployment lasts".
He believes that it must follow that the basic problem is making people want to work. That is not merely an economic problem.
Once, when I had a sabbatical term just after I had finished a book instead of just before, my wife and I switched jobs full-time and I became the sole full-time carer for our one year-old. I do not know what it did for his education; I know that it did wonders for mine. The desire for employment is as much social as economic, and economic factors alone are not enough to bring about that desire.
The noble Lord suggests that if we have a large pool of unemployed people who remain unemployed because they have generous benefit levels, that may

667
explain why unemployment remains at a high level. But there are other explanations: there are other rigidities in the labour market; the jobs are in one place and the people are in another; and there is the question of transport.
Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made an important series of points. On the previous occasion that we debated poverty, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans drew attention to a single parent who was spending 10 per cent of her weekly benefit on fares in going to collect the benefit. That is a 10 per cent cut in benefit. Such matters are serious, as are age discrimination, dismissal because of pregnancy and the areas which are like the rock pools where the tide has not come back after the recession. The post office closes; the school closes; the bank closes; and the shop closes. In the Question relating to the Post Office, I would have asked, if I had had the opportunity, whether the Government have made an estimate of the effects of post office closures on the increase in poverty and unemployment. If they have, are they prepared to share that estimate with the House?
The noble Lord also suggests that if, through the welfare-to-work programme, we help the most unemployable people back into work, that will generate additional jobs. I was intending to read the passage in which he argued that point—it appears on page 26 of his OECD essay—but I do not believe that time will allow that. Therefore, I say only that, in my opinion, it rests on a considerable number of hypotheses. If the noble Lord has evidence to justify any of those, I look forward to hearing it when he replies.
The execution of the policy also leaves something to be desired. Of course, the measure of success rests unduly on the claimant count. If people are taken out of the claimant count during the time that they spend in the welfare-to-work programme, that automatically reduces the number of people who are long-term unemployed without there being any change. If one looks at the labour force survey, the reduction, although it genuinely exists, is a great deal smaller, and that should be borne in mind.
If one looks at the reaction of those who participate in these schemes, it suggests that they are not entirely satisfied with the quality. Forty per cent of those who left the 18-to-24 scheme did so for what was not sustained employment. "Sustained employment" is defined as lasting for 13 weeks—that is not a particularly great achievement. In December 2000, 32 per cent of those who left the New Deal for under-25s left for no known destination. If a note is now on its way to the Minister to say that that is an old figure, I say, we know that; we have tried to update it. The figures are no longer collected, and that does not encourage me to believe that they have improved.
With regard to the full-time employment and training option, the completion rates leave a lot to be desired. They are 6.6 per cent of starters and 10.9 per cent of leavers. The figures in relation to Oldham illustrate the point about areas where the tide has not returned. In Oldham the completion figures are 1.4 per cent of starters and 2.5 per cent of leavers. I grant that
668
that is better than nothing, but it is not particularly good. The execution leaves much to be desired. As my honourable friend Mr Webb pointed out on the day that the Government's poverty strategy was announced, it rests heavily on creaming off from the top of the poor and not nearly enough attention is paid to those in deep poverty.
The noble Lord, Lord Moser, dealt with the concept of absolute poverty. I grant that it is rare in this country, but the last crisis survey of the street homeless in London showed that there were 347 deaths on the streets in one year. I would not be surprised if none of those people was in absolute poverty. It is in fact very easy to disappear from statistics. Today Ofsted reports that 10,000 should-be schoolchildren have simply disappeared from the figures.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, when he said that being disconnected for a long time from the world of work makes it much harder for one to return to work. But long-term sickness and crime also make it harder to return to work. In the context of crime, the Home Secretary would do well if he reversed the previous government's changes to housing benefits for prisoners.
It appears to me that a Government who impose sanctions without having the least idea of what their effect is are in no position to make a comparison between the extent to which long-term unemployment takes people out of the world of work and the extent to which benefit sanctions take people out of the world of work. I do not know what might be the answer to that comparison—nor do I have the figures—but not to have attempted it is in my opinion not only a political crime but also an academic one.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Layard, on introducing what has been a fine debate. It has differed from the debate held in December, which was primarily concerned with child poverty, in several respects. On that occasion a number of noble Lords referred to the situation in a global context. In today's debate that has been mentioned only briefly, although the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Paul, referred to the problem of international poverty. It is important that we put the situation in our own country into that context. By and large today we have been talking about relative poverty rather than absolute poverty—apart from the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, when he introduced the debate. He made some important points about the share of national income that goes to children. He and my noble friend Lady Byford referred to housing benefit. I was puzzled by what the noble Lord said in his introductory remarks. He appeared to argue for integrating housing benefit with other benefits. Those two kinds of benefits are distributed in different ways: housing benefit is distributed through local authorities and other benefits are distributed from the centre. Perhaps in his

669
closing remarks he will seek to enlighten me as to how he believes that that can be brought about. It is an important point.
Clearly, we have established that we should distinguish between the absolute level of poverty and the relative level. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Moser, in particular, but also other noble Lords, referred to the Government's aim of abolishing child poverty in 20 years and halving it in 10. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, pointed out that in that regard time is running out. We are already into the 10-year period. The problem is that it is a moving target. As the standard of living in the country rises, the target in relation to relative poverty becomes more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that important issue.
As has been rightly pointed out, in talking of reducing relative poverty to some extent we are talking about equality rather than poverty. In that respect there was some division on the Benches opposite—and perhaps around the House in general—between new Labour and old Labour. Some noble Baronesses and others placed more emphasis on equality rather than on the removal of poverty. There is much confusion about the Government's, indeed the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister appears to be more concerned with raising the absolute level of income at the bottom end of the scale regardless of whether it is raised at the top whereas the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appears to be concentrating more on the issue of equality. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate.
I want to pay particular attention to the issue of whether 1.2 million children were taken out of poverty during the previous Parliament. As I pointed out in the debate in December, that figure has a strange provenance. Two quite separate analyses produced that figure: one was a PolyMod study and the other was the Government's figure. Both produced a figure of 1.2 million, albeit on totally different bases which is perhaps a little curious.
The Government's last manifesto stated that over one million children have been taken out of poverty. A number of noble Lords referred to that as an achievement, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Paul. I have always thought that myth has a great role to play in politics. If one can establish a good political myth, it will indeed be a powerful weapon. That figure is something of a myth. Not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that that is the figure because in December what appeared to be a clear-cut undertaking of taking one million children out of poverty turned out not to be quite what everyone had supposed. One would have thought that if one took the figure of the number of children in poverty at the beginning of the Government's time in office and reduced it by one million you would end up with a fairly clear-cut figure. In fact, you do not end up with that figure. It turns out that the latest Treasury report states that there are,
"1.2 million children fewer in poverty than there would otherwise have been".
670
So one cannot simply subtract the figure of one million and end up with the figure that one would suppose. That is an important point. I ask the Minister what the Government's target is now in relation to that.
A number of noble Lords referred to the various points raised by the Government in introducing one benefit or another, but as those who debated the State Pension Credit Bill last week, and no doubt those who will debate it again next week, have stressed, that has meant an enormous increase in means testing. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer's passion for credits of every conceivable kind, enormously increased complexity is being introduced in the various measures. In other debates on work and pensions I have taken the view that possibly only the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who regrettably is not in her place today, understands such matters. It may he that the Minister who is to wind up does too. If so, I suspect that they are the only people in the country who do.
That is not a trivial point. There are real problems regarding the complexity of the introduced measures and of take-up. The Government keep announcing more and more increases in the amount they are going to spend on a particular benefit. It is then found that actually far less is spent because of the lack of take-up. That is a very real problem. We need to take it into account in appraising the extent to which the Government's policies are actually working.
There are a number of other aspects which have not been mentioned in this debate. There is the problem of the Social Fund. The Select Committee on Social Security in another place suggested that, because of the way benefits are claimed that would actually work very much against the Government's aim of reducing poverty and social exclusion.
As to the number of workless households, the trend is not in the favourable direction that one would have hoped. I am relying there on the Office for National Statistics. After the "fiasco"—I think I might reasonably so describe it—regarding its views on how much money there is in pension funds at the present time, perhaps one must increasingly take its figures with a degree of scepticism.
Overall, this has been an extremely helpful debate. One must take into account the Government's proposals when they first came into office in 1997. That is the date selected by the noble Lord for the purposes of this debate. The Prime Minister clearly stated that, by the end of a five-year term of a Labour government,
"I vow that we will have reduced the proportion of national income we spend on the welfare bill of social failure",
and so on. In reality the way that the Government have proceeded has led to a significant increase. The extent of social security, as it used to be called—work and pensions, I regret to say, it is now called—has actually increased. It has gone up from something like £100 billion to something like £110 billion. That is not exactly the kind of reduction promised in 1997. Of course one welcomes, as I have, the State Pension

671
Credit Bill. That will help various pensioners and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and others have taken the view that one would do better to go for an increase in the basic state pension. I do not take that view myself, although many noble Lords on the Benches opposite may. It might have been a different way of tackling the problem.
The complexity issue is very real. If we are going—as we must all wish—to try and reduce the level of poverty and to help the position of families, it is right that we should look at the detail of the various measures concerned and to put the matter in a broader context, as we have today. That was most helpful. We must congratulate the noble Lord for initiating the debate.
5.13 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am proud of many things that this Government have done. I pause to anticipate the interjection—"He would say that, wouldn't he?" I am proud of the fact that we have a strong, stable and growing economy, of our active participation in Europe and of the increased money that we have made available to tackle world poverty. I am proud of the reduction in unemployment, of improvements in educational standards, particularly in primary schools, of the increased investment and staffing in the National Health Service, of action against oppression and terrorism in Kosovo and Afghanistan. But what I am most proud of, and what makes me most happy to be a member of this Government, is our policies, our strategies and the way in which they are working against poverty and in support of families.
We had a debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and other noble Lords have reminded us, about child poverty. I shall address this matter from a slightly different starting point. The themes of what I shall say are basically that there is a pre-condition—of course there is—for effective action against poverty; that is a strong and stable and growing economy—the macroeconomic policy which has been referred to. Its most important effect has been on the incomes of the less well off. The most important way in which that has been achieved has been the increase in employment of 1.3 million since 1997. Incidentally, for anyone who queries that, that is the lowest figure since the 1970s, both on claimant and ILO criteria. I say that to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That is not just because of economic success but because of deliberate policies—the policies of the New Deal and of encountering the unemployment and the poverty trap—in other words, the policies of making work pay.
It is also true that we would not be tackling poverty effectively if we only did so by increasing incomes, because we must tackle poverty in its non-household finance sense; in other words, in the quality and the targeting of public services. It is an unfortunate fact, and has been for many years, that the middle and upper classes have greater access to public services, to the services in particular of education and health, but also to some extent of housing. Unless we put more
672
investment into our public services and their efficient reform, and in addition ensure that those in most need are capable of taking them up, then we will not be tackling poverty effectively.
Clearly, I do not have time in the course of this debate to tackle the broader issues of the quality of our public services. However, I have time, and I want to spend a certain amount of time doing so, to talk about the way in which public services are being targeted to those most in need.
So what am I going to say? I have already spent three minutes doing so already. The statistics are on the record and have been well aired in the course of this debate. I propose to follow the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to a combination of policies—the structure of the policies which constitute our approach to these issues. If in doing so I fail to answer questions as varied as the Prime Minister's visit to Africa or vacant government housing, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.
I start with the economy. I shall not go over the ground of macro-economic policies, except to say that if we are able—as we have—to spend £4 billion less on the cost of unemployment over the past two years than we did before, and if we are able to spend £8 billion less on debt repayment in a year than we did before, then the opportunities for positive action are that much greater.
In terms of our expenditure on public services, by 2003–04 the Government will be spending £10.5 billion more on education and training than in 2000–01. Annual capital investment in housing will be £4 billion by 2003–04, compared with just £1.5 billion planned spending in 1997–98. That is underpinned by the target to ensure that more is spent in improving services in the more deprived areas that have in the past missed out on economic prosperity. That is the subject of the public service agreements which we have with the public service spending departments.
I return to the issue of employment opportunity. The increase in the employment figure is 1.3 million, I think we can now safely say. One important factor of that is that it is equal in every single region. There are no regional inequalities. The New Deal for young people has helped more than 345,000 18 to 24 year-olds find work. In total, New Deal has helped more than 600,000 into jobs. I am aware of the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I acknowledge that the drop-out rate must be taken into account and is serious. He must not assume that "no known destination" means that people have not got other jobs. On the contrary, from my experience of researching youth opportunities programmes during the 1980s, the most common actual researched outcome of "no known destination" was that people had come off the lists because they had other jobs and were no longer interested.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the Minister would raise that point. The same piece of research to which he refers shows that only 25 per cent of those

673
people kept their jobs for six months, and only five per cent found them through their New Deal personal adviser.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, as far as was known about the first jobs that they achieved through the New Deal. My point is that people who go through the New Deal, as through previous programmes such as the Youth Opportunities Programme, do not necessarily stay in the same job but go on to other jobs.
However, much more important than that is the problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is expert in the field, referred, which is the work that we must do to improve work incentives to deal with the unemployment trap, in which the difference in family income in and out of work is too small to provide an incentive to take a job, and the poverty trap, in which those already in work are discouraged from working longer hours or taking a better job because their marginal tax rate or loss of benefit rate is too high. We need more than one policy to tackle this difficult and complex problem. We need the minimum wage, which is benefiting a large number of people, 70 per cent of whom are women—that is an important point to make.
We must take into account the fact that we have halved the marginal rate of tax for almost 2 million people through the introduction of the 10p starting rate of tax in April 1999 and the widening of the band last year. We must also take into account the fact that in April 2000 we cut the basic rate of tax to 22 per cent—the lowest rate for 70 years—and we have aligned the national insurance contribution threshold, which means that about 1 million low-paid workers no longer have to pay national insurance contributions.
On top of that, we must take into account the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, which target support on those who need it most. Nearly 1.3 million families receive working families' tax credit and, on average, they are £35 a week better off than they would have been under the old family credit. The childcare tax credit component is worth 70 per cent of eligible costs up to 135 a week for a family with one child and £200 a week for a family with two or more children.
That combination must be acknowledged—as it has been in this debate, for which I am grateful—as an outstanding success. We can now guarantee a minimum level of income for people with children moving into work. Combined with the national minimum wage, the working families' tax credit guarantees a family with one earner working 35 hours a week a minimum of £225 a week. We have reduced to a third the proportion of families who face marginal benefit reduction rates of more than 70 per cent—that is the poverty trap—compared with 1997.
Reference has been made to housing benefit. Housing benefit is what happens when we stop rent control—that is basically the truth of the matter. Unless everyone is able to afford decent housing, that is what we get. Therefore, the most important thing we
674
can do with respect to housing benefit is to take people off it. The working families' tax credit starts to do that. We have already taken 70,000 people off housing benefit and we must continue that process. At the same time, we must make the benefit simpler and its collection more efficient. We have a target for 2010I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as I say this—of a decent standard for all social housing, with an intermediate target of improving a third of social housing by March 2004.
Let me turn to the wider agenda of public services. The important point is not the total amount spent on public services—well, of course it is, but that is not the subject of this debate—but the targeting of those areas, and therefore those people, most in need. We have established public service agreement "floor targets" covering the key public services to ensure that as average outcomes of public services improve, the worst-off groups living in the worst neighbourhoods also benefit from improvements—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. That is why we are providing £900 million over three years for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and targeted programmes such as Sure Start, Excellence in Cities and the New Deal for Communities. That is also why we are also seeking business involvement in the most difficult and disadvantaged areas.
Perhaps the headline issue here is child poverty. We inherited a situation in which one in three children lived in households with an income below 60 per cent of the national median—which is the definition—and that was getting worse. The number of children in low-income households had doubled during the previous 20 years. In trying to turn round this problem, we are not just turning round a tanker that was stationary but one that was steaming at high speed—as far as tankers are capable of that—in the wrong direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and others have reminded us, we had the highest rate of relative child poverty in the European Union and the highest proportion of children in households where no one worked.
I shall not concentrate on the statistics of child poverty, other than to respond to two specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. First, yes, of course a relative poverty target is difficult to achieve because it is a moving target. But the absolute is also difficult to achieve—the Irish Government are trying to do so with great difficulty. Also, the relative target is real—it is real to people. If people are worse off than those around them, they feel poor. We cannot get away from that. Similarly, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I shall not describe policies designed to encourage social mobility, but poverty is the most profound barrier to social mobility and the most serious damage that can be done to a child's future chances of having a decent job and leading a decent life in a decent society.
In December, following the pre-Budget report, the Treasury published a paper entitled, Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life. I wish that, in congressional terms, I could have that document read into the record, because it contains the answers to many of the questions asked today.

