Sitting of 4 July 2002

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL (BY ORDER)
  Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND SKILLS

    School Funding
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: If she will make a statement on trends in school funding since 1997. [64395]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): Since 1997–98, recurrent funding per pupil has risen by an average of £670 in real terms. By 2003–04, it will have increased by over £760 in real terms.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for her reply, but I think she may agree that it tells only part of the story. She will know of the long-running campaign by Stockport and by the 40 worst-funded local education authorities to secure funding at least equal to the present national average per child. Will she undertake to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide, in his comprehensive spending review, money that will allow proper funding for the children of Stockport?
    Estelle Morris: I appreciate the thought and determination behind the campaign of the F40 authorities, and I understand exactly where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In Stockport, however, funding has increased by £570 per pupil since the Government took power. I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman had looked at the figures for the previous five years, he would have observed that the amount going to pupils in his area fell in real terms. I accept that this is about a share of a larger cake, but let there be no mistake: more money is going to every one of our schools, for all our pupils, than was the case under the last Administration.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government will report very soon following their consultation document on the way forward. These are not easy issues, but I have
    374
    always accepted, and I accept now, that the current distribution of resources by local authorities is historic and does not reflect current needs.
    Paddy Tipping: Parents and teachers in Nottinghamshire welcome the extra funds, but will my right hon. Friend look carefully at a petition that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I intend to present in Downing street this afternoon, calling for fair funding for Nottinghamshire schools—the same funding as pupils at schools in, say, Hertfordshire?
    Estelle Morris: I will certainly look carefully at the petition. Let me add, however—and I do not suggest for a moment that my hon. Friend denied this—that no Member would want every pupil in every part of the country to be funded at exactly the same level, because costs differ in different parts of the country. I think we all want to recognise the existence of disadvantage and the extra cost of educating children from certain backgrounds, and also the existence of different living costs.
    We will certainly consider my hon. Friend's points, but I did not want to give the impression that I entirely agreed with his comparison. The matter must be dealt with through consultation, and we will do that in due course.
    Mr. John Redwood: As recruiting and retaining really good teachers is crucial to the raising of standards, will the Secretary of State have another look at the problem of housing costs in areas such as mine, the Thames valley? Many teachers are finding it very difficult to buy their first homes or maintain a reasonable standard of living with the current funding levels.
    Estelle Morris: I entirely accept that. There are a number of issues relating to recruitment and retention in London and the home counties. The spiralling costs of housing have caused difficulties for many people—the problem does not affect only teachers—but we have many teachers, and the cost of helping them is that much greater. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is pleased that our expenditure has helped some 1,500 teachers to buy homes.
    The Government are addressing this matter as a Government, and it would not be appropriate for my Department to deal with it separately. I entirely accept, however, that it is one factor, if not the only factor, affecting the ability of schools in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency to recruit and retain.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: There has undoubtedly been a significant increase in funds for all schools in the last five years; but as further money becomes available, as I hope it will following the forthcoming three-year spending review, will the Secretary of State ensure that additional funds are used to increase the number of pupil referral units? I think they can be very helpful in tackling poor pupil behaviour.
    Estelle Morris: Indeed—and my hon. Friend will welcome what has already happened. I am delighted to say that in September, for the first time, we shall have full-time education in our pupil referral units for every child excluded from school. It is something of a tragedy

    375
    that in 2002 a Secretary of State should be saying that it is the first time that that has happened, but it is a major achievement nevertheless.
    There has already been an expansion of PRUs, and if memory serves me right a further 50 will open in September throughout local authority areas. We are determined that schools should have the right to exclude students who misbehave at school and spoil learning for others, but equally determined that they should be given full-time and appropriate education.
    Mr. Damian Green: As this is the first Education Questions since the reshuffle, I congratulate the new Ministers. The whizz-kids have landed. To spread good will, as I always seek to do, I express commiserations to all Government Back Benchers over the age of 40: sad victims of prime ministerial ageism.
    On spending, the Secretary of State talks a good game. Can she explain the headline in 12 June's edition of the East Anglian Daily Times, "Schools feeling the pinch—Tight budgets mean heads have to cut back on support staff'? The article quotes one head as saying:
    "In all my 25 years as a headteacher I have never had to deal with as bad a budget".
    Does not the Secretary of State recognize—[Interruption.] Government Members seek to ignore the evidence of head teachers of 25 years' standing. Does not she recognise that the ludicrously and increasingly complex way in which schools are funded means that, whatever she thinks she is spending, the benefits are too often invisible where it matters, in the schools?
    Estelle Morris: I do not accept that at all. The hon. Gentleman spends his time scouring local papers to find one headline about one head teacher who thinks that he got less money. I have visited many schools, and I have found that head teachers say two things. The first is that they want more money. The day they stop saying that will be a very surprising day. The second is, "Yes, we've had more money under you than under the other lot."
    I take the point about funding streams, which is exactly why, over the past 12 months, we have ensured that the standards fund gives head teachers great flexibility. Indeed, when legislation that is currently in the other House is enacted, people will be able to spend standards fund money as part of their revenue funding. No other Government have done more to put money into schools and ensure flexibility. On top of that, we have ensured that money goes straight to schools and is not siphoned off. There is far more delegated money for schools now than there was under the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Green: The Secretary of State always objects to the real world intruding on her vision of reality. I suspect that somewhere she recognises how things are going wrong. Let me treat her to another newspaper cutting. It says that, in the sixth year of this Government,
    "13 per cent. leave school without basic skills in literacy. We have the worst staying on rate of almost any industrialised country. Black children are less likely to achieve."
    She cannot dismiss those words, because she wrote them, in The Observer. Will she now admit that the reason why all this extra spending has led to the failures that she correctly identifies is that the over-centralised, bureaucratic, micro-managing way in which she tries to
    376
    control schools is leading to a demoralised teaching profession, and we will never have the world-class education that we need as long as she carries on down this route?
    Estelle Morris: Children who leave school now without basic literacy or numeracy were educated when they were five under a Tory Government, with no literacy or numeracy strategy, no classroom assistants and no capital investment. That is why they got to secondary school without being able to read and write. I have always said that when people get to year seven in secondary school without having mastered the basic skills, their chances of doing so by 16 get less and less with each year that passes. That is exactly why we have invested in literacy and numeracy.
    I am not going to be less than honest with the nation about where we stand. Of course there is a lot more to do, and I am not complacent about that, but the hon. Gentleman might also have quoted the rest of the Observer article, which pays tribute to teachers, schools and governors and recognises the part that my Government have played in ensuring that we now have more children who can read and write and the highest standards that we have ever had.

    Over-subscribed Primary Schools
    Roger Casale: What additional assistance she plans to give to education authorities to accommodate demand for places in individual primary schools which are heavily over-subscribed. [64396]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The planning of school places is a local matter. However, the Government want popular schools to be able to expand, which is why the Education Bill makes a promise to schools that they themselves will be able to make proposals to offer more places.
    Roger Casale: I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest: I have two young daughters, one of whom is applying for a reception place in a Merton school. I welcome the plans for reform, but they will give little comfort this year to parents applying for Hollymount school in my constituency, where there have been 80 applications for 30 places, or Pelham school, which is also over-subscribed. Will my hon. Friend work with the local authority in Merton to see whether anything can be done to alleviate pressures on individual schools in respect of this year, so that parents do not have to take their children up to two miles outside their local community to go to school?
    In addition to the extra money and his reforms, will my hon. Friend also ensure that—in practice as well as in theory—it is parents and not local education authorities who determine where our children go to school?
    Mr. Miliband: I am glad to say that the Government are already working with Merton LEA. My hon. Friend will know that £5 million has been given to Merton as part of the class size initiative, which has helped to hire 105 teachers and create 21 new classrooms. The capital projects that the Department is sponsoring will include the

    377
    specific requirement that we take account of increasing places in popular schools. There is a partnership in that regard, and we can work on it.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister says that this matter is determined by local people, but when does he expect to respond to the Government's consultation paper of last year on school admissions? Has he also had a chance to read what the Leader of the House said during last week's business questions? He said:
    "I understand the frustration of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if a decision is imposed by people outside their locality."—[Official Report, 27 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 965.]
    The comment related to Ecclesbourne school, whose governors agreed to change the catchment area. The change was supported by Derbyshire county council and Derby city council, but was overruled by the school adjudicator, who had never even visited the area. How does that constitute determination by local people?
    Mr. Miliband: We are studying the responses to the consultation, and we shall ourselves respond in due course. I am not familiar with the individual case that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I should point out that the adjudicator is an independent person, and that for the adjudicator to become involved, there must have been local objections to the plan.
    Valerie Davey: The success of the Government's development of brownfield sites means that—certainly in the case of Bristol—more families are now living in cities. Is inner-city development a factor in the long-term planning of the Department for Education and Skills?
    Mr. Miliband: Obviously, the Department, along with LEAs, has to take a medium-term view of capital needs; that is the purpose of the asset management plans that every local authority has. On that basis, we can plan with some confidence for the demographic changes ahead.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Is it right that the lack of funding in Bovey Tracey, in Devon, should result in its not having a new school? Parents will have to transport their children to outlying developments some two or three miles away. In Shaldon, which is in desperate need of a new school hall, children have to be walked along a main road to their daily assembly and classes.
    Mr. Miliband: I am afraid that I cannot comment on those individual cases, but I do know that in the near future the Government will consult on local funding plans, and that the needs of rural schools will be taken into account.

    Further Education
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Pursuant to her answer of 29 April 2002, Official Report, column 579W, to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), what monitoring systems she has put in place to measure the effect of the additional funding for the FE sector on recruitment and retention of staff. [64398]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Research on the implementation of the teaching pay initiative in further education colleges shows that it has been used to support the recruitment of new teachers in skill shortage areas. It has also enabled colleges to convert casual staff into permanent salaried employees.
    Mr. Prentice: That is all right so far as it goes, but how can we justify the huge pay gap that is opening up between FE lecturers and secondary school teachers? Will the Minister address a particular problem in my own constituency, where the only sixth-form provision is in Nelson and Colne college? Such students are receiving about £1,000 less in the way of resources than if my constituency had a sixth-form secondary school. That position is not sustainable and cannot possibly be justified.
    Mr. Lewis: The Government's policy is to close the gap between funding for colleges and for schools, but the reason for the size of that gap is the massive extra investment that we have put into schools in the past five years. We are implementing a wide variety of initiatives to ensure that a recruitment and retention problem in FE does not arise. In addition to the teaching pay initiative, golden hellos will be introduced from the autumn, and we intend to pay off the student loans of new teachers in shortage subject areas. I should also point out that total FE funding has risen by 26 per cent. since 1997. We accept the need to tackle the gap, but we have put significant extra resources into FE.
    Simon Hughes: I listened carefully to that reply. Will the Minister say whether strong representations have been made to the Treasury to ensure that the comprehensive spending review will address in the coming year the problem of the funding difference that exists for pupils aged over 16 and for those who have left school? Only further education colleges can cater for the latter. The Minister must know the frustration that is felt by the principals of FE colleges, who we all know do good work. However, they feel that their hands are tied behind their backs and that the work that they could do providing access to education for older pupils especially will be hampered until there is significant movement towards establishing parity between schools, post-16 education and FE colleges.
    Mr. Lewis: It is not for me to disclose details of the Department's submission to the Treasury for the comprehensive spending review—at least, not if I want to remain in my post for much longer.
    Of course, we recognise the central role played by further education in achieving our economic and social objectives. That has to be in the context of the reform agenda for further education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined that a couple of weeks ago. The "Success for All" document dealt with reforming further education, and we have combined that reform with investment.
    The matter is not simply about closing the gap between further education and school funding. We must also raise standards in the FE sector, and the Government must contribute by making significant additional investment.

    Higher Education
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps she is taking to increase numbers of students in higher education. [64399]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris): By 2010, we want 50 per cent of 18 to 30-year-olds to participate in higher education. We are particularly keen to encourage greater participation among lower socio-economic and other under-represented groups. The "Excellence Challenge" programme and the AimHigher roadshows are major initiatives funded by the Government to encourage that to happen.
    Ms Drown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she congratulate the university of Bath on its work in Swindon? In two years, it has got 2,500 students into higher education. There are plans to expand that number to 8,000 in seven years, and that will help us to meet some of the skills shortages that exist in the town. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look favourably on bids arriving at her desk so that we can meet that expansion target? That expansion will improve vastly the opportunities open to people in Swindon, and help the Government achieve their target of getting 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds into higher education.
    Estelle Morris: My hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education has visited Bath university and is full of praise for it. The university has an excellent reputation, and I applaud it for extending its work to include recruiting more students. The final decision about extra places is one for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, as my hon. Friend will know. However, I am sure that she will be pleased that the Government's plans to fund extra places next year may well mean—who knows?—that extra places will go to Bath university.
    Alistair Burt: Bearing in mind her speech of last week, will the Secretary of State consider how much damage to the prospects of children from poor backgrounds entering higher education has been done over the years by failed socialist educational theory and policy, which she now spends her time apologising for? Will she ask the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education to stop berating universities and start trusting them to want the brightest and best from any background to benefit from higher education? The Government should focus on helping schools ensure that there is a stronger and appropriately qualified group of students from non-traditional backgrounds ready to benefit from higher education.
    Finally, will she deny that there are plans to penalise, financially and deliberately, those universities that are unable to comply with the personal assessment of the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education of what their socio-economic mix should be?
    Estelle Morris: The matter is more important than that cheap jibe suggests. Historically, our nation has never managed to break the link between poverty and educational attainment. That has never been achieved by either Labour or Tory Governments in the past. However, I applaud the work of many teachers and schools—and a
    380
    lot of the schools to which I refer are very good inner-city comprehensives—in raising standards. They are enabling children to be the first generation in their families to go into higher education.
    I have greater aspirations for our children, and we are nowhere near achieving them. We must use the strongest language to make our society understand that Britain is the only nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that retains a link between background and educational attainment. This Government are doing more than any other in that respect. The "Excellence Challenge" and "Excellence in Cities" programmes mean that children in years 11 and 12 from a third of urban schools this summer will have the opportunity to visit a university and talk to staff.
    We do not have all the answers. This is about raising attainment rates at 16 and 18, and making sure that working class children feel that they can make the link between school and university. We are doing that; the Tory Government did not.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have had a letter from a head teacher, too? She told me that she was thanking the Labour Government for all the money that has been put in. I have to tell her something else as well. I listened this morning to that creeping Jesus from the Liberal party— [Laughter]—but one thing makes me sick—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That language will not do. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.
    Mr. Skinner: Creeping; I withdraw creeping.
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful for the support from the head teacher in my hon. Friend's constituency. I should be grateful if he would pass on my thanks and best wishes for the work that she does at the school and that other schools do in Bolsover.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: One of the important issues about participation in higher education is student finance. Last year the Government commissioned a review of student finance. When will we get the results?
    Estelle Morris: In due course—when the review is ready. We rightly agreed to look at student finance and we will announce our findings. The figures do not support what I think the hon. Gentleman was implying. Last year there was more than a 5 per cent. increase in the number of students going to university—far greater than, for example, in Scotland where changes were made to how people pay fees. We will report in due course, but getting people from poorer backgrounds to university needs to be tackled on many levels.

    Educational Maintenance Allowances
    Mr. Colin Challen: What assessment she has made of the impact of educational maintenance allowances. [64400]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): An independent evaluation of EMAs has been taking place since 1999. Further

    381
    evidence from the second year was published yesterday. The findings so far are highly encouraging. EMAs have produced large increases in participation among the target group, not only in the first year of post-compulsory education but into their second year as well.
    Mr. Challen: What does the evidence show for levels of commitment to study, performance and retention rates among young students, particularly those from lower income brackets? I understand that evidence shows that parents are not taking up EMAs on their child's behalf as much as they perhaps should and, indeed, that application levels are reduced by incomplete forms.
    Margaret Hodge: The evidence that we published yesterday is highly encouraging. It shows that in year 12 we have a 6 per cent. increase in the number of young people in full-time education—that is 1 per cent. up from the last evaluation—and a 7.3 per cent. increase in the number of young people staying on in year 13, so the retention is good. In particular, there have been increases in the number of young men, which we are pleased about, people in urban areas, which is also good news, and those who are eligible for the full maintenance allowance, which suggests those who come from the poorest backgrounds and is also good news.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What evidence was there about attainment?
    Margaret Hodge: It is very early days to get good evidence on attainment, but it is beginning to emerge. Good evidence shows that at levels one and two qualifications attainment is up. There is also an increase in the number of young men choosing to go into higher education. I would not want to suggest that those are completely definite results from the attainment data, because it is too early. We must wait for good, solid data before we can draw permanent conclusions.
    Jeff Ennis: There is no doubt that the educational maintenance allowance pilots have been an outstanding success in my two local education authorities, Barnsley and Doncaster, where staying-on rates have increased by more than 5 per cent. Is the Department monitoring the types of courses taken by EMA students in terms of the split between academic and vocational courses? It might be useful to see whether there are different trends between courses taken by EMA students and by non-EMA students.
    Margaret Hodge: We are monitoring that data as well. We are developing our proposals for 14 to 19-year-olds to try to raise the status of vocational qualifications and to ensure progression for those undertaking vocational routes right through into higher education. We will ensure that opportunities are available to people from all backgrounds wishing to pursue all sorts of options for later careers.