675
My second response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerns the question of there being 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty than there would otherwise have been. The noble Lord called that a myth. What we mean by "would otherwise have been" is, if previous policies or trends had continued. That is exactly my point about the tanker moving heavily in the wrong direction.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it has absolutely nothing to do with a tanker moving in the wrong direction. Does the Minister deny that it is untrue to say that a million children who were in poverty, under the usual definition, at the time when the Government came into office, are now out of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are five years older, for a start. It is a different cohort of people. I am saying that it is different from what it would otherwise have been. That is the description.
Earl Russell: My Lords
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a timed debate
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Would he also concede that not all improvements in the global economy since 1997 are to the credit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are a credit to the British people, their resourcefulness and their industry.
The tests of changes in child poverty are that, as a result of all our policies combined, families with children are, on average, £1,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are, on average, £1,700 a year better off in real terms. For example, a family with two young children on half average earnings—£12,700—is £3,000 a year better off in real terms. That is because of increased child benefit, the children's tax credit, the working families' tax credit and the raising of the children's allowance in income support.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, among others, referred to the New Deal for Lone Parents. We must take into account the nature of the New Deal for Lone Parents, which is voluntary and in the first instance requires only those with children aged five and over to attend a work-focused interview. The effect of it—there are 350,000 participants, with 130,000 placed into work—is that any lone parent working 16 hours or more has a minimum income guarantee of £166 a week or £225 a week for full-time work. For those working fewer hours, there is an increase in the income support disregard as support for those who cannot work.
We must consider the direction in which the tanker was going. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, made the point that, between the 1970s
676
and the mid-1990s, the number of lone parent households doubled, and the number on benefit trebled. That is the tendency that must be turned around. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was percipient on that point. Again, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that what we are doing in respect of maternity and paternity pay and the duration thereof is surely important, particularly for very young children.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the issue of wallet-to-purse in the child tax credit, which we will introduce from 2003. Of course, one of the features of that is that it will be a secure stream of income for families with children, paid direct to the main carer. It will unify all the income-related child payments, and it will provide greater flexibility and a common framework for assessment, so that everybody is part of the same inclusive system. It will target help on those who need it most, when they need it most. It is an important new development, in the direction in which, I think, noble Lords wish to move. Decisions on the rates and thresholds will, of course, be set out in the Budget this year.
I have so little time to speak about our childcare provisions, although I acknowledge the concern that was expressed. The number of new places that have been created is sufficient evidence of how serious such matters are. Again, I have so little time to speak on pensioner poverty, which ought, of course, to be an important part of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said in his opening speech, it is no longer the case that pensioners are more likely to be poor than anybody else. Therefore, targeted help for pensioners is the only conceivable solution that will achieve results. We have given above-inflation increases in the retirement pension for this year and next year; we have introduced the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners, which benefits over 2 million pensioners, and that has been linked to earnings for the rest of this Parliament; and, of course, there are the free TV licences and the winter fuel payments.
More attention was rightly paid to the next step, which is the pension credit. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, set out the basic facts about it. I must respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about complexity. The pension credit will abolish the weekly means test and will apply for a much longer period. We have already successfully reduced the complexity of the application process, and we are moving in the direction of combining targeting with effective delivery.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and to all who have taken part in the debate.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I also thank everybody else who has participated in the debate, which has been a good one. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Climate Change: Kyoto Protocol
5.37 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's plans to implement the Kyoto Protocol and the proposals they have for tackling the longer term challenges of climate change; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the debate is for the House to consider the positive actions of Her Majesty's Government to address the effects of climate change. This is potentially the greatest physical threat facing this country and the whole world, during this century and the next. Nevertheless, the threat can be reduced, provided that there is decisive action by the whole international community.
As some major effects are inevitable, whatever action is now taken, governments need strategies for adapting society to the changes, including encouraging new business opportunities associated with the new challenges. II shall briefly recall some of the evidence and predictions drawn from research into climate change that gave rise to international action and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. I shall draw attention to the subsequent plans and actions by governments and industry in the United Kingdom and abroad to follow up on those commitments.
It is a good story, which, I hope, will be more widely known, especially that of how the UK is playing a major role in every aspect of the global campaign. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other speakers. especially the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who brings great experience and knowledge to the House. My noble friend Lady Farrington will wind up on behalf of the Government.
Evidence that our climate is changing is now generally accepted. We can even learn that from leaflets at our friendly petrol station, whether its logo is tigerish, flowery or a shell. The facts are quite startling. Global temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The 1990s appear to have been the warmest decade in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by over 30 per cent since the Industrial Revolution. We are already seeing the impact of recent climate changes: shrinking glaciers; less ice in the Arctic; decline in some plant and animal populations; and earlier blossoming in botanical gardens throughout Europe. At Trinity College, Cambridge, the geraniums next to the fountain are now bedded out on 1st June, instead of 1st July, as the noble Baroness on the Woolsack will witness.
Computer models of the changing state of the atmosphere and the oceans that allow for natural variations in climate and solar variability can now describe the past climate up to 100 years ago. But to account for the rise in temperatures over the past 100 years, it is necessary to include the effects of the extra carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry, transport, agriculture and forest fires. Those gases trap the outgoing radiation from the earth—as
678
satellites can now verify—and increase the surface temperature. Fortunately we will not reach the 700 degrees Celsius surface temperature of Venus, where greenhouse gases are much more concentrated.
Those same computer models can predict the future. They show that global temperatures will rise by between 1.5 and 6 degrees Centigrade by the end of this century. That possible range depends upon the volume of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted in future. It is quite likely that there will be a doubling during this century. Such a rate of warming will be without precedent in the past 10,000 years. Some research indicated that if the Russian permafrost melted, it could lead to a further release of methane—a very effective greenhouse gas—and average global temperatures could be even higher. If absolutely no action is taken, there is likely to be a levelling out of the temperature at a high level more than 300 years in the future, following a decline in the world's population which is predicted after about 100 years. That is the worst case scenario.
People everywhere will experience the impacts of climate change in some way or other. Changes in climate extremes could be damaging and costly. In the UK probably the worst effects will be along coasts and estuaries where, over the next 100 years, on average there will be a rise of more than 0.5 metres. That may cause frequent flooding and probably the abandonment of some communities as the coastline retreats.
Developing countries, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable people in those countries, will continue to be particularly affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. There will be more flooding in some areas like Bangladesh and droughts and desertification in Africa and central Asia. The social and security consequences are likely to be severe and have global repercussions, as the London ambassador of a central Asian republic forcibly reminded a recent London School of Economics seminar. That is why the Government are playing a leading role in the fight against climate change, both in the international arena and by ensuring that action is taken in the UK.
So what can be done about this global problem? Primarily, emissions of greenhouse gases must he reduced by about 40 per cent to prevent the worst effects, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There may be temporary solutions over a few decades by massive tree planting to fix the carbon dioxide, but recent research at the Hadley Centre suggests that that is not a permanent solution because, as the trees die, ultimately the carbon is released again.
The Kyoto Protocol, though limited in its scope, represents the best international framework for addressing the problem of climate change. Essentially it will lead to a reduction in emissions of between 2 and 9 per cent by developed countries. Although it does not apply to developing countries, it is encouraging that as China's economy grows, its emissions are in fact increasing at a much lower rate than those of the United States.
Agreement to and adoption of the rules necessary to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which were conducted in Marrakech in November 2001, was a major political achievement. It is further proof that the international community is capable of pulling together to achieve common solutions to common threats. The rules were adopted by over 170 countries and comprise over 240 pages. The agreement paved the way for ratification and entry into force of the protocol.
For legal and presentational reasons, the European Community and each member state are aiming to ratify the protocol at the same time. It is hoped that that will happen at the next environment Council meeting in March. The Government will then ensure that the necessary procedures to enable UK ratification are completed as soon as possible. Other member states are committed to doing the same. The aim is to complete ratification to allow entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by this year's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which will be held 10 years after the United Nations conference at Rio in 1992, when the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by many nations, including for the United States, by George Bush, father of the present US president.
Although the United States has withdrawn its original support for Kyoto, it is important that the United States Administration have indicated finally that they accept and are committed to tackling climate change. They are now reviewing climate change policy at the highest level. The UK has urged the United States to ensure that that review results in serious domestic action. In fact it is supported by US industry which, just as it did in action to reduce the ozone hole, takes a global view. We can see that on their company web pages. Indeed, many of them are perhaps more engaged in climate change mitigation than many countries in Europe.
There are encouraging signs within the United States, even in very conservative areas like Arizona where they recently voted a bond issue to construct a public transport system. One hopes that new US proposals will he compatible with Kyoto and that the US will return to the international process soon. We should also recognise that, although climate science is a magnificent international success story, the United States Government and universities have made a huge contribution; for example, by their generous and open provision of satellite, ocean buoys and the excellence of their research.
A number of other countries have already ratified the Kyoto Protocol. One hopes that countries that have not yet committed will follow suit. It is good news that Japan has begun its ratification preparations. Russia, which had been a reluctant convert—as I learnt in my visit as chairman of ACOPS to the Duma and the Federal Hydromet Service in October—was also positive about ratification at the end of negotiations in Marrakech. It is hoped that Russia will soon make a firm commitment to this process. Climate change will have a huge impact on that country. The UK Government and non-governmental
680
organisations are collaborating with other countries and international agencies to contribute science and development expertise to their challenging problems.
Japan, Russia and Canada argue that they do not need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as other countries because they are maintaining huge areas of forest and not cutting it down. Those so-called "sinks", which amount to about 20 per cent of the reduction expected in greenhouse gas emissions, are now allowed for to a limited extent in the amounts of emission agreed for those particular countries.
The UK Government's climate change programme has three main thrusts: first, the science of climate change and the assessment of impacts; secondly, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and, thirdly, adapting the UK to the likely consequences. The UK's excellent work on climate research and on the predictions and studies of impact of climate change is widely admired around the world and is regarded as the benchmark for science even in top US laboratories. It has been strongly supported by the previous as well as the present government. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, devoted her entire address to the United Nations in 1989 to this topic, and she also opened the Hadley Centre.
The present Government have increased their support for those programmes; for example, by adding to the UK Climate Impact Programme and through the setting up of the Tyndall Centre, which was opened by Mr Meacher. That is based at the University of East Anglia, Southampton and UMIST, and focuses on the impacts of climate change. The UK is funding international space-satellite and ocean-buoys projects for climate monitoring. Those are absolutely essential to provide regular information to politicians involved in negotiations and to scientists and the public wanting to know how different aspects of the climate are changing year by year. The data help to forecast devastating global climate change events such as El Nino, which may be with us again this year.
The government programme to cut the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases is planned to be 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, well in excess of our Kyoto target. To achieve that, the Government have introduced strong incentives for industries and individuals to contribute their reductions to greenhouse gases; for example, the climate change levy, the establishment of the Carbon Trust and changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel-efficient and low emission cars.
Further financial incentives for innovation and creation of business opportunities for reducing carbon emissions will arise when the UK emission trading scheme starts this year. This, the world's first government as opposed to informal scheme, will be copied across Europe. Direct action by government, local authorities, non-governmental organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust, and millions of individuals are reducing carbon emissions in a number of ways. First, it is being done through energy conservation in transport, industry and in the home.
Some of us recall a certain government long ago encouraging us to clean our teeth in the dark or to share a bath. The same spirit should apply today.
Secondly, new technology is being introduced that could well lead to rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. For example, a leading technologist in one oil company predicted that it would not be selling gasoline in 50 years. Most of its energy sales would be solar collectors and hydrogen, obtained cleanly from coal or oil and delivered to transport vehicles.
Totally carbon-free approaches to energy supply are also being considered as an important component of the UK's energy supply. The Performance Innovation Unit's energy review is looking closely at the future of nuclear energy, including its wider, long-term environmental implications which are now much less threatening with the latest technology in use in power stations and nuclear processing facilities. We also need to keep open future possibilities of power from controlled nuclear fusion which has almost none of the environment risks of nuclear power stations. This is being advocated by powerful voices in Europe. Of all the areas of new energy technology, this is one where the UK has perhaps the greatest advantage with the Culham laboratory.
However, for most environmentalists the favoured forms of carbon free energy are renewables from winds, tides and solar. The Government have introduced programmes to expand those quite rapidly to the level of 10 per cent of the UK's energy supply by 2010. The exemption of the climate change levy for this source of electricity is a powerful incentive. Anyone who has visited California or Denmark will see how financial incentives can lead to a good many wind machines being installed in a few years.
Clearly the technical, environmental and financial initiatives for efficient energy use and energy supplies with reduced carbon emissions require at the government level an unusually close degree of coordination between government departments, notably between the DTI, DEFRA, DTLR and Her Majesty's Treasury. The joined-up approach of this Government is proving at least as effective in this respect as that of any other government I know abroad or any government I have experienced in the UK.
Whether it is government or an individual, any sustained programme for energy efficiency and carbon emission requires monitoring and information. Most organisations and households have little idea about how they use energy and contribute to global warming. That is why the Government are encouraging the public and private sector to focus on monitoring, predicting and informing themselves and the public about the impacts of their energy and other processes on local and global environment. The fact is that carbon dioxides emitted here ultimately affect the sea level rise on an island in the Pacific, so we need to know what we are doing.
Lastly, the final thrust of the Government is to take early action to asses our vulnerability and to identify adaptation priorities, in particular for floods, droughts, heatwaves and the more gradual
682
temperature and sea level rises. Adaptation is beginning to be an integral part of policy in all those areas. Building regulations are one example and agriculture another. Health effects are an important area. The Government are supporting various programmes in this direction.
For other parts of the world, DfID is ensuring that climate change effects are an essential part of its policy, helping the poorest governments to plan their future which may have to be changed—with one Pacific island moving a whole population. That is a measure of the seriousness of the issue. I commend the serious and committed approach of the Government. I beg to move for Papers.
5.52 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, on having instigated the debate and thank him for his wide-ranging descriptions of the many problems which arise from this crucial issue. I speak with some trepidation. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose knowledge on these matters is well known, and to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has forgotten more about the subject than I shall ever know, is a daunting task.
The extent of global warming, if it actually occurs, is one of the great debates of our time. No matter how sceptical one is, it would be impossible not to be alarmed by some of the statistics in recent times which refer to what has happened in the past. That suggests to me that the predictions for the future must be taken seriously.
As to cause and effects, I do not know. However, I should have thought that common sense alone suggests that if we continue to chuck enough pollutants into the atmosphere something must give. As someone who lives in the country, I have noticed the weather patterns changing and have observed changes in the behaviour of wildlife.
The predictions of how the UK climate may change are alarming. A mean increase in temperature in the 2020s of 1.3 degrees centigrade, wetter winters and drier summers, and sea levels perhaps rising in the 2020s between 14 and 37 centimetres speak for themselves. If even half those predictions come true, it is clear that they are likely to have a profound effect on the way in which we conduct our lives.
I wish to say a few words today from a rural perspective. I declare an interest in that I own land. I do not farm personally; all the land I own is let. The debate on climate change is ongoing but the political, scientific and media worlds do not appear to have acknowledged the interests of the countryside, which are very much in the front line of the issue. Indeed, I was most impressed by the recent report by the Country Land and Business Association on the matter. It came up with no less than 102 recommendations to government on global warming issues based almost exclusively on a rural perspective.
The main point I wish to make is that, with the right policy framework, land managers can play a significant role in the reduction of greenhouse gases