    School Violence
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about the level of violence in schools. [64401]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We are determined to ensure that schools are places where staff and students learn and work free from violence. We have always made it clear that when necessary head teachers can permanently exclude violent pupils. We have published detailed guidance for schools on preventing bullying. On Tuesday, we published a toolkit for schools on legal remedies against violent adults, and we will extend parenting orders to cover parents of pupils excluded for violence.
    Mr. Swayne: Last week, a headmaster in my constituency told me that the greatest single problem now facing the profession is no longer the Government's intrusive bureaucracy, but the sheer level of indiscipline and disorder in schools, of which violent behaviour is perhaps the most worrying. In response to written questions on the matter, Ministers have replied that the data are not collected centrally. I put it to the Minister that if he does not collect the data, how can he have any idea about the size of problem over which he is presiding?
    Mr. Twigg: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and the head teacher in his constituency acknowledge the work that we have done to lift some of the bureaucratic burdens on schools. We need to work together on a cross-party basis on problems involving behaviour and tackling violence. We do have statistics for violent assaults on teachers, and there are far too many of them—130 in the last recorded year. We want to ensure that there is zero tolerance of that violent behaviour, whether it is against pupils or staff, and that is what we will continue to work towards.
    Fiona Mactaggart: One of the initiatives that has really helped my local schools in Slough to deal with violent behaviour is the schools-based response to the street crime initiative whereby police officers work more closely with schools. How can we learn the lessons of what works as regards police officers working closely with schools and spread them to areas that are not part of the street crime initiative?
    Mr. Twigg: I thank my hon. Friend. This week, we were able to announce our agreement to the 34 local plans implementing and spending the £66 million package announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget to tackle issues of pupil behaviour, especially in parts of the country where there are high levels of street crime and pupil truancy. We will evaluate police involvement in schools. The project has received a very positive response from schools, the police and LEAs, and I look forward to reporting back to the House as it progresses.
    Mr. Graham Brady: The last time I tabled a written question asking for the statistics on violence against teachers, I was told that the Department did not collect them. I now look forward to receiving the figures when I next table that question.
    The Minister claims that the Government believe that heads should be free to exclude violent pupils. He must know that the biggest problem that schools face is that when they exclude pupils who are violent, all too often

    383
    the exclusion is overturned on appeal. Will he go further and issue robust guidance to appeals panels that they must not overturn an exclusion when a pupil is violent?
    Mr. Twigg: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the statistics are collected by the Health and Safety Executive. For the last year for which we have figures—2000–01—130 cases of serious injuries were reported to the HSE.
    On his second point, of course we will maintain a review of the guidance that we send to schools. One of our objectives is to ensure that authorities make full-time education places available to young people who are excluded from school, because that has not always been the case in the past.

    School Travel
    Charlotte Atkins: If she will make a statement on her Department's policies regarding travel to school. [64402]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Compulsory school age pupils are entitled to free transport if their nearest suitable school is beyond statutory walking distance from their home. In other circumstances, local education authorities have the discretion to provide help with travel in accordance with locally determined policies.
    For post-16 students, there is a duty on LEAs to determine what is necessary to meet their local circumstances.
    Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the policy of charging over-16 students to use school buses that were free before they were 16, first, appears to be a tax on rural school students; secondly, encourages congestion around schools because parents or, indeed, pupils themselves drive to school; and, thirdly, runs counter to the Government's excellent education maintenance allowance initiative, which encourages 16-year-olds to stay in education after school leaving age?
    Mr. Twigg: I am well aware of the concern that my hon. Friend and others have expressed about this matter, which is being considered because the practice is inconsistent across the country. Further education colleges have the discretion to use their learner support funds to pay the student contribution—some FE colleges in Staffordshire do so, while others do not, and that is one of the inconsistent practices that we need to address.
    Pathfinder projects are addressing the issue, and will report later this year. As my hon. Friend suggests, we are piloting some EMA schemes aimed specifically at funding the higher transport costs in rural areas. We will take on board the lessons that can be learned from the pilots as part of the wider evaluation of the education maintenance allowances.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Does the Minister take on board the problems of rural sparsity? Will he review the problems with Devon's education finances that arise from the county's huge school transport costs? What will his Department do about that as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course that is one of the factors that we are considering
    384
    in reviewing the whole local government funding system, including education funding. The hon. Gentleman refers to Devon; another Member mentioned Yorkshire—[Interruption.] Members representing all the different authorities are shouting. We want to get the best possible system that meets the different needs of rural areas, as well as urban areas. We must ensure that we do not allow school transport policies to act as a barrier to the inclusion of those who want to stay in education after the age of 16.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: May I raise with my hon. Friend the case of Mrs. Stoker and Mrs. Scott-Davey, whose children, Katie and Jonathon, attend St. Leonard's Catholic school in Durham? The children are non-Catholic, so they are not automatically entitled to free transport, unlike their Catholic neighbours. Does he agree that to discriminate against children on the grounds of religion in that way is wrong? Will he look at that case?
    Mr. Twigg: I am certainly happy to have a look at the case. I imagine that, as non-Catholic parents, they would have had the option of another, nearer school. That is how the rules work at the moment, but I am happy to take another look at that.

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Roger Williams: If she will make a statement on the number of teacher vacancies. [64403]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Information on the number of teacher vacancies in local education authorities is collected once a year in January as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. The provisional figures for 2002 were released in April. In addition to 9,000 more teachers entering the system in the past year, the figures show that the vacancy rate in maintained schools in England decreased from 1.4 per cent. to 1.2 per cent. In Wales, the figure is 0.4 per cent., which is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
    Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I do not think that it will satisfy the combined lobby that we received yesterday from all the Welsh teachers' unions, which are demanding that action be taken by September 2002 to reduce the burdens of administration and reporting so that they can concentrate on delivering a world-class education to our young people. As a result of those burdens, the vacancy rate problem in Wales continues and it is difficult to attract quality young people and to retain existing professionals, especially to teach those subjects, such as science and Welsh—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he should ask a supplementary question. Perhaps the Minister can try to reply to what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Miliband: I will not intrude too far into the Welsh situation, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that, in the past five years, we have got over 20,000 more teachers in the education system and over 80,000 more support staff. The Government are now considering how to negotiate a partnership with teachers so that they have

    385
    time to focus on teaching, so that they get leadership in relation to the curriculum and the timetable and so that we ensure that they get support from other adults and information technology to help them do their jobs better.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Schools, unions and governing bodies in Burnley are all aware of the considerable difficulty in recruiting teachers, especially in certain subjects. Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is a serious problem, and will he meet me at some stage to discuss the problem and the way forward?
    Mr. Miliband: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I shall take the matter up with him. No one on the Government Benches would pretend that the situation is perfect, but I am sure that he will be pleased to hear that the latest figures show that teacher recruitment is up 14 per cent. in a year. In certain subjects in which we have had difficulty—notably, technology—it has risen by 41 per cent. I hope that that goes some way to address some of the issues that he has raised. I look forward to meeting him.
    Mr. Phil Willis: In 1998, the former Minister for School Standards, who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, wrote in a Department for Education and Employment publication, "Teacher Supply and Demand Modelling: A Technical Description":
    "It is…important to ensure that we can accurately estimate the demand for teachers in the coming years, so that we can train enough teachers to fill vacancies in schools".
    Is the Minister not therefore embarrassed that, when he replied to a written question from me last week about how many teachers were teaching at key stages 3 and 4 without the necessary qualifications, he had to rely on data from 1996? Is it not time that a curriculum and staffing survey was conducted so that we can have accurate data on planning for teacher recruitment and retention in all subjects?
    Mr. Miliband: One must be careful before plunging into the bureaucratic chase that the hon. Gentleman might be suggesting. My understanding is that the Department has significant figures—more data than have ever been published previously—on the situation around the country. We are absolutely clear on the following questions. Are there more recruits? We know that there are. Are there more teachers in the classroom? We know that there are. Is there higher pay for teachers? We know that there is. Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues may want to denigrate what teachers are doing and question how many teachers there are in the interests of "Focus" newsletters, but that would not be appropriate for him.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I raise with my hon. Friend a concern expressed by head teachers in my constituency that the figures do not reveal the true picture? For example, they do not include posts that are filled temporarily or reflect the problem of overseas teachers who are filling a large number of the teaching positions in my constituency on a relatively short-term basis. Head teachers in my constituency are very concerned about the difficulties that they experience in recruiting teachers to fill positions permanently, especially
    386
    in shortage subjects. Will my hon. Friend say what is being done to ease problems of recruitment and retention of teachers in London?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend will be most pleased to hear that the vacancy rate in London over the last year has fallen from 3.5 per cent. to 2.6 per cent. Of course, there is still some way to go, and we recognise that there are problems in particular subjects and in particular parts of the country. The most important thing that we can do, however, is make sure that head teachers have money in their hands to spend on the recruitment and retention of teachers. That is why the average spend per pupil in every school in the country has gone up by £560 since the Government took office. There are a range of issues to be addressed, including housing, especially in London and the south-east. That is the purpose of the review of local government expenditure that we are currently undertaking. I hope that the review will be able to address some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Has the Minister had the chance, since taking up his responsibilities, to consider the case of my constituent, Christopher Read, who used to design electronic control systems for Trident nuclear submarines—I raised the case with the Minister's predecessor—but who cannot yet be given a secure employment contract? Does he agree that there is a case for relaxing the rules to allow schools to give secure employment contracts to people without fully qualified teacher status? The purpose is not to exempt people from having to obtain qualified teacher status but to allow them to have secure employment in the interim. That will provide help for many schools in accordance with paragraph 5.17 of the Government's White Paper, which says that good schools should be given more autonomy over their decisions.
    Mr. Miliband: I am afraid that I have not seen the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will ask the Department to dig it out, and I will look at it. We are always interested in finding as many ways as possible of getting skilled people into classrooms as teachers and as support staff, both through the fast track scheme for graduates and through other mechanisms.