683
and help to mitigate other adverse environmental impacts. In other words, I should like to think that the two go together. That is an appropriate subject in view of the report which has been produced by Sir Don Curry.
A very significant percentage of the world's carbon source is in the soil, in the organic matter, which is the principal source of the land manager. Consequently small changes in the volume of the soil's carbon can have a significant effect on carbon emissions either way. Cultivation—ploughing or forestry activities—results in carbon emissions. By changing cultivation methods farmers could actively store carbon in the soil.
That leads to the interesting concept of carbon accounting. I realise that this is happening in business already but it is still very much in its infancy in the agriculture sector. It is the method of looking at all the greenhouse gases on farms—carbon, methane and so on—calculating what emissions are taking place and balancing those against the level of carbon sequestration in the soil and trees. It is an interesting concept which I hope that the Government will consider seriously.
Another interesting development—I am sure noble Lords will be only too well aware of it—is renewable crops: crops used to produce carbon neutral energy such as willow coppice. I realise that this again is in its infancy but it surely must have a real future. Apart from the attraction of renewable crops as a means of producing clean fuel, it is to be hoped that they can act as a major replacement for some of the declining levels of uneconomic crops which will not survive the changes embracing agriculture at present. I appreciate that the Government have a target of 10 per cent of electricity produced from renewable sources by 2010. Are the Government satisfied that that target is being met?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to forestry. It is a means of carbon sequestration and is acknowledged as such in the Kyoto agreement. But it is also worth mentioning that the production of quality timber, principally hardwood, can be a substitute for synthetic materials the manufacture of which contributes to global warming; and such timber could be used more in the construction industry, in houses and so on. Is the woodland grant scheme designed to incorporate such thinking? If not, I believe that the time is ripe for that to be so.
On the question of flooding—an increasingly serious phenomenon—whether or not it is a byproduct of global warming, clearly land managers can reduce the problem by creating managed flood plains to control the flow of water and, at the same time, introducing some additional wildlife benefits. Again this comes back to the agri-environment schemes which are so much under discussion at the moment.
Let me give one final statistic which has always struck me. The predictions state that a 1 per cent increase in temperature will directly affect birds and plant species by moving them northwards by 100 miles
684
or 150 metres uphill. I am not quite sure whether or not that is an option—I doubt it—but the point is extremely well made. This would have enormous significance, both in terms of the well-being of the species and in regard to food production and pest control.
The opening-up of world trade through less restrictive markets—in other words, globalisation—is a fait accompli. I do not wish to comment on that other than to say that it is inevitable. But the aftermath of foot and mouth in this country, coupled with the other difficulties facing agriculture, have resulted in new ideas and new initiatives. The focus is now on the restriction of stock movement, the apprehension of imported meat—and therefore greater controls—local abattoirs, farmers' markets, local trade. All this, again, is reflected in the Curry report.
It seems to me that these two forces appear to be pulling in the opposite direction. But clearly in the context of the debate today, the less movement of goods, the less impact on global warming, and therefore another factor to be fed into this complicated equation.
I have already referred in the House to an article I read recently in a Countryside Alliance publication which struck me very profoundly indeed. I apologise to noble Lords who may have heard me say this before. It concerns a simple story: a farmer in Kent, carrying a trailer-load of apples to a farmers' market, spent more on fuel tax than did a supermarket flying in a plane-load of apples from South Africa. Not only is this a threat to food production in this country, to sustainable agriculture and to rural communities, in the context of this debate, I suggest, it is not much help either.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when he began to speak the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was very reticent. In fact, he made a most important contribution on the rural aspects of climate change. I am glad that he placed emphasis on the energy contribution which can come from the land and which should be substantially developed.
We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing the debate and for the wide-ranging manner in which he did so. It somewhat limits what those who speak after can say on the subject. But we shall have some important speeches later, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who is a most distinguished participant in the energy sector.
The Kyoto protocol has been rescued, much against most people's expectations, after the unfortunate developments at the Hague earlier. A large part of the rescue operation was undertaken by HM Government. It was quite a remarkable achievement. But the objective originally envisaged—that is, a 5 per cent reduction in emissions overall by 2010—has not come out of it because of the various negotiating modifications that had to be adopted. It is estimated that it could be less than half that. But that is not the

685
important issue. The important issue is that a start has been made and that we can now build on what was achieved at Marrakech.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the American position. We were all dismayed when the Americans appeared to be withdrawing from the whole issue of climate change, but that does not now appear to be the case. There is much going on in the United States by way of research and development, in some areas of which they lead the world. From industrial, commercial and popular reactions in the United States, I believe that the Americans will very soon return, in one way or another, to join the other countries which are seeking to deal with this urgent problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, the next step is ratification. So far, very few of the Annex 1 countries that is the industrialised countries—have ratified. Let us hope that soon the EU countries will set an example. Once they have ratified—and if what we have heard about attitudes in Russia, Japan and elsewhere is true, the necessary numbers will be reached before the Johannesburg conference in September—it looks as though reasonable progress will be made, and a good understanding reached, in the period up to 2010.
In this country, the real challenge is what will happen after 2010. That is the date when the AGR power stations begin to be withdrawn from operation, and that is when, on the basis of expectations of energy demand in the various sectors, we could well have an increase in the usage of energy. As things stand at the moment, unless there are changes, the impact of all that could seriously set us back in our longer-term objective of achieving a reduction in emissions.
These matters are closely linked with the issues at which, no doubt, the energy policy review is looking—in particular the issues of energy efficiency, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt referred, and energy security, which is bound to play a part.
In the case of energy security, as we know the estimate is that we will run out of resources from the North Sea in the next few years, creating an import requirement for gas of the order of 90 per cent by 2020. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, with his great knowledge of the subject, will refer to this and give the House his views.
As to the question of energy efficiency, this country, like many others, is very profligate in its use of energy. It has been estimated that we use only about 55 per cent of the energy generated. The remainder is wasted. The largest area of waste is the waste heat from power stations. Another big area of waste, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, is the inefficiency with which we use energy in our homes. These are two most urgent questions. If we are to deal with the problem of climate change, of course renewables and alternatives will play their part, but one of the most important issues will be to make better use of energy. That will automatically reduce emissions.
686
Let me deal with the question of waste heat from power stations. While we have built up a most efficient network of power stations connected by transmission lines—which many other countries have copied—the trouble is that it is not the most effective way of converting primary energy to secondary energy. We need to make sure that at least a proportion of electricity is generated much nearer to the points of consumption. Then we can make use of the waste heat and also save on the transmission losses. I declare an interest. Because I am strongly committed to this issue, I recently started a company called Micropower to promote the concept. It is supported by a number of the major companies involved in this area.
On the question of energy efficiency in the home, I regret to say that Britain is among the countries where energy is used most inefficiently. The English House Condition Survey has indicated, each time it has appeared, that we have a higher proportion of poor conditions in housing than any of our counterparts in Europe and that that leads to main heat losses. I regret that the policy pursued by the Government of pressing for a reduction in the price of energy—which on the face of it sounds absolutely right—is one of the prime reasons why we have not done as much as we should in this area.
Reducing the price of energy is socially and commercially desirable. However, it takes the eye off the main ball, which should be to make better use of energy. There should be more fiscal and financial incentives to use energy more efficiently, rather than pressure to reduce the price of energy as it is received. I hope that the forthcoming energy review will pay attention to that point. The matter cannot be resolved simply by means of legislation. A whole new attitude needs to be developed in this area.
Energy security raises many issues, among them the need for a greater use of renewables. However, we must take a hard look at how that is being done and at the definition of renewables. The term is rather narrowly defined. It could, for example, include methane from disused coal mines. If methane from the mines enters the atmosphere, it causes much more harm than if it is captured and converted into electricity. Coal as such can also play a part through clean coal technologies and carbon extraction. All these technologies can be developed to help us, particularly in the period after 201(21 to grapple on a continuing basis with the serious problem of climate change.
I hope that the UK will continue in its leading role. It has played the lead in chapter one. The big question is: will it lead also in chapter two?
6.13 p.m.
Lord Browne of Madingley: My Lords, I, too, believe that we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for initiating this debate. Climate change is a crucial subject and this is a critical moment at which to examine the progress being made, here and internationally. I am personally indebted to the noble Lord because the debate gives me the opportunity to

687
speak in your Lordships' House for the first time. I am grateful to the many people, both among your Lordships and among the staff and officers of the House, who have shown me great kindness. I hope that on matters such as this I can bring a particular perspective to this House, as a businessman working internationally.
On the subject of climate change, I believe that this is a moment for realistic optimism. "Optimism" will undoubtedly seem a surprising word to use given the mounting weight of evidence about the seriousness of climate change and the scale of the risks involved. Optimism may seem surprising also given the fact that international negotiations appear to be stalled. But I believe that there are some reasons to be at least cautiously optimistic.
The first is that the science has been accepted. Very few people now deny that climate change is a serious risk to the whole world. Of course, the science is incomplete and the conclusions are provisional. But all science is provisional. The search for truth always continues. The scientific work done so far shows that there is a material risk which we cannot ignore. That has now been accepted by the overwhelming majority of serious commentators and decision-makers.
The second reason for optimism is that the need for precautionary action has been accepted. We may not know in absolute detail the causes and consequences of climate change, but we can see the need to take steps to reduce the risk.
Many precautionary actions are being taken—and they are succeeding. They take many forms—which is in itself a good thing, because this is not an issue which can be resolved by a single wave of a magic wand. Here in the UK, there has been a shift to fuels with less carbon. That has also been the case in China—as the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, mentioned—where the emissions of greenhouse gases are estimated to have fallen by more than 15 per cent between 1998 and 2000 as the country shifted away from coal and in favour of natural gas.
Companies, too, are taking precautionary action. They are using energy more efficiently, eliminating waste, and applying new technology to reduce the emissions from their operations and from the products they sell. There have been advances in the sequestration of carbon, and in some parts of the world new forests have been planted to offset emissions. And in many cases—both at the national and at the corporate level—the various actions being taken are backed by trading schemes which ensure that emissions are reduced by applying resources in the most effective places. What is perhaps most remarkable is that progress is being made without a huge cost being imposed on the economy.
Optimism must be grounded in reality. Hydrocarbons—oil and gas—remain vital sources of energy and the level of demand for both of those fuels is likely to grow as population and economic activity increase. Alternative and renewable fuels are making great progress, but they are still essentially at the
688
experimental stage of development. Their day will come; but for the moment, energy means hydrocarbons. That is the necessary note of realism.
But from that starting-point, given recent experience, it is possible to look ahead and to see a growing world economy in which the emissions of carbon per unit of output are gradually, progressively, falling.
Of course, there is much more to do. Technology and best practice have to be spread and used on a global basis. This issue is inseparable from the general cause of development. In many areas more research and technical development are needed, which is why the work being done at universities here and in the United States is so important.
There is a need to create a framework which enables the steps being taken by different countries and organisations to be valued and incentivised. That will ensure that emissions are reduced at the lowest possible cost and will also confirm that each country, each company and each consumer can pursue solutions which reflect their own particular circumstances.
And on that, too, I am optimistic. We do not have such a framework yet, but the progress made over the past few years will help us to achieve one because we can now see that we are dealing with a challenge which can respond to practical action.
The combination of realism and optimism is for me the definition of progress. On an issue of such importance, there is no room for complacency—but equally there is no cause for despair.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley. We live at a time of great debate about the composition of this House. I am sure that your Lordships hope that, whatever changes may come about, they will enable distinguished fellow citizens from the world of business, science or the arts to make the kind of contribution that we heard from the noble Lord today. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to further contributions from him on this subject and on others.
Global warming is a global problem that demands global solutions. The first problem that arises with global solutions is that many countries, including our own, find that they can occasionally seem to pose a threat to what, in traditional terms, might be called their own sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, the Kyoto protocol may well be limited in scope and perhaps does not go far enough, but the most encouraging aspect of it is that at least it provides a framework within which we can begin to think about a global solution to the problem.
Part of any global solution will involve what one might call burden sharing. The world's richest countries, which are the greatest producers of pollutants into the atmosphere, will need to make the greatest sacrifices. If one measures the output of human beings as one might measure horse power, to

689
sustain the needs of one citizen of the United States of America it is necessary for 120 people to co-operate in the effort; to sustain the needs of a citizen of the European Union it is necessary for 60 people to cooperate: to sustain the needs of a citizen of the Republic of China, eight people are needed; and to sustain the needs of a citizen in Bangladesh, one person is needed. To put it more bluntly still, the United States of America produces 25 per cent of the emissions into the atmosphere in support of 4 per cent of the world population. Burden sharing is crucial.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and from the tone of the debate that the issue does not seem to arouse partisan feelings—in this House at any rate. I was pleased with the tribute that the noble Lord paid to the noble Baroness. Lady Thatcher, and to Mr Major, who signed the Rio accord. The previous government can also take some credit for the way in which the European Union has begun burden sharing. The three major producers of emissions—the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and Holland—are assuming a greater part of the burden than might normally be expected to fall upon them in order to relieve some part of the burden from Portugal, Spain and the Republic of Ireland.
That brings me to the United States. One particularly pleasing aspect of the debate, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his opening remarks, has been the absence of the attitude that we can prove how British, French or European we are or how committed we are to tackling the problem of climate change by how rude and offensive we can be to the United States of America. That policy is not only mistaken, but far removed from the facts, as the noble Lord pointed out.
It is true that at the outset the United States Government perceived the Kyoto protocol as an intrusion into their sovereignty, in a sense, but our Government are to be congratulated on taking a leading role in moving the United States Government towards a position in which we can hope that they will sign up to the protocol and provide the lead that only they can provide in tackling the problem. By their signature to the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the United States Government have proved that they understand that such problems need a global approach. I think that we can be optimistic in that sense.
What now? Following the events of September 11th, the United States Government have demonstrated to the world and to themselves that they can pursue their interests and protect their citizens when they are able to stand in front of a coalition. They have done that with skill, restraint and success. We should invite our Government to use the influence that I believe they have, particularly the Prime Minister, to suggest to the United States Government that the contribution that they already make—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew attention—is not sufficient. The United States alone ought to be leading on the issue. I very much hope that our Government will continue the good work that they have been doing and will ensure
690
that the United States Government take up the position that we all hope and expect them to take on this matter.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on initiating this important debate and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on his extremely well informed and interesting maiden speech.
The Kyoto meeting in 1997 was an important stage in the global strategy for dealing with climate change, as it represented an important breakthrough in the acceptance that climate change is caused by human activity. It is a first step aimed at the developed world and has been a very shaky step, given the withdrawal of the United States, which is the world's biggest polluter.
We all know that the target in 1990, reported to the 1992 Rio earth summit, calculated that an immediate 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions would stop the build-up of carbon dioxide. The conference warned:
"If the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past 10,000 years".
Those huge figures—60 per cent, 10,000 years and several others that my noble friend Lord Hunt and others who are much more scientifically expert than I am have brought to today's debate—have created a mountain that ordinary people find it difficult to face and to climb.
I shall make a few remarks about the global situation, but mostly I shall address myself to the local, the community and the personal. Like many, I was proud that my Government took a firm stance on Kyoto and its subsequent meetings. The leadership that the UK Government have shown has kept the door open to the United States Government—a door that I hope, in time, they will go through. Like many, I was disappointed when George Bush withdrew the original support that the United States had given to Kyoto.
As my noble friend has said, the UK's research on climate change has made a huge contribution to helping to solve the problem. The UK has generally been recognised and praised for its generosity. We must not slip back and reduce our commitment. What should we be doing in our homes, our communities, our towns and our cities? The policy framework that local authorities face on energy conservation and related issues is increasingly complicated. Will my noble friend the Minister assure us that local government is playing its part and will continue to do so?
In the course of researching this speech, it came to my attention that, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, satellite and aircraft monitoring make it possible to "photograph", which may not be the right word, the heat emissions of every town, street and even home. I suspect that such photographs have already been taken. If they have, what is being done with that information? Is Slough council—an example that I