    Medical Students
    Dr. Evan Harris: What assessment she has made of the impact of redundancies of medical academics in London medical schools on the training of medical students. [64404]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): The additional costs of training new medical students were fully taken into account at the last spending review. Staffing levels at medical schools in London and elsewhere are for each institution to determine in the light of its operational needs and circumstances.
    Dr. Harris: At a time when we are seeking to increase the number of medical students being trained, does the Minister understand the concern about the fact that hundreds of medical academics responsible for carrying out the training are losing their jobs? It seems to people

    387
    on the ground that, when there is good news to announce, the Government cover themselves in glory and centralise praise, but when it comes to redundancies in institutions that are almost 100 per cent. funded by the Minister's Department and the Government, she says "It is nothing to do with us, guv." Is that not too much delegation of blame? How will we look after the interests of the medical students and consultants of the future?
    Margaret Hodge: The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that believes in the delegation of responsibility and devolution, so I am absolutely amazed by his view that there should be central control over the number of staff in each institution. He should be very careful not to muddle certain facts. Mergers, especially between London hospitals, have led to changes in staffing structures. Those changes have been made by local decision makers and local managers. Changes have also been made to the amount of money that hospitals and universities have received out of the research assessment exercise to cover the cost of training medical students—some have gained, and some have lost. For example, St George's hospital in London had a 48 per cent. increase—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman about St George's hospital.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is serious concern in teaching hospitals throughout the country following the generous increase in pay to consultants in the health sector? Many people in the teaching profession would be very pleased to receive such an increase, with very little reform to the delivery of service. However, there is an important knock-on effect, because many leading people in our medical schools say that they will not be able to recruit senior staff as a result of the pay increase for consultants.
    Margaret Hodge: I am discussing this issue with my colleagues in the Department of Health. Under the new consultants' contract, we must ensure that staff will be available to deal with patients, and that staff will be available to train the new consultants whom we require to expand services in the national health service.

    Information Technology
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What progress has been made with increasing the amount of information technology in schools since 1997. [64405]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): ICT in schools has increased significantly since 1998. The 2001 survey showed that the proportion of schools connected to the internet had grown from 28 to 97 per cent. The ratio of computers to pupils in primary schools had improved from 1:18 to 1:12, and in secondaries from 1:9 to 1:7.
    Mr. Blizzard: May I welcome the huge increase in the number of computers in schools? However, the software requires licences. Is my hon. Friend aware that, although Microsoft will sell a site licence to a college or
    388
    university—for example, Lowestoft college pays it £7,000 a year—Microsoft will not sell site licences to schools? Therefore, Kirkley high school in my constituency now pays £15,000 a year in licence fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that Microsoft is unfairly hoovering money out of schools and that it is no use producing glossies with children on the front if it is charging schools too much? Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I give him the commitment that I will look into the issue. I do not want to condemn Microsoft until I have all the facts available to me—that would not be a particularly good idea! When I have the information, I shall get back to my hon. Friend.

    Special Needs Education (Gloucestershire)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: When she next plans to discuss the provision of special needs education in Gloucestershire with the local education authority. [64406]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The Secretary of State takes a close interest in the effectiveness of special educational needs provision in all local education authorities, through their education development plans and Ofsted inspections. Gloucestershire local education authority was required to prepare an action plan following an inspection by Ofsted in January 2002. Departmental officials are working with the authority's officers as they develop and implement their post-inspection action plan, and continue with their review of special educational needs provision in the county.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Is he aware that Gloucestershire LEA, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party working together, interprets the Government's intentions regarding inclusion as meaning that it can close all the special schools in Gloucestershire'? Indeed, it has started on that programme. Does he approve of closing all the special schools in Gloucestershire? If not, will he communicate with the authority to tell it that what it is doing is very wrong?
    Mr. Twigg: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in and views on this matter. We are not seeking to say to local authorities that they must close all their special schools. That is something that needs to be determined at local level. We want to see that done properly in Gloucestershire, as in other parts of the country. We want a proper balance between the rights of parents to have their children educated in mainstream schools, if that is what they want, and the role for special schools. As part of that, Baroness Ashton is conducting a review with a working party to examine the role that special schools can play in promoting special education.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: If she will make a statement on the level of successful prosecutions by the Crown Prosecution Service over the last 12 months. [64430]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): There is no single, obvious success measure for prosecutions. Sometimes it is the right decision to proceed with a prosecution even when the defendant is subsequently acquitted. Of the 1.4 million cases referred to the CPS last year, 950,000 went to the magistrates court and 120,000 to the Crown court. The conviction rate in the magistrates court was 98 per cent. and in the Crown court it was 88 per cent.
    Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but I am curious about how many cases failed. The Minister's initial response was that that was difficult to judge, but when the plea is either innocent or guilty it cannot be that difficult to judge whether a case has been successfully prosecuted.
    The Solicitor-General: I am not trying to avoid the hon. Gentleman's important question, but we must ask what success or failure means in this context. If a case is prosecuted when it should not have been, that is wrong; but if a case is dropped when it should not have been, that is also wrong. The point is the quality of the decision making. The CPS inspectorate says that in 93 per cent. of the decisions about whether to proceed with a prosecution, the decision is right. However, we are not complacent. Too many cases are discontinued. We need more resources, better partnership with the police and constant pressure to improve. It is too easy to assume that acquittal is a failure or that dropping a case at an early stage is a failure. Sometimes it is right to drop a case at an early stage if we do not have sufficient evidence to proceed.
    Mr. David Kidney: Can the House be assured that the CPS takes seriously the issue of domestic violence? Is it understood in the service that successful prosecutions for domestic violence today could save lives tomorrow?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is right. Those who perpetrate domestic violence must realise that they cannot do it behind closed doors, regard it as a private matter, and get away with it. It is a violent criminal offence that will not be tolerated. Women must recognise that they do not have to put up with it, because they can have confidence in the criminal justice system taking their side and prosecuting offenders. The CPS has taken several important steps towards putting into effect that proper, up-to-date attitude. It is working closely with the police and the courts on that. In this day and age, it should not be the case that a quarter of all violence is perpetrated behind closed doors at home. That sort of thing should be stopped.
    Mr. John Burnett: What priority does the Solicitor-General's Department—
    390
    especially the CPS—give to large-scale fraud and what is euphemistically known as white collar crime? We have seen recent examples in the US on a huge scale. Accounts have been falsified, millions of dollars have been stolen and entire industries and markets have been undermined. We all hope that there are no such examples over here, but can the Solicitor-General assure the House that the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office have sufficient resources to deal swiftly and efficiently with large-scale fraud? Can she also assure us that the full rigour of the law will be visited on the perpetrators and their accomplices? She will know that half-measures and compromises would not be acceptable.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman raises that question at an important time. Since the Attorney- General and I took office a year ago, we have been in no doubt that the work of the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting serious and complex frauds is important. Even if the fraud is huge, the people who get ripped off are often poor and they can ill afford it and its criminality. In addition, such frauds hit the confidence in our economy and our financial services, which can affect the stock market. That is why we want to ensure that the Serious Fraud Office has the capacity to investigate and prosecute those big frauds.
    When billions of pounds are at stake, the fraudsters think nothing of spending millions of pounds concealing their fraud and millions more on their legal defence teams. We have to ensure that it is not a David and Goliath situation and that the Serious Fraud Office is properly resourced at its baseline. It also needs to have the ability to go to the Treasury and apply to the reserve when the cases are big because confidence in our economy and economic system is at stake.
    Mr. William Cash: Presumably the Solicitor-General took the figures that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) from the draft annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service. I have, of course, not seen that, but it is coming out shortly. To her knowledge—perhaps this is in the draft report—has the CPS acknowledged and apologised for the catalogue of problems? Some of those were recently highlighted by the chief constable of Thames Valley police, who said:
    "The bottom line is that justice is not being done thanks to the arcane rules and bureaucracy of our criminal trial process. The public knows this, the legal profession knows this, the government know this and it is time for action. Under the current rules of the game, everyone loses…It is the system itself which is at fault, a system so flawed that it provides loopholes which no one can be blamed for exploiting."
    Will the Solicitor-General comment on the chief constable's damning observations, which were reinforced only this week, as she knows, by the fierce criticisms of the CPS by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee?
    The Solicitor-General: The chief constable raises a number of issues, some about the conduct and process of prosecution and some about the rules that govern them. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary are considering the contents of the White Paper that will

    391
    follow the Auld report. It will address some of the issues that concern the chief constable and will be published shortly.
    On how the CPS handles cases, it is right that we are not complacent. We need more resources and better systems. However, we should not panic. We are talking about 1.4 million cases, and the inspectorate says that 93 per cent. of the decision making is right. If 93 per cent. of the decisions that the hon. Gentleman or I made were right, we would not be doing too badly. We are not complacent. Every case is critical for the victim, so we must press on. However, we need to take a balanced view and work in partnership with the police instead of being on the defensive from their criticisms.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Andrew Turner: How many cases have been referred since 1997 to the Attorney-General for review of allegedly inadequate sentences. [64431]
    The Solicitor-General: Before 2000, the figures for unduly lenient sentences referred to the law officers were not collected in the way that the hon. Gentleman requests. However, 178 offenders were referred in 2000, 277 offenders were referred in 2001 and 144 offenders have been referred so far this year.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Is she aware that a serial sex offender, who was sentenced to 18 months for a string of offences against young island boys, was released having served half his sentence and, within a year of his release, abducted a 14-year-old boy from a "Children in Need" concert in Southsea, who was then raped in a beach hut? That offender was sentenced to only four years.
    392
    Some of the offender's earlier victims—my constituents—have been horrified to discover that members of the public have only 28 days to draw such inadequate sentences to the attention of the Attorney-General. Will the Solicitor-General review that incredibly tight deadline or, at the very least, publicise it more effectively so people know what they have to do, and how quickly, to get things put right?
    The Solicitor-General: I am only too well aware of the shocking circumstances that surround the case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House, and has already brought to the attention of the Attorney-General and me.
    The very worst thing is for a case to be brought to us as an unduly lenient sentence, only for us not to be able to consider it for referral because it is out of time. There are two ways in which we can deal with that. We can either extend the time limit, which is a strict 28 days, or we can ensure that people know that there is a strict time limit and ensure that they all work to that deadline. I would think that the right course of action is the latter. We need to ensure that Members and victims know that the right is there, but that it has to be exercised within 28 days.
    When the right was originally put in place, the House took the view that there was a wish for finality about the sentence—that when the judge passes sentence, that should be it, and that things should not be left for months, and then suddenly the Law Officers refer a case. There is a reason for the strict time limit, but to ensure that there is not injustice to victims we must ensure that people are aware of it and that the Attorney-General and I can consider such cases with the seriousness that they deserve. Cases where the sentence was inappropriate can then be referred to the Court of Appeal, which takes our references very seriously.

Business Statement
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 JULY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Bill followed by Opposition Day [17th Allotted Day, 1st Half]. There will be a debate entitled "Crisis in the Care Homes Sector" on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 9 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Police Reform Bill [Lords]. To follow, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
WEDNESDAY 10 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Police Reform Bill [Lords]
THURSDAY 11 JULY—Debate on intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 JULY—Debate on behaviour improvement in schools on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 15 JuLY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 16 JuLY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY—Debate on defence procurement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Proceeds of Crime Bill followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Bill.
FRIDAY 19 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to be informed that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of July will be:
THURSDAY 11 JULY—Debate on the report from the Health Committee on the role of the private sector in the NHS.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Debate on poverty.
The House will wish to know that on Wednesday 17 July 2002, there will be a debate relating to waste from electrical and electronic equipment in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 17 July 2002:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: 9923/01; Unnumbered EM, dated 15 March 2002, submitted by DTI: Waste from electrical and electronic equipment. 10143/01; Unnumbered EM, dated 15 March 2002, submitted by DTI: Hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 152-xxxii and HC 152-xxiv (2001–02).]
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for letting us have those details. He will be aware that two
394
significant reports on foot and mouth are now imminent. I hope he will be able to guarantee that the House will be given an opportunity to consider these reports, or at least to give preliminary consideration to them, before the House rises for the long summer recess. I am sure he would not want these important reports to go unconsidered by the House—there could be either a statement or a debate—before the recess. He would not want us to get all the way through to October without having a chance to say something about the eagerly awaited results of the reports on foot and mouth, would he? I hope that he can give us that undertaking.
Yesterday, we had questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, who now has responsibility for local government, the regions, housing and planning, matters which affect all the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member. Yet astonishingly, the right hon. Gentleman had only about 26 or 27 minutes to give account of himself and his responsibilities to the House. I assume that this is an oversight and that we have not quite caught up with the new arrangement. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman wanted in any way to avoid answering questions. I am sure he takes a lot of pride in what he does and the way in which he does it. Please can the Leader of the House look again at whether the Deputy Prime Minister can have a full Question Time to give account of himself and his Department to the House, as that would be helpful for all right hon. and hon. Members?
When are we going to deal with the Data Protection Acts? The Leader of the House has kindly told us before that he has that in his sights and is aware of Members' anxiety. I hope he can reassure us that the Government will put something before the House before the summer recess so that we can finally resolve the anomalies that have arisen in those Acts. It would be helpful if he could do so.
The parliamentary ombudsman, in his annual report published today, launched an astonishing, blistering attack on the Government. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has had time to look at it, as the ombudsman says on page 8 that
"in November 2001 the Government rejected, for the first time, a recommendation by the Ombudsman that information should be disclosed under the code"—
the code of practice on access to Government. He continues:
"the Home Secretary refused, for reasons which I found wholly unpersuasive, to disclose purely numerical information regarding the number of times Ministers in his Department had made a declaration of interest to their colleagues under circumstances envisaged in the Ministerial Code of Conduct".
The ombudsman went on to say:
"I cannot disguise my concern at what seems to be a hardening of attitudes in departments. The bad habit of citing exemption for the first time at a very late stage of an investigation has reappeared."
Finally, on page 9, the ombudsman says:
"I am seriously concerned at these developments, which not only undermine the Code but also call into question the authority and standing of my office."
I cannot recall when someone as eminent as the parliamentary ombudsman has seen fit to make such comments in an annual report. Is the Leader of the House ashamed, and is he prepared to find time for us urgently to debate what is obviously a serious rift between the parliamentary ombudsman and the Government? I hope that at the very least he will take the opportunity to deal with the ombudsman's extremely serious criticisms.

395
Finally, in Prime Minister's questions yesterday, at column 218, the Prime Minister was at it again. He said:
"The Conservative party is holding up the progress of the Proceeds of Crime Bill."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 218.]
Can the Leader of the House explain what on earth the Prime Minister meant and what he was talking about? Does the Prime Minister now think that parliamentary debate on a Bill holds up its progress, or does he now expect a Bill to go straight through the House without touching the sides? If that is not so, the Leader of the House must either explain the Prime Minister's remarkable assertion, which has no basis in fact at all, or provide an early opportunity for the Prime Minister to come to the House and to apologise.
Mr. Cook: Before I respond to the right hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him on the topicality of his Independence day tie? If I remember rightly, the independence of the United States was partly influenced by the Tory Prime Minister of the time, but we shall overlook that in the circumstances—the time has come to forgive and forget.
On the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, first, on the ombudsman, I do not feel that there is anything in the Government's record on which we can be impeached. After all, it is we who passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000. There were many times when I stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and wished that we had such an Act so that we could find out what the right hon. Gentleman's Government were up to.
On the specific points made by the ombudsman about the Hinduja affair, we accept that the Cabinet Office was wrong not to provide information at the time and we have already apologised for that. I remind the House that the ombudsman came to precisely the same conclusion as the Hammond report. On the Equitable Life affair, which is also raised in the ombudsman's report, since the application for information, we have initiated two separate inquiries, one by the Financial Services Authority and one by ourselves. All matters will be fully investigated and laid before the House and the public.
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already taken steps to amend the code of conduct for Ministers so that, rather than one declaration being made at a given time, a comprehensive declaration of financial interests will be made to the permanent secretary; so that particular issue should not arise again. Against the totality of the greater openness brought in by the Government, those particular exceptions need to be kept in proportion.
We look forward to the foot and mouth reports with great interest. Their publication dates are not within our gift because they are independent reports. [Interruption.] There is nothing strange about the fact that those carrying out an independent report are responsible for its publication date. We have drawn it to their attention that it would be for the convenience of the House if the reports were published while the House was still sitting. I am sure there will be exchanges in the House on that matter and that, at an appropriate point, the House will wish to debate it in full.
I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Deputy Prime Minister could accept a longer period of time before the House, which he would richly deserve and
396
by which the House would be rewarded. I would only gently point out that this is a zero-sum game—more time for the Deputy Prime Minister means less time for someone else, and I am not inundated by demands that there should be less time for any particular Minister to answer questions. However, I shall happily consider the matter and see whether we can do justice to the status and ability of the Deputy Prime Minister and to the interest in his comments. I shall take that point on board.
I do not quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman should wish to run away from the comments made on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. The fact is that his party, both here and, notably, in the other place, has resisted provisions in that Bill, and he really should not come to the Dispatch Box now and pretend otherwise. Opposition Members presumably knew what they were doing and supported what they were doing, otherwise I do not understand why they were doing it; and it is entirely legitimate for the Prime Minister to point out the totally bogus nature of the constant claims about law and order from a Conservative party which always opposes when we try to tighten up on the criminal.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The stock market has fallen seriously once again and the speculation is that it will fall a lot further before we see an upturn. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that has serious implications for the interests of ordinary people, their savings and pensions, and that we should have a debate on the Floor of the House to ensure that we fully understand that and to decide what we should do about it? Does he further agree that that is another nail in the coffin of neo-liberalism and demonstrates clearly that Governments must play a greater role in managing and regulating economies?
Mr. Cook: On the last point, my hon. Friend is leaping from an innocent to a wide and general assertion, a move in which it would be extremely unwise of me to follow him. I remind my hon. Friend of the Government's excellent record on state pensions, for which we have provided an additional £6 billion over the sums that we inherited when we came to power, more than double the amount necessary simply to meet a link with earnings. We have honoured our commitment and the need to ensure that state pensioners are justifiably and properly treated.
With regard to the private pensions sector, we have taken two major steps which will help to protect people providing for their retirement. First, the introduction of the pension tax credit means that we shall be rewarding those who saved for their retirement and as a result have a little additional income, whereas the Conservative Government penalised those who had anything extra by means-testing them and clawing back benefit from them. Secondly, through the additional employment that we have created, particularly by means of the new deal for the over-50s, an additional 900,000 people over 50 are at work now compared with 1997. That is good for the economy, but it is also good for them because it gives them longer to prepare for their retirement.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an explicit answer to the question about data protection to which he did not refer, and will he also give the House an undertaking that if the foot and mouth reports are out in time there will a debate on them in Government time before the recess?