691
have plucked from the air; I do not know much about Slough council—aware of its heat emissions? Based on that information, has the local authority developed a policy to contribute to emissions reduction? Should not data that have been gained street by street and house by house inform our strategy? Perhaps a review of the local authority contribution will also consider how communities that try hard to address the issue can be rewarded.
What about our personal and very local contribution? Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am an urban creature, but, like him, I feel that we have to examine ways of encouraging energy saving and recycling at the very local level. Many local authorities have addressed environmental issues and attempted to make their contribution to saving the world on the basis of Agenda 21. Your Lordships might remember those debates. Perhaps another, greater push for local action will be made at the Earth Summit + 10 which will take place in Johannesburg. I hope, and I am sure, that the UK Government will be at the forefront of any such initiative.
Our children's education and awareness of environmental issues are major factors in addressing those issues. The national curriculum itself addresses many issues to do with recycling waste, greenhouse gases and the environmental effects of global warming. The job of parents and teachers is to ensure that we translate that theory into practical daily action in the home. We should explain, for example, how to treat domestic waste and the benefits of walking or taking the bus to school rather than taking a car. We should also accept that, in many ways, our lives need to slow down. It is not necessary to live life at such a fast pace. We should explain the benefit of planning one's life so that one is able simply to walk or take the bus.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we are very wasteful in our homes. I live in a modern house. When the builders were selling it, they proudly explained to me that it was also a very energy efficient house. Although I was a little sceptical at the time, the fact is that my fuel bills are half those I had in my previous, Victorian house. Better insulation and house design are the way forward.
We also have to make environmental awareness fun for our children if we are to interest them in the issue. I have yet to find a computer game about saving the planet that is as challenging and fun as games involving Lara Croft and James Bond. Our children are addicted to the latter type of game. I therefore challenge game inventors to devise equally interesting games about the environment. It could be their contribution to saving the planet.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that there is no room for complacency, and I do not believe that the Government are complacent. However, although there is no room for gloom, there is an urgency to the issue which this debate has revealed.
6.34 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I join other speakers in paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for initiating this debate and for the quality of his speech.
It is heartening to know that the Government will ratify the Kyoto protocol well before the UN summit in August. It is equally heartening that the Government's climate change programme more than covers the 12.5 per cent reduction required by Kyoto. I hope and pray that the programme is successfully implemented by 2010 as intended. I also hope and pray that the much more stringent requirement of a 60 per cent reduction by 2050, the case for which was made last year by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, is achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that is the bigger challenge.
The need to move towards a low-carbon economy is paramount. The tortuous process that led to and followed Kyoto cannot be afforded again. Once Kyoto is ratified, we must regard ourselves as committed to remain on the path to a sustainable, low-carbon economy. We must produce just and intelligent policies to reduce our share of the poisoning of the atmosphere that has gone on so prodigally in the industrialised world for so long.
For too long, the industrialised world has been allowed to make its decisions on the basis of what it can afford rather than what it needs. Yet I am frequently struck, as I am sure other noble Lords are, by the number of people of good will who are sincerely trying to live their lives less selfishly, making changes at whatever level they can. For part of the duty of being human is to leave things better than one found them. However, people of good will are trying to effect change often within a framework that militates against them.
The pace of life, which ensures that we all have to find the quickest way to travel from one place to another, together with the cost and trouble of switching to alternative energy sources, overwhelm many a good intention and leave people much where they started but with a consolidated feeling that there is nothing they can do to help: it is beyond the power of the individual to change. How would it be if the Government heard that grassroots need and swung into action to help, perhaps more effectively and constructively? Make it easy for individuals to reduce their energy consumption and we may be startled by the size of the response.
As we know so well, not all people seek so earnestly to serve humanity's needs before their own. The restraint required in consuming less is effortful and often our convenience overrides our conscience. Moreover, as we become less and less true to our internal, spiritual selves, so we become more and more demanding of the external, material universe to satisfy our—actually insatiable—desires for distraction and entertainment.
The industrialised world's prodigal consumption of energy is, I believe, directly related to this loss of spiritual connection. As a Christian, I can offer the

693
insight that a life nourished and challenged—I emphasise the word challenged—by prayer is a considerable help in mitigating my appetite for material goods. But such an insight cannot be forced on people; it only dawns when it is sought.
Meanwhile, there is a serious charge of injustice to the poor of the world which we in the West have to answer whether we like it or not. I very much welcome the Prime Minister's current visit to Africa. The poor of the world are paying for our affluent lives, and government must not wait for widespread changes of heart among their population before they insist on change. They have to use their wit and do all in their power to fashion policies to ensure that,
"self interest serves what justice demands",
and make it more painful to consume energy and emit poisonous gases than not to.
The work has started, and we have been encouraged by much of what has been said in this debate. Let that be sustained and fruitful for the whole of God's creation arid indeed its future survival.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, gave what I would describe as a masterly review of all the problems affecting global warming. I am delighted that so distinguished an expert has become the chairman of ACOPS, of which I was chairman for a long time and am now happy to be president. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, no less, is the founding president of ACOPS, so this House and ACOPS are not doing too badly!
We are dealing here with a highly complex issue. Scientists the world over find themselves deeply divided over cause and effect. President Bush, and those politicians advising him, essentially rejected the approach that climate change endangers the planet. Perhaps some degree of special pleading has something to do with that. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is right and that they can be moved on that issue. I do not know whether that is the case but we certainly have to make an effort. After all, probably the majority of United States scientists who are experts in this field reject the scepticism which, according to Dr Benjamin Preston, a senior research fellow at the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in the United States, is advanced by many sceptics who are non-practising scientists or conservative organisations or other interest groups with a vested interest in undermining Kyoto and all that it stands for.
Personally I prefer the presumption of probability in situations of this kind. How else can the man or woman in the street make up their minds on this issue? That, in a remarkable maiden speech, is what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, prescribed.
Is Kyoto the death-knell for business? Michael Meacher—-and I agree with him—certainly does not think so. By taking a lead, British business, through the development of a domestic emissions trading scheme, can secure a future that will be for the benefit
694
of all. It is because we and others took that view that Margot Wallström, the EU environment commissioner, could say after the important environmental deliberations which have taken place, "Now we can go home and look our children in the eye and be proud of what we have done".
Kyoto, and also what was achieved at Marrakech, are far from perfect. However, as Michael Meacher has said,
"It's the only game in town".
It is totally unrealistic to pretend that somehow or other Kyoto will go away, nor will permitting the pollution of water supplies or allowing greater exploitation of oil and timber reserves in national parks, to mention only two of the environmental retreats sanctioned by the Bush administration.
The President of the United States considered that the protocol was dead. Indeed, that is the word he used. I believe that he is profoundly wrong. I hope that he will increasingly recognise that the Kyoto protocol can be realised. Therefore, I ask my noble friend what plans this Labour Government have to win over the United States. Failing that achievement— I hope that I am profoundly wrong about that—how will the Government make Kyoto succeed? Have they any plans, a point made by several noble Lords, to introduce fresh measures on energy use? I suppose that we shall have to await the Budget for credible evidence about that. If that is not the case how can the United Kingdom meet its targets under the Kyoto protocol for reducing greenhouse emissions?
Those are some of the questions that must be posed. There are others. For example, how do we verify a country's, or for that matter a company's. emissions? Is there a difference between the European Commission's draft directive on the creation of an emissions trading scheme for the European Union as a whole and the United Kingdom's scheme which is due to begin this year? What objections do our Government have to the EU's mandatory approach as opposed to their own voluntary scheme? Are there any other differences which we ought to know about? As I say, I do not think that the protocol is perfect but it is a start. It represents a vital foundation for the future. The balance of evidence we now have requires us to take effective steps at this time to overcome real damage to the global environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more confident than ever that our climate is being changed for the worse as a result of man's activities and that we must arrest that change before it is too late.
That summarises the challenge that we face. Some effectively seek to duck it. I have thought for a long time—I may be wrong—that the Government of the United States seek to duck the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, took a different view. He may be right; I hope he is. However, if we had adhered to that kind of approach with regard to the Montreal protocol, the hole in the ozone layer would pose an even more significant threat than it does. Nothing can be achieved if we deem it too difficult to try. But try we must if global warming and everything which

695
exacerbates its effects is not to overwhelm the quality of life on our planet. I hope that the measured optimism which has been reflected in this important debate will be seen increasingly on the world stage.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing this debate, perhaps he will not be too upset if I say that some of us are just a little less certain than he is that the Government are doing everything that is absolutely necessary in this field. Indeed, I am quite sure that if the noble Lord thought that to be the case he would not have bothered to introduce the debate.
One motivation for putting down one's name to speak in such a debate is the knowledge that one will be listening to experts in the field who bring with them a level of expertise that is valuable and essential for someone like me who describes himself as a jobbing politician rather than an expert. I was very pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, had put down her name to speak. I do not believe that she would be too upset if I described her as a jobbing politician as well since I believe that politics is probably the highest profession in a democratic society, whatever others may think. A degree of common sense and of looking for practical solutions are what politics is about.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, in his most erudite maiden speech, said that he believed that progress was a matter of combining optimism with realism. I believe that it is the job of politicians to turn optimism into commitment and realism into action. The work of experts plus politicians ought to result in progress. The fact that that does not always take place is perhaps because of our own inadequacies.
This is a timely debate in one sense. The meeting of the European Parliament this morning passed a resolution. It was being consulted by the Council of Ministers about the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation by the European Community and its member states. It voted to approve the measure this morning. That is timely because it is not just the British Government who can be proud of their record in pursuing the Kyoto Protocol despite all the difficulties that they ran into. It would have been very difficult indeed for that to be accomplished without the European Union as a major forum in the world to promote the protocol with a very substantial sector of the industrialised world which was prepared to take it on and persuade the rest of the world. The fact that the European Union countries intend to ratify Kyoto together in a symbolic way is most important. It is not just important as regards the issue itself, including global warming and all the peripheral consequences which appear to flow from that, but it is important as a step forward in rational and democratic global governance with sensible ways of tackling the huge global problems which we face.
Yet it takes a long time. It seems to have been 10 wasted years from Rio to Kyoto five years ago, through Marrakech and now Johannesburg. Yet
696
progress is being made, but all too slowly. There is no doubt whatever that people will suffer in all the ways set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others during this debate. But some progress is better than none. Without it it would be very difficult indeed to achieve the much greater progress about which my noble friend Lord Ezra spoke. I associate myself with everything that he said.
I also associate myself with everything said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about the importance of relating these issues to those of the countryside and particularly as regards the huge opportunities there are to take advantage of what should be huge new markets for biofuels in the future. That will occur only if we are able and prepared in this country to take the initiative and develop technologies. As my noble friend says so often, this is an area where those countries which take the initiative will benefit not just environmentally in the future, but economically as well. There is a huge opportunity here for us. If we have sense we will seize it. If we do not we shall suffer.
Ten years have been lost in negotiations and talks. There is still a huge problem with the United States. I share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rather than the greater optimism of others. It does not matter what we believe. Everyone on this planet has to continue to do what they can to put pressure on and influence the United States. Unless the United States and North America as a whole are able to come to terms with this problem and realise that it is one for them as well as for the rest of the world, we will not solve it.
How we are going to tackle the problem? It is quite clear that the Kyoto targets are interim measures. Whether the longer-term targets are 60 per cent by 2050 or some other figure, it is quite clear that we have to tackle these targets very seriously indeed, which means very great changes. If we look all the time for short-term solutions, we shall not find long-term answers.
At the moment it appears that, within the European Union, the United Kingdom and Germany are doing quite well in reducing emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases. The figures I have from the EU suggest that the United Kingdom has been able to reduce them by 14 per cent and Germany by 19 per cent. The United Kingdom reduction is almost entirely due to the dash for gas in electricity generation. That is clearly not sustainable in the long run. It has to be made up in the future. The German reduction is almost entirely due to the modernisation of the previously decrepit industrial infrastructure in East Germany. We have to take these matters incredibly seriously. In particular we have to regard them as serious in the fields of building and transport, particularly in the latter which is perhaps the most difficult of all.
As regards energy generation, at the moment gas is producing 39 per cent of our electricity. Clearly, in all but the short to medium term that is not sustainable. There is a lobby in this country that suggests that the answer lies in nuclear power. If the answer lies there, the suggestion is that the present 23 per cent generated

697
by nuclear power could be increased to 30 per cent. Many of us have very grave reservations about that. We are waiting to see what the Government's energy review produces. There are long-term security and economic problems in the nuclear industry and the enormous costs of waste disposal, including the problems of security of supply if generation is concentrated in a few very large units compared with a possible scenario under renewal energy in which there is far great flexibility in the system, far more generation at a local level and far more response to the needs of the local population.
The September 11th attacks do not suggest that as regards the nuclear industry security ought to be high on its list of plus points. The massive costs of decommissioning, decontamination and the safe disposal of nuclear waste are issues which have not been solved. No one knows how that will be achieved. That suggests that we should not be moving forward with the nuclear option at this stage. The problem with nuclear fuel is not whether it can fill some of the gap; it involves how much of the 23 per cent of energy generated from nuclear sources is sustainable in the medium-term and how to replace that with renewable energy sources of some kind. There are many such sources, including wind and biofuels.
It is time that the Government conducted a serious investigation into the whole question of biofuel. I believe that that could lie at the heart of a solution to the present crisis in the countryside and the whole question of the future of farming in this country. Everybody laughs when people point out that 100 years ago, 20 per cent of this country's farmed land area produced biofuel in the form of hay and oats for horses, but that is a fact. There is no reason why that cannot be done in future in a rather different way. However, that would need a major initiative from central government and a major investigation into how that is possible, what research needs to be done and how practically it can be brought about. The people who are currently involved in that area are scratching away at the periphery.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the thought of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton speaking on this subject was intimidating enough; having heard him, it takes a great deal of courage for any of his colleagues to rise to their feet.
At the outset I should declare an interest. I am a trustee and member of a number of NGOs that are concerned with environmental matters. In the context of this debate, I thank in particular WWF, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Greenpeace and SERA for the invaluable tutorials by post that they have given me.
The professionally and scientifically highly endowed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change spelt out, in its most recent report last year, in moderate language the magnitude of the challenge. It is a matter of ethics and equity. Failure to act now, when we know what needs to be done, will inflict a
698
heavy toll on future generations. Put bluntly, negligence will result in very much more death and suffering than is ever likely to result from terrorism.
It is altogether reassuring that our own Government have undertaken to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in time for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Tomorrow, as WWF reminds us—its campaign is due to begin then—sees the start of the 200-day countdown to that summit. It would be a terrible failure on the part of the world's leaders if, by the time that the summit assembles, sufficient numbers of governments have not ratified. Can my noble friend therefore assure us when she winds up that the Government will now give a lead by making ratification an urgent priority and that, if need be, they will not wait for the European Union to act together? Such a priority would, I suggest, be particularly timely in light of the Prime Minister's welcome focus on the needs and challenges of Africa. Many of the consequences of global warming will be felt most acutely in that continent.
Credibility for any such lead will inevitably depend on the convincing detailed arrangements that we put in place to enable us to fulfil our undertakings and meet our targets. The more convincing those are and the sooner they are in place, the greater will be the encouragement and challenge to others to Follow suit. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton emphasised, the Government deserve a great deal of recognition for what they have already done in terms of reducing the UK's greenhouse emissions. I am sure that he agrees with me that there is still a very long way to go. The foundations on which to build are in place.
The detailed priorities are clear. As many of the organisations to which I have already referred emphasise, the Government will need to introduce numerous measures. They include: the expansion of current energy efficiency and conservation education programmes; building regulations that move progressively towards "zero heating" houses; generous support for energy efficiency research and development, focusing on key technologies such as fuel cells; more ambitious standards for appliances and cars, which are set at EU level; traffic strategies to stabilise and reduce road traffic; more freight by rail; extension of the emissions trading scheme to cover all major business polluters; greater use of climate change levy receipts to support sustainable energy activities in business; much greater support for combined heat and power, including full exemption from the climate change levy; energy efficiency reviews that are made mandatory in leases of commercial buildings; reduced-rate VAT on energy efficient appliances; setting up of an office of sustainable energy that is headed at least by a Minister of State—as part of its responsibilities, that office should promote combined heat and power; the long-term goal of a fully renewable energy system; ambitious staged targets to ensure the delivery of our strategic commitment; major research and development programmes into renewable sources, energy storage and hydrogen technology; immediate support for the implementation of key technologies and of wind power especially; a more positive planning regime with regional targets and a presumption in