397
On Wednesday last week, the Leader of the House was frank and robust in giving information to the House in response to my question about the RMT union. At column 872, he referred to an "oath of loyalty". This is an extremely important issue. Can he now tell the House that he is prepared to put all his correspondence with the RMT in the Library, so we can assess its importance?
A most extraordinary statement was made this week—I think that it came from No. 10 Downing street—about ministerial responsibility for the police. It dealt with the most odd idea that, somehow or other, a London Education Minister can now "oversee" street crime initiatives in South Yorkshire and that an Arts Minister in the Lords can do the same thing for Avon and Somerset. How exactly are they going to report back to this House? What is their ministerial responsibility, and will they answer questions on the matter?
On 25 June, at column 769 of Hansard, the Secretary of State for Health gave an undertaking that the draft mental health Bill could be considered by a Special Standing Committee. Has the Leader of the House been able to make progress on that?
Finally, a consultation is apparently going on at present about arrangements for visitors from our constituencies touring the House along the so-called line of route. Consultants have been appointed, but it is not at all clear whom they are consulting. I challenge any hon. Member to say whether they have been consulted on this matter, which is extremely important to us. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I took a prominent part in a debate on this subject, but we have not been asked anything about the consultation. Have the House staff been consulted, and when will there be a debate on these very important proposals?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman asks me six questions, which is entirely legitimate. I shall try to answer all of them, but he will forgive me if I am necessarily brief in trying to deal with each one.
First, I am justly rebuked for not responding to the point about data protection. I am happy to say to the House that it remains our objective to try to lay a statutory instrument on the matter before the House rises. I am not sure whether it will be possible to debate it before that but it will be laid, which will clearly show that we are taking very seriously the important issue of ensuring that Members can discharge their representative functions.
On the foot and mouth reports, I cannot give an undertaking to have a debate before the House rises. Indeed, we have only two and a half weeks left and there is a lot of business to be done in that time, but I am quite sure that the House will wish to return to the matter at an appropriate time. It may find it better to do so once it has had time to digest and consider the reports in full.
I personally have no objection to putting in the Library exchanges with the RMT. For the avoidance of any doubt, I should perhaps say that we as a group acted collectively in responding to the letter from Mr. Crow, the general secretary of the RMT. The collective response was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), who is with me on the Front Bench and has given me permission to say that his letter may indeed be placed in the Library. I hope that we can address that point, but there is no mystery and nothing sinister is involved. The correspondence will merely confirm what has been said on the record.
398
On the role of Ministers in relation to a number of police constabularies around the country, the arrangement has been welcomed by the police themselves. Indeed, it stemmed from the recent meeting at No. 10, which one of the police constables in attendance described as the most successful and important meeting that they have had. It is very welcome that each of the major constabularies should have a direct link with Government. Of course, accountability in respect of the police force properly remains with the Home Office, which is well represented both in this House and the other place.
I am not aware of a proposal to put the draft mental health Bill before a Special Standing Committee. Standing Committees usually consider official Bills rather than draft ones, but we are of course very keen to ensure that pre-legislative scrutiny is carried out in respect of draft Bills and we will certainly be willing to consider ways in which that can be secured.
Lastly, on the feasibility investigation into a visitor centre, since the hon. Gentleman asked the question, I should say to the House that I have been consulted by those who are carrying out the feasibility study. I hope that, as Leader of the House, I spoke for many, if not all, in the House in the answers that I gave. The process is being taken forward on a very quick time scale, because we are keen to make progress. The report will, of course, come before the House of Commons Commission, on which all the parties here are represented. Plainly, before any major development could take place, the House would have to be consulted in some shape or form.
I end by asserting what I think many hon. Members already know: my strong view is that this place requires a proper interpretive visitor centre that places stress not on the extraordinary history or wonderful architecture of the building, but on our functioning as the heart of British democracy. Every distillery in Scotland now has a visitor centre; it is high time the House of Commons got one.
Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend will have seen the reports in the broadsheets saying that the Chancellor is to announce in his forthcoming statement the national roll-out of educational maintenance allowances. Coming from a region that has always had a relatively low staying-on rate beyond the age of 16, I know that such a measure would be widely welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate on this in advance of the Chancellor's statement, so that we can show the Chancellor and the Government how widely welcome that policy would be?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his endorsement of that policy and of the commitment that we are making. Indeed, there is already evidence that, where there is financial support for children over 16, there is a higher continuation rate after the school-leaving age. That is entirely welcome, not just for the individuals concerned but for the strength of our future work force and economy. It would be indelicate of me to offer a debate on the matter before the Chancellor makes his statement, but I am sure that he, too, will welcome the support that my right hon. Friend has promised once he has made that statement.
Sir George Young: Is the Leader of the House now able to answer the question that I put to him two weeks ago, and to give the House the

399
date of the Chancellor's statement on spending? The right hon. Gentleman will know that the date of the Budget is announced many weeks in advance, and this statement will arguably be even more important than that, because it covers three years. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, when the Chancellor makes that statement, he will be open with the House about all public expenditure, including contingent liabilities, and that he will not resort to some of the dubious accounting techniques used by the private sector which have caused such turmoil on the world markets?
Mr. Cook: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing would ever be further from the mind of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor than a dubious accounting technique. On the date, the right hon. Gentleman quite properly said that he asked this question two weeks ago. I was asked it again last week, and I am happy to say that my answer is consistent: the statement will be made in July. It will not be made next week, but I anticipate that next week the right hon. Gentleman will be made a happy man by hearing the date announced.
Keith Vaz: The Leader of the House will be aware that tomorrow marks the 11th anniversary of the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International by the previous Conservative Government. As well as many private investors, organisations such as Channel 4 and councils such as that of the Western Isles lost a considerable amount of money as a result of that closure. Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate on the way in which the Insolvency Service deals with liquidations? A liquidation that has lasted 11 years and cost millions of dollars—possibly $1 billion—in fees is a very long liquidation. Will he also welcome the positive steps being taken by the employees and the liquidators to ensure that this liquidation is brought to a speedy conclusion?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has followed this case with great diligence and activity since it first—
Mr. Forth: We did not close it; it collapsed.
Mr. Cook: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend was not in government at the time. The Government of the time are now, happily, sitting on the Benches opposite us. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the effort that he has put into trying to achieve justice for those who were left as creditors of the bank. It collapsed amid great complexity, which explains, to some extent, the length of time that this has taken. I understand that 60 per cent. of the outstanding debt to creditors has now been met, and that there will be further dividends in the course of the next 12 months. I believe that there has also been progress on the agreement between the former employees and the bank, and I think we would all agree that the former employees should always be at the front of the queue when there is a need to meet the outstanding debts from the collapse. It is a matter of great regret that the process has taken this long, but my hon. Friend knows better than anyone else in the House the complexity of the issues involved.
Michael Fabricant: In the light of the similarities, and also the differences, between the Prime
400
Minister on the one hand and President Bush and Colin Powell on the other, can we have a debate before the end of the year on the enduring relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States? On this, the first 4 July since the tragic events of 11 September, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing all Americans—both here in the United Kingdom and in the United States—a safe and happy Independence day?
Mr. Cook: I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in wishing all our United States friends a happy and safe Independence day. I fully share his view that there is a strong, strategic partnership between the two countries, based on two fundamental realities: we are each other's biggest trade partner, and each other's closest ally. Those long-term strategic relationships will continue. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that today is Independence day in the United States—independence, of course, from us—and in those circumstances we should also recognise that we are two sovereign, independent countries, and we should not be unduly disturbed if, from time to time, we pursue different policies around the world, while in no way undermining the powerful partnership that is so important to both of us.
Joyce Quin: Given that the Government have recently published their regional government White Paper, which I warmly welcome, and given that there is a consultation attached to that White Paper, which will finish at the end of August, may I urge my right hon. Friend to give the House an opportunity to debate the issue so that it receives a public airing during this important consultation period?
Mr. Cook: For one moment, I was concerned that my right hon. Friend was going to invite me to recall the House at the end of August for that debate. I cannot promise a debate before the House rises, because there is a very crowded schedule, but we produced the draft local government Bill precisely because we wanted a wide consultation, not just with Members but with the local government movement. That will inform any Bill that is brought before the House, which would, of course, be debatable here. In the meantime, the Local Government and the Regions Committee is carrying out its pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am sure that it would welcome the views of colleagues.
Dr. Evan Harris: In taking the Leader of the House back to the question of medical confidentiality and data protection, may I draw his attention to my membership of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee?
In the light of the comments of the BMA this week, which draw attention to the fact that confidential medical information is released by Members on both sides of the House—on the case of Rose Addis, for example, without it being clear that her explicit consent, and not just that of her family, was granted for that release—will the Leader of the House give further consideration to the question of guidance for Members to ensure that we stay on the side of not breaching medical confidentiality?
On data protection, does the Leader of the House accept that there will still be duties of medical confidentiality on bodies to which the Data Protection Act 1998 applies and that a very strong case would have to be made for