699
favour of development outside protected landscapes; reform of agricultural policy to encourage energy crops—the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in that respect was particularly important; urgent reform of electricity markets to remove the biases against small power generators; and reform of the electricity network rules to encourage the connection of small-scale power sources with fair pricing rules.
It is not just at home that action is necessary. Internationally, the priorities for which the United Kingdom should be striving and in relation to which it should be taking action itself, where appropriate, are numerous. They include: the introduction of stringent international environmental and social standards to limit the use of sinks under the Kyoto Protocol—I, for one, am not convinced that they have a major role to play; a strong Kyoto compliance regime with legally binding consequences for non-compliance and full transparency; an accelerated round of UN negotiations, leading to emissions reductions that are based on safe, global per capita limits to greenhouse gases; much increased emergency aid and preventive adaptation funding to assist vulnerable communities around the world in protecting themselves against the impact of climate change; the implementation of the recommendations of the G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce, including the elimination of all fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies; the reform and reorientation of multilateral development banks to support the deployment of sustainable energy systems worldwide, with particular emphasis on funding, technology sharing and capacity building, which will provide access to affordable energy for the 2 billion worldwide—especially women—who are currently without access to adequate energy services; and reform and reorientation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to support renewable energy and energy efficiency exports instead of technologies that are based on fossil fuels and nuclear power. We should also act as a champion of binding environmental standards for export credit agencies at the OECD.
It is difficult to envisage any major issue that will impinge on the future of the United Kingdom and the well-being of our children and grandchildren that is not inextricably part of a global reality. Relevant politics is international global politics. Here in Westminster, history will judge us by our commitment to contributing to the effective global policies that are essential for the viability of our own society no less than the viability of all other societies of which the world is comprised. That is true of the terrorism that currently preoccupies us but it is at least as true—I believe that it is more true—of the environment and global warming. We, like every other nation, simply cannot deal with it on our own. We are all vulnerable to what happens globally; and what happens globally is an aggregate of what we all do. Frankly, it is not just ironic—I shall not echo what some others in this debate have said—but sad, and, I believe, potentially dangerous that the United States, which does more
700
than most to stimulate global warming, has stood aside from the global dynamic that is essential if the problem is to be contained.
The United Kingdom Government must leave no stone unturned in their efforts to persuade our US cousins to impose a mandatory cap on their carbon dioxide emissions, and to ratify the Kyoto protocol. I pray that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for whom I have almost unlimited respect, is right in this instance to be confident in this respect.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing the Motion. Much has been written about global warming and climate change. Indeed, we have seen experts from around the world who have argued about the causes and told us about the various scenarios and potential impacts on all our lives. It is clear from comments that have been made in the Chamber tonight that this is not an issue that will go away, or, indeed, one we can ignore.
Noble Lords have ranged far and wide in their speeches. We have heard from those who are experts in the field; and, to quote my noble friend Lord Greaves, we have had "jobbing politicians". I believe that I come somewhere halfway in between this description. Like my noble friend I was a "jobbing politician" for much of my life, but I always had a particular interest in this area—an interest that I shall make use of later in my remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out most clearly the background to our debate. He also talked about what was happening in England, especially as regards the very important scientific community, and what was actually happening on the part of the Government. The noble Lord talked about the importance of coordination, to which I shall return later. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we were all very grateful for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Peel. If you like, his was a lone voice as regards the importance of the countryside. My noble friend Lord Greaves touched on the importance of biofuels, which has been the subject of debate in this House.
Various noble Lords talked about America. I do not wish to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ezra, but some of the disquiet mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in relation to America's attitude to Kyoto and to getting together globally on these issues is a matter of concern to me. I was pleased to note that my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, believe that our worst fears have dissipated for the moment.
Like other speakers, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, on his maiden speech. I hope that he will contribute to our future debates on this subject. He, too, talked about the global nature of the issue. However, although this is a global matter, the tone of the noble Lord's speech suggested that it is of concern to us all individually, and that, individually, we have a collective responsibility as regards future

701
generations. We should be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that note of both optimism and realism. It is easy for those of us in this field to become rather cast down on occasion. We are all grateful to him for the points that he made.
As is the case with my noble friend Lord Greaves, I am not so encouraged by some of the Government's actions, especially in the area of energy and of energy efficiency. I wish to put forward a few reasons for that view. I believe that there is a lack of coherency between civil servants and Ministers across government departments. That is my experience, particularly in energy matters. It is also my experience following eight years spent in both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, that view has been expounded in Select Committees considering such issues, especially in another place. I should add that it is also the opinion of outside observers, not least some of the journalists who have an interest in the area.
I shall quote from journalist Peter Kellner's speech given at a conference that I attended. He clearly described the problem regarding the way the Government are divided when he said:
"Whitehall is more like a medieval court, with lots of rival factions jostling for the monarch's favour than a rational, coordinated system of policy formation. In this case there's more than one monarch; there's one at number 10 Downing Street and another at number 11. In fact there's a triangle of power and influence. You've got a part of the Department of Trade and Industry, you've got the rest of the DTI with DEFRA and the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office, and then the Treasury".
That is part of the problem. Much of the work of the DTI is concerned with climate change, and especially with security of energy supply. But a small part of the DTI, of DEFRA and of the PIU is more concerned with environmental issues, energy efficiency and renewables.
The Treasury is often the stumbling block when we are trying to deal with these issues. Some noble Lords have talked about the climate change levy. I believe that people welcome the Government's efforts in that respect, but there have been problems. It is not working out in quite the way that people wish, especially when it comes to combined heat and power. Perhaps I may declare an interest here as a non-executive director of a company that deals with combined heat and power and district heating. I know from that experience, and from others, that all is not well. We have had a U-turn on student fees, but it remains to be seen whether we shall see one on the climate change levy. Although I am making jokes about it, I recognise that it is a very serious problem and one that we must address.
Another matter that worries me is the Government's record on legislation in this area. It is rather disappointing. I have talked about the climate change levy, but I believe that all the legislation introduced into the Houses of Parliament, especially on energy efficiency, has been in the form of Private Members' Bills; in other words, it has not come from government. Some of those Bills were successful; indeed, I was lucky enough in another place to pilot the first Home Energy Conservation Act through
702
Parliament. We knew that that was only a beginning. We could not get targets set on the face of the Bill because, as I shall explain, that is one of the problems. However, it was a beginning. It gave local authorities the responsibility for drawing up reports and plans about energy efficiency in domestic properties throughout England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
There was also the warm homes Bill, which introduced the fuel poverty strategy that everyone welcomed. But that was also a Private Member's Bill. There is another Home Energy Conservation Bill going through another place. At present it is stuck halfway through Committee stage, despite hopes that it would have progressed further by now. Again, I believe that we are having problems in relation to responsibilities across departments and also with regard to an unwillingness to deal with setting targets. Part of that stems from the fact that the Treasury always becomes worried about the cost when one quantifies what one wants to do.
As I said, the second Home Energy Conservation Bill got into several difficulties this week. I have spoken to the Minister, the right honourable Michael Meacher, about this matter over a number of years and I know that he is committed to it. Yet he proposed amendments to the Bill which wrecked its purpose. That purpose is to ensure that we have proper targets in place with regard to greenhouse gases and improved energy efficiency. But he made helpful noises.
This issue is particularly worrying because the Cabinet Office has produced a review for the Performance and Innovation Unit. I know that the review has not been made public but it was discussed in a committee yesterday and, therefore, I shall report what was said in that committee. I am aware, as I am sure the Minister will tell us when she replies, that it is a report to government and not of government. The review stated that the aim was to ensure that the energy efficiency of domestic consumers improved by 20 per cent between now and 2010 and by another 20 per cent between 2010 and 2020. That would double the existing rate of improvement.
Others have calculated for me that a 20 per cent improvement between 2002 and 2010 would match exactly the 30 per cent target set in 1995 in the first Home Energy Conservation Act. I regret that, in their attempt to bring that about, local authorities have made slow progress. There have been insufficient resources and I do not believe that there has been enough guidance and commitment from government. I hope that that will change. I am very disappointed about what is happening in relation to the second Bill.
I consider progress in our own country to have been slow. I recognise that we have been very influential on the world stage and that we have worked with people in Europe. That is important, and I hope that we can continue to do so in order to improve matters on a global scale. But at home progress is slow. I hope that the Minister can give me some encouragement that the Government mean what they say when it comes to legislation.

703
In preparing for this debate, I came across references to the last occasion that we had an energy department. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about a sustainable energy department. That is important, but I consider that energy, and in particular our commitment at Kyoto, is also important. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful to have an energy department again.
I conclude by saying that I discovered that the last energy Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and that a previous opposition energy spokesman was none other than the Prime Minister, the right honourable Tony Blair. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton. This has been an interesting debate and we all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for giving us the opportunity to try to comprehend the vastness of the subject that he has introduced. He set the scene in an international context and then related it to the pressures upon the UK. He spoke about the pressures that will be brought to bear on our coastal regions and estuaries. That underlies the pressure that will be put upon our precious agricultural land, some of which we are likely to lose. In that vein, I also add my thanks to the many noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Peel.
It is true that the agricultural industry is well aware of the opportunities that are available and of the responsibilities that it carries. I, too, congratulate the CLA on the very thought-provoking report that it produced and on the 102 recommendations that it made. Perhaps I may inform noble Lords that it is shortly to hold a conference on climate change. I also thank my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones for his contribution. He pointed out that those of us who create more fuel emissions should be held responsible and he expressed the hope that the US would come aboard very shortly.
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She said that we all have a role to play. Indeed, we have. Her speech took me back in my mind to the "Keep Britain Tidy" week, which is still in being. Perhaps the Government would consider having a "save energy" week, in which they could raise the profile of what we as ordinary individuals can do. "Keep Britain Tidy" was a small initiative but it led to great rewards. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue.
As many noble Lords have said, the essentials of the situation are as follows. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Second World Climate Conference have all stated their belief that the world is growing hotter because of man's activities. The main problem is carbon dioxide. Stabilisation of the situation will require cuts of 60 per cent world-wide in emissions into the atmosphere. It should be noted
704
that, in order to achieve an average of 60 per cent, the developed world may have to reduce output by 90 per cent—a frightening amount.
If cut-backs are not made, it is possible that sea levels will rise—it has been forecast by up to 2½ feet—and the incidence of storms and droughts will worsen to the point where, by the year 2050, there may be 150 million or more environmental refugees. As other noble Lords have already said, most would be from Africa and from low-lying eastern hemisphere countries such as Bangladesh and Polynesia. But several million such refugees would be from Europe, America and parts of the UK. Even stabilisation implies a final total of twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as was the case 250 years ago and average temperatures of 2 degrees higher than now.
So to Kyoto, where 84 developed countries agreed to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent of the 1990 output by the year 2010. Within that 5.2 per cent, the EU has a target of an average of 8 per cent, and the UK has accepted 12.5 per cent, with an unofficial aim of 20 per cent. Noble Lords should bear in mind that the average saving necessary in order to avert disaster is 60 per cent. Therefore, although we have set a high level, we are still way below the estimate of some people.
The Kyoto treaty will come into force three months after a minimum of 55 of the original 85 countries have ratified. As at 7th December last, only 33 countries had done so. That does not mean that the remaining 51 are not trying; but it does mean that sanctions cannot be applied if they fail.
The Government's substantial, integrated package of policies and measures to deliver cuts in emissions was set out in March 2000 in their draft UK programme summary. That included the following aims: to stimulate new sources of power generation by using renewables for 10 per cent of electricity and by doubling the capacity of combined heat and power; to cut emissions from the transport sector; to promote better domestic energy efficiency; to continue reducing emissions from agriculture and forestry; and, lastly, to ensure that the public sector takes a leading role, as other noble Lords have already mentioned, by improving energy management in public buildings, by setting efficiency targets for local authorities, schools and hospitals and by developing green travel plans.
We are nearly one-fifth of the way to 2010, so we should ask, "How are they doing?". Some noble Lords have already expressed their concerns about the progress being made. Will the Minister list the efficiency targets that so far have been set for local authorities? Will the Government set individual targets for schools and for hospitals? If not, how will the aim be achieved? Can she explain the figures that were quoted on 4th December last year in another place in relation to increases in energy use of 77 per cent in the area of health and 23 per cent in the Treasury?
I now turn to transport. In 1996 transport was responsible for 31 million tonnes of carbon dioxide out of a total of 154 million tonnes of emissions. Perhaps

705
the Minister will tell the House how much progress has been made towards the target of a 25 per cent improvement in fuel use by 2008 in new cars.
In 1996 domestic combustion accounted for roughly one-sixth of those emissions. As a consumer, I am aware that in the past two years electricity prices have fallen while gas prices have risen. Can the Minister confirm that one result has been to switch electricity generation from gas back to solid fuel?
That brings me to power generation, which in 1996 was responsible for 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, nearly 30 per cent of the total. In 2000, 2.8 per cent of the electricity generated in the UK came from renewables. In Scotland it was 8.25 per cent; in Wales it was 3.25 per cent because of hydro power; and in England and Northern Ireland it was only 1.5 per cent. Will the Minister tell the House whether the target of 10 per cent is for the UK as a whole or for each country individually?
The introduction of the renewables obligation has now been delayed until April. Can the Minister assure the House that that is the final, final publication deadline? Can she confirm that the new electricity trading arrangements working group did indeed report by the end of January as promised by the Secretary of State? Even more importantly, has it come up with workable solutions to a situation that has caused the closure of small wind farms and a 60 per cent reduction in energy production from combined heat and power? The Government are well aware that the existing system for making connections to the national and local grids does not suit small wind farms. Changes have been promised. Is the Minister able to put a firm timescale on that?
I turn to biomass, which other noble Lords have mentioned. It is produced by farmers for burning in power stations. Several farmers I know planted willow, while their neighbours watched with interest, but some "jobsworth" in the Ministry decided not to pay a planting grant until the farmer had a contract for the sale of the output. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
As other noble Lords have said, this is an infant industry which is only just past being an R & D project. The electricity supply companies have won a battle and are now free to import timber by the boat-load, confident that our embattled farmers will largely diversify elsewhere. They may have won a battle, but I see this issue as a campaign which is important to the increase in use of renewables and important for the future of agriculture.
For the future, biofuels are of great potential importance. The recently published Curry report recommended a reduction in road fuel duty to the equivalent level of other clean fuels. Has the Minister discussed that subject with the Chancellor? If not, will she do so before the Budget? I urge the Government to include in their R & D focused research into the use of low emission and renewable products for the heating of homes, factories and workplaces.
706
I close by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, on his thoughtful maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him again. I know that he is a busy businessman, working on the international scene, but we hope that he will be able to spare time to participate often in the House. As other noble Lords have said, the Government have made a good start, but we have a long way to go if this country and others are to reach the targets.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I feel that I have a long way to go tonight given the range and depth of information that has been given arid the range of questions that have been asked. It has been an outstanding debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on securing the debate. We share with him the knowledge that it is an extremely important issue. Like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am only too aware of the depth of knowledge that there is in your Lordships' House.
As my noble friend said, the evidence is mounting that our climate is changing. He and other noble Lords described the effects that climate change is having and will have in the future. It is important to note that the UK has played a vital role in the research that has been carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
We have always believed that the Kyoto Protocol represents the best framework for addressing the problem of climate change. We are now working with the EU and other member states to ensure that the protocol is ratified—I shall deal with that point in more detail in a moment—and that it comes into force by this year's world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. We shall begin our own ratification procedures once the European Community has adopted the decision that will allow it to ratify the protocol.
We are making strong progress on implementing the range of policies that were outlined in our climate change programme. We believe that the UK has much to gain by facing the challenges head on. My noble friend has already mentioned that we estimate that the programme will cut the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases by 23 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2010.
Our programme is providing a strategic focus for action against climate change in the UK, bringing together positive action by businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low carbon economy. We are implementing a series of innovative and creative policies that will ensure that the UK cuts its greenhouse gas emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that it is important to see this subject in the context of the world. We have a target to provide 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources by 2010, backed up by at least £250 million over the next three years.

707
The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, in an outstandingly impressive maiden speech, gave me particular heart because of his recognition that we need a spirit of optimism, that we should not despair and that we have to take action. The style of his contribution led me to think that if I were 45 years younger I would have been given a sense of hope for the future of the world and the knowledge that I must get on and do some work to achieve what is possible. I congratulate him and look forward to hearing him speak again.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, recognised that the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by £215 million over five years, is due to go live on 1st April. It is one of our priorities as a government. We see emissions trading as a cost-effective mechanism for making a low carbon future a reality.
The climate change levy will also help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business. The Carbon Trust will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take up of cost-effective low carbon technologies.
The European Union level voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—by at least 25 per cent, backed up by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax, will encourage more fuel efficient low emission cars and of course be part of the 10-year plan for transport.
It is clear that we need to adapt to some climate change in the UK, whatever we do to reduce emissions. I should like to refer to the fact that we are building adaptation into mainstream policy, making areas like flood defence, water resources and revisions to building regulations. We have begun a cross-government process to stimulate and monitor action on adaptation. We continue to support the Climate Impacts Programme (UK) in helping implementation of adaptation strategies on the ground by regional and local authorities and private organisations. To help them, the Climate Impacts Programme (UK) will be issuing higher resolution national climate change scenarios in the spring.
We should recognise the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and BP have made to the development of emissions trading. They have taken a leadership role, not just by setting up an internal trading scheme, but also in the partnership between government and the business-led Emissions Trading Group, whose fruits we shall see when the UK starts in April.
The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, raised the issue of meeting targets agreed under the EU's burden-sharing agreement. They are constantly monitored within the EU. The UK, Germany and possibly Luxembourg are at the moment the only EU countries which are on target. Nevertheless, the other member states have taken some radical steps to get themselves back on target. The EU, as a whole, is committed to meeting the targets that have been set.
708
Following the withdrawal of the US from Kyoto in March 2001, over 170 countries came together in Bonn in July and in Marrakech in November to agree the rules to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This is an enormous achievement, which clearly demonstrates the desire to put in place a global solution to a global problem. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and my noble friend Lord Judd and other noble Lords referred to that matter. We look forward to the next international meeting on climate change scheduled for October 2002 in India and the early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol.
I agree with noble Lords who have raised the issue of tackling the problem of climate change in co-operation with the US. The US is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses and it must play its role in reducing those emissions. The Government are pleased that President Bush acknowledged that climate change poses a serious challenge. That was recognised in June 2001. The US is now undertaking a climate change policy review. The Government have been encouraging the US to ensure that the review results in substantial action to tackle climate change. In that way, the US can help to provide the same global leadership in this area as the European Union.
We have no interest in having any hostile relations—I have to say to my noble friend Lord Judd—with the US. But we want to continue to work constructively with it and ensure that it is fully aware of our commitment to the need to tackle the issue. We would like the US fully to re-engage in the international process and the door remains open for it to do so.
My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, referred to developing countries. We welcome the co-operation between the UK and India and China on climate change. We are pleased that we are able to assist through our collaborative programme with India and China to assess the impacts of climate change. We understand that China does not have a target on Kyoto, but has been successful in reducing CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP by some 47 per cent between 1990 and 1999. Total emissions fell by about 6 per cent between 1996 and 1999, the most recent years for which we have data.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Garel-Jones, my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords raised the issue of the protocol coming into force. The deal reached at the climate change convention was adopted by a large number of countries. Kyoto can enter into force without the US but, as I have said, it is very important that we encourage the US to come back into the negotiations.
My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of the process and the procedure within the EU of the UK's ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK needs to ratify the protocol at the same time as other member states. The first step in the process is for the EC to ratify. A Council decision is currently under negotiation, which it is hoped will be agreed at the

709
Environment Council on 4th March. The UK will then be able to complete the necessary ratification procedures and process.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of Russia. It has made positive remarks about ratification in the closing session of the second conference of parties in Marrakech in November, but has yet to make a firm commitment to ratification. We hope that Russia will soon be in a position to do so. We believe that it is in Russia's interest to ratify and that it would indicate that it was showing global leadership in this area.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised an issue concerning UK businesses. As with the optimism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, we believe that there will be opportunities for UK businesses to improve their energy efficiency and cut costs and get ahead of their competitors in developing cleaner technology and moving in to new markets. Perhaps I may also say that I can think of few other areas where we should encourage both young men and young women to go into science and technology. Given that they could have a role in tackling some of the problems of pollution and of climate change, it may change the focus of young people's thinking and increase the number going on to study science.
I believe that I have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is a process that has to be adopted within the European Union. We recognise that the Spanish presidency is aiming to reach agreement on the decision at the Environment Council. The Council has given a public commitment that the Community should be in a position to deposit the ratification agreement instruments by early June. We hope that all member states will meet that timetable. It would allow the protocol to enter into force in advance of the world summit on 26th August.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of adaptation to impacts. We have issued guidance to flood defence operating authorities in England and Wales, which includes allowance for sea level rise and higher river flows as a result of climate change. Work is being done on strategies and plans for water resource management, catchment obstruction management and maintenance of supplies in drought conditions. We have strengthened planning guidance in PPG25 and will review it in three years' time, in the light of experience.
In spite of the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we have held a ministerial discussion on adaptation to the effects of climate change, and a cross-governmental process to stimulate and monitor action on adaptation is being taken forward. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the issue of developing countries, as did my noble friend Lord Judd. Work on adaptation under the United Nations is funded by the Global Environment Facility, to which we contribute. We are calling for a 50 per cent increase in contributions at the next replenishment. The Bonn agreement established an adaptation fund under the facility to help developing countries in their efforts to combat the impact of climate change.
710
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, sought to draw me on the issue of the PIU energy review and some of the budgetary issues that will flow from consideration of that report. I am sure that they do not expect me to anticipate my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the Budget. We are aware that issues such as fuel mix and fuel pricing policy have been considered and will be part of the recommendations that the Government will consider in due course.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also asked about setting a renewables target for 2020. That issue is also being considered as part of the PI U energy review, and the Government will consider it further in the light of their recommendations. Among others, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of nuclear energy. We are on track to meet the Kyoto target, which takes us to 2012 without new nuclear build. The Climate Change Programme set out the strategy for delivering further cuts, so that we could move beyond that target. The review will have considered that, and we look forward to the recommendations.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about the achievement of government targets. Renewables accounted for 2.8 per cent of electricity generated in 2000. Figures for electricity generation for 2001 will not be available until mid-summer. However, we expect the introduction of renewables obligation contracts scheduled for April to help to work towards the 2003 target. We recognise that 10 per cent is challenging, but we believe that it is achievable. In the United Kingdom, we start from a low base on renewables, and we have taken that fully into account in developing our policy.
The Government are promoting combined heat and power. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that, in the case of this Government, the Treasury is not part of the problem: it is part of the solution. There is exemption from the climate change levy of all inputs into good quality CHP and the generated electricity supplied directly to the end-user. CHP is eligible for enhanced capital allowances on investment in energy-saving technology. Electricity-generating plant and machinery in CHP schemes is exempt from business rates. That also answers some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel—I believe, although I am not sure—raised the issue of fuel tax and aircraft. No, it may have been another noble Lord who raised the issue. I apologise. Discussions are being taken forward. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, did, in the context—
Earl Peel: My Lords, indirectly, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. It was in a little anecdote at the end of my speech.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that it was to do with vegetables having come from a long way away.

711
Discussions are being taken forward by the Government and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It is a matter that must be developed internationally.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, I must say that the framework on emissions trading starts in August 2001. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and other noble Lords about the scheme throughout the whole of the EU and the proposed EU trading scheme. We are keen that it should be compatible with existing training schemes and similar arrangements that exist not only here but in other member states.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lord Judd of the potential importance of biofuels. The Government already offer a tax incentive of 20p per litre, and we will consider it again in the light of the review. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and other noble Lords that it is an extremely important area, in terms of the contribution that the rural economy can make.
To my noble friend Lady Thornton I say that we already have a website provided by DEFRA, which explains about climate change. I am assured that it is fun and interesting; it includes games and quizzes.
I welcome the extremely positive contributions to the debate. We will have a difficult task. We recognise that there must be action locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can never be satisfied; he is an idealist and a perfectionist, as is right. I say to him that the Government are doing much, and we know that there is much still to do. I welcome co-operation, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, will keep us optimistic enough to keep trying to work together to solve the problem.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate; they have been very constructive and extremely interesting. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley—not Madingford; those of us in Cambridge know where Madingley is—for his optimistic speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Ex-servicemen
8 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the situations of surviving ex-servicemen who were severely wounded, or suffered serious injuries to health, as a result of enemy action in the Second World War.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question I shall be calling attention to a particular category of ex-servicemen. They are all over 70 in age—they are survivors because the normal pattern of human mortality means that many of those who were severely wounded in World War II will not be alive today. Even the able-bodied, with a normal span of three score years and 10—that is regarded as the norm, though life expectancy has increased considerably over the past 100 years—probably need special attention and supervised care. I understand that there is now no Member of Parliament in the other place who is old enough to have been in the Armed Forces in World War II.
I must declare an interest as a war casualty. Having been commissioned in the Army at the beginning of the war in 1939, I was wounded on the day before Hitler committed suicide at the end. I then spent over one year in hospital, followed by some months in and out of hospital. The hospital was St Bartholomew's, then evacuated to rural Hertfordshire. The other patients in my ward were all wounded servicemen, some severely. That started my interest and my concerns that I later raised in Parliament.
When we were able to leave hospital we came under the wing of the wartime military medical organisation and its services. However, some 20 years later the ex-servicemen were informed of a major change. In future we would be dealt with by the Department of Health. That seemed a sensible rationalisation; and the number of disabled veterans from World War II was dwindling. They all received letters assuring them that the NHS had been charged with an obligation to give them priority in treatment. A letter which I received recently from BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association—tells me that that is nowadays often forgotten. It states that BLESMA has to remind the NHS trusts and NHS staff that that priority still exists.
That is the main message I wish to transmit in raising this subject in Parliament today. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is due to reply, to confirm that the Government still recognise that priority, and that they circulate it within the NHS. It is not a burdensome task. The survivors are steadily decreasing in number, as I have pointed out.
The transfer in the early 1970s of medical care and supervision to the NHS was a landmark event, and a nightmare for some. It had its problems for the clients. For example, in my case the papers with the specifications for the callipers and associated equipment—the orthotic devices—which I had to use, and still have to, were lost in the transfer. So were other important papers concerning wounded ex-servicemen. Those papers were necessary for routine replacements and many ex-servicemen, including me, had to make several special journeys in order that measurements be taken again—quite unnecessarily—for future replacements. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, can assure us that that will not happen again.
As an illustration, I should like to mention two soldiers who were in the same ward as me in St Bartholomew's Hospital in 1945 and 1946. One was a sapper officer, and he had lost both hands. Another was an infantryman who had lost both feet. The first, as noble Lords will have guessed, had been neutralising or lifting enemy landmines, a sapper's job, and the second—an infantry soldier—had been blown up on a mine when he was advancing during an operation against the enemy. Even then, 56 years ago, artificial limbs were fitted for them. But they were simple and unsophisticated compared with what is available now.
In my case I had been wounded the day before Hitler committed suicide, having started in the Army just before the war in 1939. I had been commanding a field battery in the Scottish Division for three years, but my time in the Army was now being brought to an end by enemy action.
My admiration for the surgeons and staff in St Bartholomew's grew steadily as they repaired us. I must make it clear that I had no reason to complain about treatment over the years. My complaints were usually about bureaucracy. The medical treatment has always been excellent and my colleagues report the same. My injuries were the result of a bullet fired at very close range which passed through my middle, hitting some things but just missing vital others.
I want to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, arising from the announcement that some tax had recently been charged incorrectly on war pensions that are supposed to be tax-free. Were war disability pensions affected? They are supposed to be tax-free. I gave the noble Lord notice of my question so I hope that he will be able to provide us with the relevant information.
The term "war pension" is misleading. Most of those now receiving a war pension were not involved in any war. Many sustained injuries in this country while on duty. That is the point. A soldier may have fallen off a ladder in the barracks at Aldershot. If he was doing the job on duty, his compensation—to which he is rightly entitled—is called a "war pension". I suggested it be renamed "Armed Forces disability pension", to avoid the confusion which so often arises from that description.
As this is a Question and not a debate, I cannot speak again. But I thank those who have put their names down to speak, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lords, Lord Hardy and Lord Weatherill.
To recapitulate, I hope that the reply from the Government Front Bench will deal with two points. First, do the Government still expect priority to be given to ex-servicemen wounded in action? Secondly, can they give us an assurance about the continuing priority for disabled ex-servicemen? In relation to tax, have some of the war pensions to which I referred—war pensions and disability pensions—been incorrectly taxed, as reported in the recent controversy in the newspapers? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on those matters.
8.9 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for getting us together tonight—a rather select little band; we all know each other. It will be an interesting though short debate.
Perhaps the Minister will allow me to take this subject in a slightly broader way. I have to declare as I think all noble Lords know—that much of my life involves veterans' affairs. I am dedicated to that activity and enjoy it. I shall not list the number of associations or charities with which I am associated. They can be seen on the computer. The positions are all unpaid, as they should be because we volunteer for these activities.
What does a veteran need? What does he want? We have been bad, historically, at looking after our veterans. All political parties are culpable. No one has taken much notice of our veterans, men or women. Other countries in the Commonwealth. and even our enemies of the past, give more status and recognition to a veteran than we as a nation do. At the end of the war it became blindingly obvious to us that no British government was going to look after the veterans and that we had better look after them ourselves. Therefore, these great organisations look after the veterans. Their work involves welfare, benevolence and care for members representing perhaps a small ship, an RAF squadron or a regiment which has its own association.
A veteran deserves status within the nation. At times he deserves recognition. He always needs help and care as he gets older. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, regarding the status and recognition of the veteran. He generally behaves with dignity and quietness. He does not boast of what he has done for his nation. Therefore, I take issue with the fact that, medically, he does not receive priority. As the noble Lord said, the National Health Service should give priority to a veteran. So should the GP. If priority is not given, and the veteran is stuck in a corner on a trolley, or told to come back in two or three years' time for an operation, he should carry some form of recognition. Many veterans' organisations have a veterans' gold card. Everyone is talking about ID cards at present. Perhaps in conjunction with that, some form of recognition could be given. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue.
All veterans have great hopes in and support for the Minister for veterans' affairs. We have been asking for many years for a Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs. I congratulate the Government on at last providing one. However, we must ensure that the number of staff the Minister is given is adequate for the job and that the position is not a political cosmetic to make everything seem better.
I hope that the Government will support their Minister for veterans' affairs. He needs support. I mention two stumbling blocks. Some veterans may refer to "the enemy". I refer, first, to another place. The general feeling is that Members are quite good at looking after themselves, their emoluments and pensions. I understand that they are now talking about