401
exemptions for MPs from the need to get explicit, informed written consent from individuals before such information is handed over?
Mr. Cook: I would not presume to give hon. Members guidance on how they pursue their individual constituency cases. That will always be a matter for the judgment of Members, and it would be wrong to try to impose any other standard on them. The key lesson of the Rose Addis case is that, in the first place, there should be discussions with those who provide the medical treatment in the hospital, because it is those who provided the medical treatment in that case who were outraged by how it was misrepresented in the Chamber.
On data protection, I shall study carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not sure that I agree with it. If a constituent comes to us to raise a complaint about the local NHS trust, it is entirely proper for the Member to assume that the constituent wants the Member to do something about it. There is clearly an implied consent there.
The statutory instrument will put those NHS trusts and other parts of the public sector back in their pre-Data Protection Act position, so that Act will not be a barrier to them answering honestly and fairly the Member of Parliament's complaint. However, it will not remove any existing considerations on patient confidentiality and it will certainly not give us any licence to pry into matters that have not been raised with us by our constituents.
Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on relations with our colleagues in the European Parliament? He will be aware that another investigation into foot and mouth is going on, held by the European Parliament. Bizarrely, Members of the House are being contacted through the individual offices of MEPs and the investigation has been accompanied by various Conservative party press releases, which do not give us a lot of faith in its being independent. The witness sessions also seem to leave a lot to be desired.
Is it not about time that we understood that if an investigation is being held by another Parliament but in this country, there are certain rules by which it should abide so that we have genuine independence rather than the charade that seems to be taking place?
Mr. Cook: I can only say that I find it challenging enough to remain on top of the rules and conduct of this House, without attempting to master the rules and conduct of the European Parliament.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread public concern following the Quintin Hann case this week about the conduct of rape trials and consequent publicity in the newspapers and elsewhere? Would it not be appropriate for a Minister to come here next week and give an initial view on whether we can amend the law to ensure that defendants remain anonymous until their cases are over and they are found guilty?
Mr. Cook: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and the concern about the case that he mentioned. I know that a number of newspapers have highlighted similar anxieties on behalf of the defendant
402
I do not think anyone would want the balance to be redressed by a removal of victims' anonymity, which is an important consideration. Whether all the press would welcome an extension of that anonymity to defendants is a matter of judgment, but I imagine some newspapers would express concern.
The matter should of course be kept under review. We shall be examining the law on sexual offences and sexual offenders in the coming days, and the hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue it in that context.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I accept that this may have to take place after the recess, but could we have a debate on selective education? My right hon. Friend may know from press reports that I had to commission a study on the performance and structure of secondary education in Kent, which is a purely selective county, when the county refused to do so. It shows some incredibly worrying trends. For instance a far higher proportion of grammar schools are exhibiting falling standards than we thought, and there is a polarisation of education in the county that is clearly detrimental to pupils. When will we have an opportunity to make clear in the House the fact that selection is a Victorian strategy for education which has no part in the current century?
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his energy and initiative. I understand that the study showed good results in some state schools which are not necessarily being matched in the selective system.
This is a matter to be pursued at local level, and I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which he has stimulated the process. I remain proud that I taught in a comprehensive and that my children went to one, and I believe they have served our nation very well.
Sue Doughty: As the Leader of the House will know, the world summit on sustainable development will take place in under two months, in August and September. During debates, we have regularly asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House and make a statement, especially following the negotiations in Bali that constituted the final preparatory committee meeting. Those negotiations seem to have ended in failure, particularly in relation to agricultural subsidies. Will the Leader of the House make every effort to persuade his right hon. Friend to make a statement before the end of the Session?
Mr. Cook: I fully understand the hon. Lady's concern about the forthcoming summit, and the great importance attached to it. Let me say in fairness to the Government that we have made it clear that we want it to be a success, and have taken a number of initiatives with the aim of ensuring that it addresses real issues and has a real outcome.
Since Bali we have had a further discussion in Brazil attended by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who has had discussions with both South Africa, the forthcoming host, and Brazil, which hosted the last summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago. I understand from my right hon. Friend that the talks made good progress, and I hope we are now on course for a successful summit and outcome. We will keep the House posted.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the strategy the Government

403
adopted two years ago, "Revitalising Health and Safety", which was rightly adopted because of the worrying increase in the number of injuries and accidents in the workplace? He will know that Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, is conducting a consultation exercise to determine where the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive will be in the system of government. May I suggest that the exercise should be conducted very rapidly? It is important for the HSE to have certainty. I think it should end up in the Department of Work and Pensions, although others may disagree. The most important thing, however, is strong ministerial commitment to the strategy and the HSE, so that we can reduce the £19 billion cost of injuries and accidents in the workplace and, of course, the number of human tragedies that result.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having raised that issue. It has always been a mystery to me that, although accidents in the transport industry are tragic and very grave for those involved and make mega-headlines, our press and political system do not give the same attention to the steady and, over the year, much higher toll of accidents at work. The Health and Safety Executive is an important bulwark against that trend getting worse.
We are indeed carrying out a review of the machinery of Government in order to ascertain what is the best ministerial home for the HSE. In particular, we are keen to ensure that there is close collaboration between it and the Department for Work and Pensions, to secure the best possible help for the victims of injuries at work. I assure my hon. Friend that the outcome will guarantee very real ministerial commitment on what is an extremely important issue.
Mr. John Redwood: Yesterday, the Prime Minister called for an early debate on the euro. When will the Leader of the House accede to that wise and excellent request, and when will the Government tell the House their preferred entry rate of the pound against the euro?
Mr. Cook: Even as I rise, I can see television screens all over the City of London switching on to our exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we never comment on currency movements. When the Prime Minister requests a debate, I shall be happy to arrange it.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that the Modernisation Committee will not be able to report in time to obviate the problems faced by all hon. Members because of the 82-day recess, which means that many of the issues that we want to raise on behalf of constituents who approach us when we are working in our constituencies during September will not be dealt with on the Floor of the House? Will he seriously consider whether it is sensible to have such an enormously long time during which we are unable to bring to the attention of the House matters of serious concern?
Mr. Cook: I have already expressed my concern about the length of the recess and I fully share my hon. Friend's
404
anxiety—I worry about how I am to fill in all that time in those 82 days without the House to debate matters with. I have proposed that we should change the long recess in future years so that we return in September and do not have the three-month absence. I anticipate that the House will have the opportunity to vote on that some time soon after the recess. It is a matter for the House, but I think that it would be wise to agree to shorten the long recess.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the decision of the Leader of the House to include a debate on the intelligence agencies in next week's business. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland came to the House in March, four months ago, to answer a private notice question on the break-in at Castlereagh police station. At that time, it was rumoured that one or more of the intelligence agencies had played a part in it, but since then suspicion has shifted to the Provisional IRA. Will the Leader of the House make time available for the Secretary of State to come back to the House before the summer recess and tell us whether it was indeed the Provisional IRA that was behind the break-in, and if so, what action he intends to take against its political representatives in the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be answering questions next Wednesday, and I am sure that that matter will arise then. Obviously, a police and security service investigation has to be dealt with with care and confidentiality, so I cannot advise on the extent to which he will be able to answer the question.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the publication today of the White Paper on the Liabilities Management Authority, with the expected increase in cost of the management of our radioactive waste and the prospect that it opens up of the French state-owned nuclear company taking over the management of our nuclear liabilities, will my right hon. Friend find time in the very near future for a debate on the subject, in Government time, on the Floor of the House, so that all the implications of this crucial issue can be discussed?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. He will be aware that the Minister for Energy and Construction has nuclear liability very much at the front of his work programme, and I anticipate that he will make an announcement in the near future. As to when the House can debate these matters again, I cannot give a commitment before its rising for the summer recess. However, there are many ways in which my hon. Friend can pursue his well-founded and genuine concerns in the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a debate in Government time on early-day motion 1490?
[That this House notes the comments of the Right honourable Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, the Minister responsible for electoral law, that "Any provisions on European Parliament elections laid down by the Council (including amendments to the 1976 Act) need to be ratified with an Act of Parliament in the UK"; further notes that the UK is, therefore, free to adopt any electoral system of its choosing for future elections to the European Parliament; believes that, by removing the vital