715
partnership pensions for both genders. It is time that they were alerted to the fact that there are veterans and that Members are sitting on their green Benches because of the veterans' work in stopping this nation being invaded and conquered.
I believe that the Minister for veterans' affairs will have considerable trouble with local government. We find that veterans are somewhat pushed to one side by the vast majority of local councils or local government. There have been times—the Government put the matter right—when veterans' pensions were stopped because they received other gratuities and so on. If the task is to be a success, the Minister and his staff will have to bring local government on side. The ethnic—they are now British—associations of warriors from India, west Africa and the small group of African ex-servicemen have been somewhat left out. I am a trustee of the old Indian Army Association based in Southall. The most marvellous man, Wing Commander Puji—he fought in the Battle of Britain in a Spitfire and a Hurricane and went on to fight again in Burma—is very much its leader. The association is full of the most tremendous warriors which only the Martial Tribes of India could and did produce in the war.
I pay tribute to the War Pensions Agency. The Burma Star Association has a good relationship with it. We go to the agency in Blackpool. A veteran is our contact man. It does its best but it is under much constraint. If the Minister for veterans' affairs is to do his job he must look closely at the difficulties that the agency has in helping with the disablement pensions and normal pensions. In the Burma Star Association alone last year—we are probably the only other tri-service organisation apart from the Royal British Legion and SSAFA—the agency had to deal with 300 to 400 problems. We had success.
We had to deal with 200 to 300 widows' problems. Thanks to the agency, we had some success. When we talk of veterans, it is often forgotten that the issue involves widows. There used to be 30,000 to 35,000 members of the Burma Star Association. The number is down to 13,000. We shall die. Quite a lot of people might breathe a sigh of relief; it will cost less money here and there. But there are 20,000 widows. I have told them, sadly, that in my lifetime I shall not have time to dance with every one of them before I kick the bucket. But those widows have to he taken care of. Most of the associations of all three services pay great attention to their widows. They are perhaps the main priority of the Burma Star Association and other associations with which I am associated.
The Minister will be aware that there are rumours—they are more than rumours—of a merger between the larger associations. That would be no bad thing, but the two organisations concerned carry out all the case work. The Royal British Legion and SSAFA are two outstanding organisations, which in many ways take the lead in our association affairs. Their raison d'être is case histories and visiting veterans and widows.
All mergers, whether of businesses or charities, always end up in a row about who will be the boss and who will manage the organisation. The bureaucracy
716
can get bigger and everything can go into default because of that. I am not saying that a merger is not a good idea, but one has to look very carefully at it. I hope that the Minister of veterans' affairs will be allowed consider the issue.
I hope that representatives of the new department get out and about and visit the veterans. We have great faith in the Minister. We have told him that we will give him a year to 18 months before we start to get beastly and twist his tail and so on. As I have said, I hope that there will be sufficient staff.
There are many good, young retired officers—young in comparison to my age, perhaps 55 or 60 years old—and warrant officers of all three services. If the Minister had a dozen of those on his staff, they could get out into the country, learn about all the different associations—right down to the smaller ones which do marvellous jobs for their regiments, ships, squadrons and so on—and they could be his eyes and ears.
If the Minister really wants to know how to run a good veterans' association, he should visit Australia. The Returned Services League of Australia and its other organisation, Legacy, are blueprints for such organisations. They are most outstanding. I declare an interest. I have been a member of the Returned Services League of Australia for some time and I am its representative in Great Britain on the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League.
I have gone slightly over my time. We support the Minister and wish him well. We are here to help him. Someone should come and talk to us and ask how we can work together and make a success, for the first time, of all the veterans' organisations in Great Britain.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Both noble Lords have spoken from positions of considerable authority. No one is more qualified to speak on this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Let me offer a word of encouragement. I have recently been studying the 1891 census for Wath-upon-Dearne and Brampton Bierlow, where I now live next door. In 1891 there were 280 people aged 65 or more, about 3 per cent of the population. When the 2001 census, or perhaps the 2011 census, is published, we can expect that that percentage will be at least four or five times higher, and rising. So one hopes that many veterans will still be with us for a very long time, including both noble Lords who have spoken.
They have presented a formidable case. During my service in the other place, I found that when I pursued war injury matters the officials who dealt with those cases were sympathetic. So they should be. The ex-servicemen involved were wounded and injured on behalf of all of us. It is right that the priorities which have been promised should be pursued.
I wish to make a fresh point which I believe is relevant. In addition to the provision of substantial public support, the voluntary ex-service organisations

717
play an essential role. First, they provide guidance and assistance in the representation of individual cases; secondly, a nd substantially, they provide additional, complementary and supplementary support which assists public funds. But, in order to carry out their function, which may be increasingly difficult for the reasons already given, they need to maintain public attention and public support in order that their funds are not diminished.
During the past few years they have faced, and for the rest of this decade they will face, substantial demands as the effects of ageing mean that veterans become more disabled, suffer greater hardship and have less mobility. For that reason, it is important that society does not create situations in which the veterans' organisations are prevented from attracting public attention. It is to that issue that I shall now address my remarks.
I live in South Yorkshire; I am a member of the Royal Air Force Association; and I am president of an absolutely first-class Air Training Corps squadron. In September of each year we have in Rotherham a parade on Battle of Britain Sunday, as is the practice in every other area. But it has particular importance in areas like mine. During the Second World War, after the first year or so, miners were not allowed to join the Armed Forces unless they volunteered for aircrew. A very large number of them did, and many died. Some of the survivors are friends of mine.
The late Ken Sampey, president of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, was a navigator; the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire was a flight sergeant air gunner; the former mayor of my borough, a ward colleague of mine on the local authority, was a warrant officer air gunner who survived two tours. Not many did that. One flew on the Dambusters' raid. One was the office manager of the Yorkshire miners' offices during Mr Scargill's first years in charge there. There were many. Some of them died. Some are still alive, and I hope that they will be alive for a long time. We have that legacy.
We are joined on Battle of Britain Sunday by veterans. The young people on my squadron, my cadets, can see the veterans. One chap has a double Pathfinder decoration from Bomber Command. At last year's service, a friend of mine, Doug Segar, who flew Hurricanes in 1940, read Gillespie's High Flight, which was quite an experience.
And yet, shortly before that event, the organiser of our march was contacted by the police and was told that we might have to cancel or pay a fee of more than £500. I wrote to the Chief Constable—it was a matter of policy—and I received a reply from a sergeant, who referred to a constable at divisional level who was in charge of events, parades and ceremonials. I was not happy about that because it was a matter of policy.
It was suggested that some members of ACPO are not happy about having parades and ceremonials, although they accept that there should be one on Armistice Sunday. I am not satisfied that any inhibition on activities of this kind will be useful. It is
718
right that young people should be exposed to reality. They should have an opportunity to see the living history that my cadets can see on Armistice Sunday.
We were then told that we could hold the parade in 2001. I have made it clear to the authorities that we hope to hold it each year for as long as the veterans wish to take part in it.
This is important because in the few days before the Battle of Britain service, veterans, other supporters and our cadets raise money for the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which is a very good cause, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is aware. Therefore, I am concerned about the matter.
I was concerned also to find that the Girl Guides were prevented from holding a rally. I am waiting to see what happens in April, when the Boy Scouts hold a parade and church services. Scouts, scout leaders and parents gather for that event.
I believe that it is quite right to hold these events. For people to argue that they are a denial of human rights, as has been suggested, is absurd. We may occupy a road for a short time; we may be denying someone the use of that road. All right, we are denying their human right—if they are intolerant and unreasonable and feel aggrieved. But are they not denying the human right of those of us who wish to honour those who fell, or were injured, or served? Are we right to deny young people the opportunity to see that there is such a thing as service to the community? Or do we want them all to be roaming the streets aimlessly?
Therefore, I have been in correspondence with the Home Office. I have tabled a Question for later this month. I hope that the Answer will be a satisfactory one. If the inhibitions to which I have referred develop, the ex-service organisations will find themselves attracting less attention and will, therefore, experience a diminishing income at a time when the veterans most need our support and sustenance, as they age and as mortality beckons. We should be acting irresponsibly if we allowed the kind of experience that we had—and which we have temporarily overcome in Rotherham—to develop in other areas. As the noble Viscount. Lord Slim, will be aware, one of the organisations with which he is involved faced a threat—I believe a sum of £1,500 was mentioned. That is not tolerable. We are not raising money for veterans' organisations to pay into the public coffers because of a short-sighted and unwise approach, which needs to be deterred and discouraged by the Government as early as possible.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this short debate. As a regular soldier with a courageous war record and having suffered severe wounds, which, sadly, are still with him, the noble Lord speaks from personal experience and knowledge.
The Question is whether those who have suffered as a result of enemy action and who sustained serious injuries are being properly looked after. Similarly, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, has made some positive

719
suggestions in respect of veterans, notably those in the Burma Star Association. The noble Viscount and I have a number of things in common. I am a member of the Burma Star Association. I also share a room with the noble Viscount. Therefore, we have been able to co-ordinate our speeches to ensure that the contents do not overlap.
As some of your Lordships may know, like the noble Viscount, I had the privilege of serving with Indian troops in the Burma campaign and in Malaya. Our Army commander was the noble Viscount's highly distinguished and much loved father, Field Marshal Slim. Fortunately, I was not wounded, but many of those with whom I served were killed and others were severely wounded. It is, therefore, natural that I should take an interest in the welfare of those who survived.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and I are active members of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League (BCEL). I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what BCEL has done, and continues to do, to support those Commonwealth veterans who fought with us in World War II with such loyalty and bravery.
I mention two initiatives in particular with which the noble Viscount and I are associated. The first is the Jubilee Appeal of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League. It is often overlooked—or perhaps more accurately, forgotten—that over 5 million men and women from the Commonwealth fought with us in World War II in defence of the freedoms which, sadly, too many people today take too much for granted.
In the Indian Army alone, some 3 million volunteered to fight for a country that they had never seen and a monarch they had only heard about. They formed the largest volunteer army that the world has ever known. Casualties were great—over 36,000 were killed or wounded—and in the process no fewer than 30 VCs were awarded.
Others came from the Caribbean and from East and West Africa. They served in all three services, as well as in the Merchant Navy and in civilian work, and notably in the nursing services. There is little doubt that, without their contribution, the allied war effort would not have succeeded, and the war would have gone on for a great deal longer had they not been with us.
BCEL was founded after the First World War by Field Marshal Earl Haigh. Incidentally, he was the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. Since that time, it has helped Commonwealth ex-servicemen and women in need, and continues to do so. With a tiny staff of only four, but with volunteers in Commonwealth countries, BCEL dispenses around £1 million per annum to those in need.
But as the years roll on, we find that demands for support outstrip our resources as more and more of our comrades in arms, without pensions or welfare and often living on starvation levels, are unable to fend for themselves in their old age.
720
Under the leadership of our Grand President, HRH Prince Philip, BCEL has established this year a Jubilee Appeal to raise £5 million—a positive response to this debate. I take this opportunity to commend this initiative. It is surely a matter of honour that we should care for those who did their duty by coming to our aid in our hour of need.
The time allotted for this debate is short. However, perhaps I may commend one further initiative with which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and I are associated; namely, the memorial gates now under construction at the top of Constitution Hill. I know that taxi drivers, and possibly some of your Lordships, curse the traffic jams. But it may come as a surprise that, apart from a small plaque in St Paul's Cathedral and another in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey, there is no major memorial in London to the troops of the Indian Sub-continent, East and West Africa or the Caribbean islands who took part in either of the world wars. Therefore, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, with the generous support of the Millennium Commission and with other generous contributions from numerous individuals, the memorial gates will be a lasting and long overdue memorial to the Commonwealth troops from the countries I have mentioned who came to our aid in the First World War, 1914–1918, and in the Second World War, 1939–1946. They did so in such numbers, and fought with such courage and loyalty—every single one of them a volunteer.
I began by saying that it was a privilege to have served in the Indian Army and to have fought in Burma with such fine troops. It was indeed. I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate and for giving me an opportunity to let your Lordships know that BCEL will continue to bring aid and comfort to the surviving ex-servicemen and women who supported us in such numbers and with such loyalty.
We are not asking for money from the Government, strangely enough. We should like some, of course. But we should not forget the contribution of those troops. We should help them now, in their hour of need.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raises the standard today for an important group of people who were required to go wherever they were told and to put their lives on the line in order that this country should remain free. I cannot claim to be such a veteran. I am one of that onetime famous breed known as war babies. I was born during the war. Fortunately for me, my father was in a reserved occupation and was not called up, but the vast majority of men of his age were called up. Many of them did not come back, and many of those who did were injured to some extent.
The Question refers to ex-servicemen who were seriously wounded or suffered serious injuries to health. One of the difficulties that many ex-servicemen find is that, while their injuries were not terribly serious when they came back—not serious enough to stop

721
them working or carrying out a normal life—the older they get, the more difficulties those injuries cause them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said, as people get older they become more disabled anyhow. If someone is carrying an old injury, even if they appeared to have recovered from it in the past, it can often reappear and cause particular mobility problems and psychological problems in later life.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I had in mind the prisoners of war of the Japanese in south east Asia. Those who survived suffered very serious injuries even though they were not wounded by weapons.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall refer to those people later.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to the recent appointment of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs. That is linked with the Government's new Veterans' Forum and their taskforce. It is tempting to be cynical when the Government talk about forums and taskforces because they have set up so many of them, but in this instance the move is welcome. It is a clear recognition of a need that should have been dealt with before. From these Benches we welcome that very much. It is too soon to judge the outcome of the initiatives because they began only last year. but we shall look at the effects of the new appointments and bodies. We sincerely hope that, by working together with veterans' organisations and others, they will be able to do the work that has been identified.
When I was talking to others in preparation for the debate, somebody said to me that it is all right being an injured arid disabled war veteran as long as you are prepared to be patient. If you wait, sooner or later somebody will come along and look after you. I questioned him further about the NHS priority that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned. He said that the situation was often all right within the NHS, but a lot of what such veterans need if they are living at home in the community does not come from the NHS but is on the borderline between NHS, social services, housing and other agencies. There is not the same recognition among those non-NHS agencies of the important status that people who have offered the ultimate sacrifice and come back injured or disabled need.
It has been suggested to me that a lot of elderly disabled people have problems with equipment and adaptations, particularly mobility equipment such as electric wheelchairs, which can be extremely sophisticated these days, as well as the more run-of-the-mill social services adaptations such as stair lifts which allow people to continue living in their own homes. In some cases those are a matter for the NHS but in many cases they are a matter for social services. The arrangements by which they are delivered vary considerably from place to place.
The organiser for the Royal British Legion in the north of England, who is a near neighbour of mine, said that there have been improvements in charities working together on providing mobility equipment.
722
They are getting their act together and are now working together quite well. However, that is not necessarily the case with local authorities. In some cases they are able to work together with local authorities and perhaps share the cost of an electric wheelchair, which might be £2,000 to £3,000, but in other cases they cannot. Once such people have been assessed as needing a wheelchair, the local authority view is often that they should go on the list. The local authority will pay but the person concerned will have to wait, so it might be 18 months before they are able to get the wheelchair.
It might be helpful if the Government could provide advice to local authorities in the case of people who have served in the Armed Forces, for whom some funding may be available from charities such as the Royal British Legion and others. There should be cooperation between the charities and local authorities. As an indication of the importance of that work, I have been told that 40 per cent of the mainstream funding grants that the Royal British Legion provides in the north of England now goes on mobility equipment.
Many of the services that former servicemen and war veterans receive are not specific to them but are part of the general services within the community. Because of their particular difficulties, in many cases they find that they can no longer live in their own homes and they have to go into residential accommodation. I am aware that there is financial pressure on residential accommodation provided by charities and that difficulties are caused by the new, more stringent regulations that the Government are bringing in for such homes, for the best of motives. However, most of the war veterans whom I have talked to have been in local authority old people's homes. There is real concern that provision in that sector is being dramatically reduced. In Lancashire, where I live, the county council has just published a one-option consultation proposal that three-quarters of its homes for the elderly should be closed. The council wants to transfer the resources to domiciliary care. That affects 36 homes across Lancashire. That has caused a lot of alarm for people who can see no option but to live in a home at a time when the private sector is also being put under great pressure.
My final concern relates to those who were prisoners of war in Japanese camps in the Far East. The compensation payments that have been made to those former prisoners have been very welcome, but it is a matter of great regret that the way in which the scheme was announced gave the impression that those payments would be made to all the former prisoners who had served in the British forces, including those among the 5 million Commonwealth citizens—or citizens of the Empire, as they were then—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
The subsequent news that that understanding was inaccurate—although it had been very widely publicised in the press in places such as India and Pakistan and in newspapers such as the Daily Jang in this country—caused enormous disappointment and gave a very poor impression of what this country is about. People who were mainly officers, mainly white

723
and largely still British citizens quite rightly received compensation. Those who held other ranks and were mainly Indian citizens—although they may now be Pakistani or Bangladeshi citizens—did not receive compensation although they had served in the Indian Army.
There was a widespread belief that they would get compensation; many people living in towns and villages on the Indian subcontinent believed that they would be receiving it. When the point was brought home to them that they would not be receiving compensation, many servicemen and widows felt great disappointment and anger, partly because they thought that they would be receiving it. It has not done this country's reputation much good at all, certainly not among those with whom I have been in contact, at second hand through a friend of mine, in villages in the Punjab in Pakistan.
The compensation payments would have been quite outstanding and transformed those people's lives. They were given the vision that they would be receiving compensation. Hundreds of thousands of forms were filled in and sent to this country, but they were all sent back with the words, "Sorry, no". It is not a very happy episode at all.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a past serving member of the Lifeguards I am only too aware of the importance of the debate that has been initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
Participation in conflict creates unique circumstances once that conflict ceases, particularly if the participant was injured during service. Historical records suggest that pensions in one form or another have almost always been paid to the casualties of war. During King Alfred's reign, pensions or the equivalent in grants of land were an established form of reward for disablement. Queen Elizabeth I declared that:
"such as have adventured their lives and lost their limbs, or disabled their bodies in defence of Her Majesty and the State, should be relieved and rewarded that they may reap the fruit of their good deserving".
The current Government have done rather a lot to raise awareness of "veterans' affairs" and to improve the situation of ex-servicemen. During the last Parliament, the Veterans' Advice Unit was established. It is a confidential helpline to advise ex-servicemen and their families on where and how to obtain expert advice on a number of issues. The facility went online in May 2000.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I welcomed the appointment of Dr Moonie in March 2000 as Minister with responsibility for veterans affairs. Since his appointment, the Veterans Forum has been created along with the Veterans Task Force. Those bodies are intended to identify the issues that concern ex-servicemen and to ensure that the policies of individual government departments and of devolved
724
administrations are co-ordinated. They also look at co-operation between government and veterans' organisations and at education.
Recently, pensions have been the best publicised aspect of ex-servicemen's situation, due largely to the tax error. Last month, Dr Moonie announced that,
"a number of Army pensioners have had their attributable invaliding pension mistakenly taxed".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/02; col. 891.]
The MoD examined the files of more than 25,000 ex-servicemen and found that 1,003 had been underpaid. The 1952 income and corporation taxes legislation made pensions tax free if they were granted on account of medical unfitness attributable to service in the Armed Forces. Civil servants managing Army pensions failed to take that into account. The Daily Telegraph estimated that the oversight could cost about £50 million, although the MoD disputes that.
So the current Government have some achievements, but what about the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is currently under review? That MoD review has been running for three years. When will it be completed? BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association—while emphasising its appreciation of the war pension, has expressed concern about maintenance of that pension against other pensions and allowances. The association would,
"value a regular articulated commitment to that principle from the Government".
For example, the unemployability supplement paid to those whose war disability prevents them from working has thus far been seen as equating to the retirement pension. The unemployability supplement used to increase at the same rate as the retirement pension but it no longer does. When will the Government consider rethinking that issue?
Last November, the president of the Forces Pension Society raised a similar point during a parliamentary lunch meeting. He emphasised the cost-neutral straitjacket that was imposed on the review from the start. Is it correct to impose a cost-neutral straitjacket on those who unselfishly risked their lives and limbs for their country? The constraint means that existing resources are merely redistributed and war pensions remain well behind standard practice elsewhere.
The Forces Pension Society criticises current policy in a number of ways, ranging from the duration of the reviewing process—compared with that undertaken for the parliamentary pension scheme—to the well-documented anomalies and inequities that occur and will continue to occur. For example, a major who retired in 1977 receives £4,269 less per annum than an exactly comparable major who retired two years earlier, in 1975. The widow of an ex-serviceman also can be subject to anomalies within the system—anomalies based on the date of her marriage. Will the Government ensure that ex-servicemen are provided for at a level comparable with other professions or indeed comparable to their parliamentary masters?
Another issue is whether war pensions should be disregarded when councils are working out entitlements to help with rent and council tax. At

725
present local authorities have discretionary powers on whether to disregard war disablement and war widows' pensions. So we have a situation in which disregard depends on where a war pensioner lives. In other words, we have post-code pensions. Is it true that the Government have no plans to change that?
Another important matter relating to ex-servicemen is how easily they can gain access to healthcare. As has been said, in 1953 hospitals run by the Ministry of Pensions for the treatment of war pensioners were transferred to the NHS. The Government undertook to ensure that war pensioners would receive priority treatment in NHS hospitals for the conditions for which they received a war pension or gratuity. In 1997 the definition of the term "war pensioner" was extended to include those injured during the inter-war years. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have said, BLESMA has expressed concern that priority treatment in the NHS is often forgotten at the point of delivery. BLESMA states that,
"the NHS has a duty to remind its staff on a regular basis. BLESMA often has to remind Trusts and staff that the priority exists".
Ex-servicemen who have lost a limb are also entitled to a duplicate limb. BLESMA is concerned that this is becoming an increasingly mythical provision in the NHS. Funds earmarked by the NHS for the limb service are not ring-fenced and can become lost at the local trust level. BLESMA has heard from one limb centre that it now feels forced to deny war pensioners this additional service. Will the Government issue a circular to remind the NHS that the priority exists so as to ensure that war pensioners will receive priority treatment in NHS hospitals for the conditions for which they received a war pension or gratuity?
The Royal British Legion is the leading charitable organisation dedicated to ex-servicemen and their dependants. Some 15 million people are eligible to approach the legion. Its activities touch the lives of many more people than that. The legion offered free representation at some 6,000 war pension appeal cases during 2000. It provides breaks in homes for people who have been ill or bereaved and homes specialising in nursing and residential care. It is expected that the demand for long-term care will increase over the next few years. Figures suggest that 40 per cent of those eligible for help will require some form of care at the age of 70, and 70 per cent at the age of 80. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned nursing in that connection.
The RBL is the best known organisation but there are countless others in the voluntary sector, all of which do a tremendous amount of work in protecting the interests, welfare and memory of ex-service people and their dependants. It is pleasing to see that the Government prioritise co-operation between government and the voluntary sector.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I have found it a fascinating debate to
726
listen to. If one is allowed to discriminate among your Lordships, I think they will all understand when I say that I was particularly fascinated to hear the contributions of the three speakers who had suffered during the Second World War. I found what they had to say absolutely fascinating. I pay tribute in particular, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate. I recognise his incredibly distinguished service.
I shall try to reply to most of the points that were made. Some of the comments I shall make will relate more generally to ex-servicemen and women rather than specifically to those who served in the Second World War. Some of the comments I shall make will relate to the situation post-World War Two when, of course, changes were made.
At the end of December 2001 there were 274,000 war pensions in payment comprising 223,000 war disablement pensions and around 51,000 war widows' pensions. Of course, a large proportion of those are in respect of service in World War Two, which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, specifically addresses. In looking at the figures when researching the issue one realises that there are, incredibly, still people in receipt of pensions who served in World War One. It is sobering to think of people's contribution to that war.
It is only right for me to pay tribute—as one would expect anyone of my generation to do—to those who risked and gave their lives in the Second World War to ensure that people of my generation could live in freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he was a Second World War baby, as was I. I took the precaution of not arriving until after we had won the Battle of Britain and the world was a little safer. Our generation owes an enormous debt to the preceding one.
As a number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have mentioned, we are also indebted to all those volunteers who support the ex-servicemen's associations in so many different ways. My noble friend Lord Hardy mentioned his former constituency and I hope that it is not invidious of me to think of mine. I think of a good friend of mine, Dennis Edwards, the chairman of the Telford branch of SSAFA in Shropshire and the voluntary work that these people do in numerous ways, for example, helping people with their pensions, helping widows and assisting with bereavement. They assist in a whole range of ways. All that is done voluntarily and they would not dream of asking for any reward. As we all know, that is happening up and down the country.
A wide range of information is available in respect of the various schemes that are available to people who have been in the services and what they provide. There is a statutory provision for a report on war pensions to be presented to Parliament each year. That report, the war pensioners' report, details the current number of war pensions' recipients and also gives information on the various issues affecting war pensioners considered by the statutory central advisory committee on war

727
pensions. That committee meets twice a year with the Minister responsible for veterans' affairs. Committee members traditionally represent major ex-service organisations.
A further statutory annual report is presented to Parliament by the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. The War Pensions Agency annual report and accounts detail how the war pensions scheme is administered and include details of performance targets and achievements. Those documents fully describe the rules of entitlement for pensions benefits under the schemes and record the levels at which pensions are set. It is, of course, vitally important that we disseminate the information and that people know exactly what their entitlements are.
I wish to mention briefly the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which, as the House will know, was introduced after the Second World War but is part of the overall picture. The normal full retirement age for Armed Forces personnel is 55, by which time most individuals have earned a full career pension. However, immediate pensions are payable on retirement at younger ages. Pensions are increased annually in line with the rate of inflation using the RPI so that they maintain their purchasing power.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked a specific question as to when the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme would be complete. The review's emerging findings were published for a period of public consultation last year which ended on 31st July. The responses to the consultation are now being considered. The Government will publish a report on the outcome of the consultation in due course.
I am not going to give the House endless detail about the levels of war pensions. I simply point out that they are available to people who served after the Second World War as well as to those who were injured or bereaved as a result of service during the Second World War. This Government have fully protected the purchasing power of war pensions by uprating them again in April this year in line with the retail prices index. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who specifically raised the issue that the recent problem over tax has not affected the war pensions to which I refer, which are tax free. It is important to be absolutely clear about that point.
Over the years the provisions of the War Pensions Scheme have been improved and extended to include not only preferential pensions in respect of disablement and death, but a dedicated welfare service and a wide range of supplementary allowances, many of which are paid at higher rates compared to social security benefits.
There is another point about the special service that is provided to all war pensioners. I understand from reports to us that it is greatly valued. I refer to the War Pensioners Welfare Service. It exists to help war pensioners, war widows, their dependants and carers and to provide personal confidential advice and support. The welfare service works very closely with the ex-service charities and it is held in high regard by the ex-service community.
728
I remind the House of the service it provides. Whatever the needs of a pensioner or widow, the War Pensioners Welfare Service aims to provide a confidential service of the highest standard. All the welfare staff undergo professional training and the type of help they can assist in delivering is infinitely varied. The following are a few examples touching on some of the issues which have been raised during this debate: first, making sure that a person receives their full entitlement to a war pension; secondly, checking entitlement to any other state benefits; thirdly, obtaining financial assistance from ex-service charities; fourthly, helping with a move to residential care, which refers to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; fifthly, assisting with disability problems, which is extremely important; and, sixthly, arranging a number of other benefits which are of particular advantage to war pensioners.
A number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, but more specifically the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the issue of priority treatment for war pensioners in the National Health Service. I can assure the House that the Government remain committed to the longstanding pledge that war pensioners should be given priority in National Health Service hospitals for examination or treatment relating to their pensioned disablement, subject always, of course, to the needs of emergencies or other cases which demand clinical priority. There has been absolutely no change in the position on that. The War Pensions Agency liaises with colleagues in the health service to ensure that periodic reminders about the priority treatment arrangements are issued to hospitals, GPs and other key individuals in the referral process. War pensioners themselves are also informed of their right to priority treatment in leaflets issued by the War Pensions Agency with award notifications in pensions books. They are also informed of the importance of telling their GP about the disability for which a war pension or a gratuity has been awarded. That is an extremely important issue. I hope that I have clarified it.
I now move to the Veterans' Initiative, which I am so pleased was welcomed by so many speakers. It is one of the themes of this Parliament to try to ensure that—I do not like phrases such as "a joined-up approach" but the House knows what I am talking about—different government departments relate to one another in a common cause, particularly when it is as important as veterans' issues.
There was a welcome for this from a number of speakers, including the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves and others. It was because of the Government's determination to provide a coordinated government focus for veterans' concerns that on 14th March last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that Dr Lewis Moonie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, would also become responsible for ensuring that veterans' issues are properly understood, appropriately prioritised and effectively addressed right across government.

729
The appointment of a Minister for veterans' affairs demonstrates clear recognition by the Government of the special status of the ex-service community and the unique contribution that it has made to the nation. I should like to put on the record the three priorities identified for the initiative. They were: first, to pull together the Government's response to issues that cut across government departments, such as the assistance that is provided to address homelessness or ill-health; secondly, to ensure that the lessons learnt are absorbed into future Ministry of Defence planning; and, thirdly, to co-ordinate communication by publicising and demonstrating the full range of assistance that is offered to veterans by central and local government and to ensure that veterans' organisations have the opportunity to represent their concerns to government at ministerial level.
Several noble Lords pointed out that my honourable friend Lewis Moonie has chaired two new groups, the Veterans Task Force and the Veterans Forum. The Veterans Forum is precisely the kind of body in which many of the issues that were discussed by noble Lords can be raised. We were given, I believe, 18 months on probation by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. I am sure that my honourable friend in the other place will read this debate and take notice of that. However, I am very pleased with the start that has been made. A number of issues have already been discussed by the Veterans Forum. One concern is that the generation that is not represented here—the younger generation—should be made aware of all that has happened in the past.
I am running out of time and I shall finish very soon but I want to relate a tremendously heartening experience from my former constituency. Every year around Remembrance Day there is a ceremony of light, at which young people play in a band and a candle is lit for 100 people from the Wrekin area who gave their lives. The fact that it takes 12 years to get
730
through the full list of people who gave their lives in two world wars gives some indication of the sacrifices that were made.
In conclusion, the Government are open with Parliament and ex-service organisations on what to do for those who are disabled or bereaved as a result of service to this country. There is a comprehensive package of help and support which includes financial recognition by way of the various service pensions and professional help and advice in the form of the War Pensioners' Welfare Service and the Veterans' Initiative, to which I have already referred.
The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, specifically related to World War II. I know that the House will understand that whatever the level of benefits that our servicemen and women receive, it could never be enough to repay the sacrifice of those who risked and gave their lives saving our country's freedom and, in so doing, defending the whole of the free world.
Our debt is immeasurable but I hope that the report that this welcome debate has enabled me to present to the House gives some assurance about the practical measures and assistance that the Ministry of Defence is giving to those who have themselves given so much.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I shall try- -with my memory being what it is—to be helpful. We very often forget the Merchant Navy. There is currently a problem about who is responsible for it. There is no need for the Minister to answer that now. Merchant seamen wear veterans' medals, they fought from their merchant ships and many thousands of them died in the sinking of those ships. Perhaps the Minister would care to think about that matter. I know that we accept anyone with a Burma Star, for instance, whether he was in the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that I shall write to him on that detail.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.

  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Afghanistan: British Detainees
  Afghanistan: British Detainees
  Zimbabwe: Food Programmes
  Zimbabwe: Food Programmes
  Israel: Occupied Territories
  Israel: Occupied Territories
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Zimbabwe: British Citizens
  Zimbabwe: British Citizens
  Employment and Recruitment Industry
  Employment and Recruitment Industry
  Agricultural and Horticultural Census
  Agricultural and Horticultural Census
  Ponds of High Ecological Quality
  Ponds of High Ecological Quality
  Thiram and Dichlorfenthion
  Thiram and Dichlorfenthion
  BSE: Offspring of Infected Cattle
  BSE: Offspring of Infected Cattle
  Peers: Voting in Referendums
  Peers: Voting in Referendums
  Heathrow Motor Car Levy
  Heathrow Motor Car Levy
  Lavatories on Trains
  Lavatories on Trains
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  London: Congestion Charging
  London: Congestion Charging
  Occupational Pension Schemes: MFR
  Occupational Pension Schemes: MFR
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations
  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Amendment Regulations
  Foreign Language Teaching in Schools
  Foreign Language Teaching in Schools
  General Teaching Council: Consideration of Unacceptable Professional Conduct
  General Teaching Council: Consideration of Unacceptable Professional Conduct
  Government Sponsored Museums: Policy for Loans Abroad
  Government Sponsored Museums: Policy for Loans Abroad
  Sweden: Ministerial Visits
  Sweden: Ministerial Visits
  Farming and Food: Publishiing Costs
  Farming and Food: Publishiing Costs
  Regulatory Reform Action Plan
  Regulatory Reform Action Plan
  Long-Term Sports Policy
  Long-Term Sports Policy