405
link between each elected representative and their constituents and consequently encouraging voter apathy, proportional representation has not served the UK well; also notes with concern that proportional voting systems in other parts of Europe have allowed far-right parties to gain a foothold; and further believes that the UK's next elections to the European Parliament could, and should, be held under the First Past the Post electoral system.]
I ask for the debate in Government time because 49 of the 53 hon. Members who have so far signed the early-day motion happen to be Labour Members. However, if such a debate is too embarrassing for the Government, I suggest an alternative one on the more innocuous subject of squatters' rights. In such a debate, the Deputy Prime Minister could explain whether he intends to stay in his RMT-owned flat, now that he has correctly resigned from that union on a point of principle.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend has the security of a long-standing tenant, and the hon. Gentleman would not be helping himself and his constituency by suggesting that all secure tenancies involve squatters and squatters' rights.
On the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I fear that there are another 1,500 among which I have to choose. If I were to find a day for debating early-day motions, I might just be tempted to include a half-day on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—if he will agree that the other half-day can be spent debating an early-day motion drawing attention to the fact that the Conservative website has no entry under "policy".
Ms Julia Drown: Constituents, bus drivers and local police tell me of their serious concern about the increasing number of dangerous incidents involving airguns and replica guns. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this issue? If we want to make communities safer, we must take further action to get these dangerous guns out of circulation.
Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the concerns expressed about incidents involving airguns. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has raised very real concerns, based on what happened to a constituent of his.
Mr. Forth: The Government killed the private Member's Bill.
Mr. Cook: We have a long way to go before we rival the right hon. Gentleman's record on killing private Member's Bills.
I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's comments. Should the Home Office wish to introduce a measure, I would be happy to ensure that we provide time for it.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I refer the Leader of the House to a point made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the issue of questions to the Deputy Prime Minister? Since the reshuffle, the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister and the number of questions put to him have increased massively—at least I hope they have, given that
406
his departmental and ministerial team has increased massively, from three to five. According to the ordered questions available this morning from the Vote Office, there will be only 50 minutes available for questioning the Deputy Prime Minister between now and Christmas. Is that really acceptable for such an important Department?
Mr. Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be gratified at the excitement shown in the House about the importance of questioning him for longer, and I have already taken on board the point that was made. I shall happily look at the question rota, but before making a move I need to know that I will not be inundated at a subsequent Thursday business statement with complaints about where such time has been taken from.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is there not an important tradition of liberal adult education—advanced especially by organisations such as the Workers Educational Association and university extramural departments—that was influential in, for example, getting people into higher education before the days of excessive modules, tests and certification? That is exemplified by the life of Royden Harrison, whose obituary appeared in The Guardian this week. It was written by my former colleagues at Sheffield university, Michael Barratt-Brown and John Halstead, and should be read by all hon. Members. May we have a debate on how to build on, further and nurture the tradition that Royden exemplified?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Royden Harrison, who brought to his work an enormous conviction and a commitment to teaching as a vocation. That commitment and sense of vocation are important if we are to have a successful education system.
For four years, I was employed by the Workers Educational Association, so I am very susceptible to the suggestion that we should have a debate on its work and on the important contribution made by adult education. That contribution is especially notable in regard to people with ability who may not have succeeded first time around during their education in school. As a responsible Leader of the House, I fear I cannot indulge my wish for such a debate, but I fully endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said about the importance of education.
Andrew Selous: Will the Leader of the House consider making time available to discuss the matter of enforcement in respect of the Child Support Agency? This is a serious issue for many hon. Members, and it is a matter of great concern that many mothers are unable to ensure payment from the fathers of their children. I know that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions is very concerned about that, and I believe that the matter should have an airing on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the first acts of this Government on taking office in 1997 was to reform the Child Support Act 1995, and ensure that we provided improvements. In my work in my constituency, I have noted a substantial decline in the number of people coming to me expressing concern—by contrast with what happened in the period immediately

407
after the previous Conservative Government introduced the legislation, when surgery time doubled because of complaints about the CSA. However, no one would deny that problems remain, and we are keen to make sure that we keep the matter under review. Where sensible improvements can be made, we will certainly want to make them.
Dr. Nick Palmer: There are still frequent reports that the US Government are considering military intervention in Iraq, with a view to replacing the Government there. My right hon. Friend will be aware that that development would be very controversial in this House. There is a possibility that it might happen during the summer recess. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the matter, so that hon. Members can give their views before the House rises?
Mr. Cook: Well, I cannot promise such a debate before the House rises. I said earlier that we already face a very congested period, and I think that I have clocked up enough bids for debate in the past 45 minutes to keep us here well into September. However, if any such action were to be taken during the recess, I should be very surprised if hon. Members did not demand that the House reconvene to consider it. At present, I do not anticipate that any such action will be taken. As I have said repeatedly to the House, no decision has been taken, and none may ever be taken.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a parliamentary first—a statement from the Advocate-General for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that Lord Nimmo Smith in the Court of Session yesterday ruled against the Advocate-General on the question of whether she should be involved in a case being brought in connection with the legislation outlawing fox hunting in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman will know too that Lord Hardie ruled against the Advocate-General on the same point a few months ago.
Several hon. Members have never been clear about what the Advocate-General's job involves and, if Lord Nimmo Smith and Lord Hardie are correct, it now appears that the Advocate-General is among that number. Can we have a statement to clarify just what she is here for?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a lawyer. I defer to his interest in the case. I am not sure that I would wish to encourage any of those of my hon. Friends who share the Government with me to come to the Dispatch Box to discuss an individual court case. I think that that would be ill advised, but I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate on early-day motion 1538 about Hoopers Employment Law Publicity?
[That this House believes that the service offered by Hoopers Employment Law Publicity Ltd to redundant workers in the City of Newport is of little or no value; further believes that the publicity promised by the company for tribunal cases is vastly overpriced at
408
£587.50 per worker and cannot be guaranteed; commends the splendid guidance and representation of 40 of those workers by the Newport Citizens Advice Bureau at no cost and urges other redundant people to seek advice and assistance from reputable groups such as the CABx.]
The firm wrote to recently redundant constituents of mine demanding £578 for a service which is likely to be of little or no value. Is not this particularly mean and despicable scam likely to impoverish people who are redundant and have already suffered severe financial losses, and who are in any case getting splendid advice from the Newport citizens advice bureau? Should we not advise any others who are redundant to avoid this particular company and seek advice from reputable organisations?
Mr. Cook: I am not aware of the company, so I cannot express a view on its merits or otherwise, but I am happy to endorse my hon. Friend's tribute citizens advice bureaux, whether in Newport or anywhere else. My hon. Friend asks for another debate on the subject. I remind the House that one of the great beauties of having a recess is that we have a half-day debate on the date of the recess when many of these matters can be pursued vigorously. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be delighted to give a full reply on that occasion.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the Leader of the House confirm that it remains Government policy that the next elections to the Scottish Parliament will be held on 1 May 2003? Can he take this opportunity to deny persistent rumours circulating in Scotland that that is a potential date for a euro referendum and would give the Presiding Officer the opportunity to vary the date of the next elections? Surely the Scottish people have every ability to pass decisive judgment on both the euro and the Scottish Executive on the same day.
Mr. Cook: The date for the Scottish parliamentary elections is not simply a matter of Government policy; it is a matter for legislation. I suspect it would require primary legislation to change the date and I know of no suggestions that it should be changed.
Kevin Brennan: I refer the House to last week's business questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's the tie?"] Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on early-day motion 1524 in my name, on the abdication of King Edward VIII?
[That this House believes in open government and the timely release of public documents of historical interest; notes recent allegations in the Press about the Nazi associations of Wallis Simpson from public archives in the United States of America-deplores the fact that people in Britain have to rely on overseas sources for information about their own history; and therefore calls for the immediate release of all currently closed United Kingdom public records relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII.]
Is my my right hon. Friend aware of the recent American press reports about the alleged Nazi links of Wallis Simpson? Despite the very appropriate sartorial tribute today from the shadow Leader of the House to our

409
American friends, is it not a disgrace that we must rely on a foreign Government for information on our own history?
Mr. Forth: At least I'm wearing a tie.
Mr. Cook: I can fully understand why some of my hon. Friends feel that they cannot compete with the right hon. Gentleman's ties, so may have given up on the effort. My hon. Friend raises a matter of history of which I am woefully ignorant and into which I would not wish to be drawn. I can think of more important, more urgent and more strategically significant things that I would wish to know about in history than the matter to which he draws attention.
Richard Younger-Ross: The Leader of the House is no doubt aware that in the Easter recess the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that she intended to remove the beer orders. The DTI has since had a consultation which finishes on 5 July. I understand that there is now a draft statutory instrument on the subject. Considering the concerns of the independent brewers and of the Campaign for Real Ale that this will seriously damage the small, independent, brewing industry, will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate in this Chamber and that the SI is not just pushed through in Committee?
Mr. Cook: I shall happily draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Personally I would be keen to make sure that we stay on side with those who support real ale and the many independent breweries. I am delighted that real ales are now more freely available in off-licences around the country. I would wish to see that continue rather than dwindle.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: When will the Government respond to the parliamentary ombudsman's grave criticisms of the Government today? The report on which the criticisms are based was brought out last autumn, yet there has been no response. This Parliament set up the parliamentary ombudsman and expects the Government to respond, but the Government will not make their response. It is all very well talking about freedom of information Acts, but should not the Government show them some real credence and deliver some access to information?
Mr. Cook: First of all, as the hon. Gentleman accurately and properly says, the report was laid today; it is therefore hardly surprising that at 1.24 pm we have not responded to it.
Mr. Robathan: When will you?
Mr. Cook: Not by 1.30 pm, I have to say. Of course we will respond to the ombudsman's report, as we always do. It is not a matter of my, or any other Minister's, having to stand here talking about the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We passed that Act. We have provided the greatest transparency and openness that this country has ever seen, and we have been far more transparent and open than the Conservative Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Points of Order
1.25 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order of which I have given you prior notice, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask a question on the theme of freedom of information and openness on the part of the Government, bearing in mind the gross discrepancy between a written answer that I received on 10 April from the Department for Education and Skills and the answer that I was given orally this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg). On 10 April, having asked the Government to set out how many teachers in maintained schools have been the victim of serious assaults by pupils or parents, I received this reply from the then Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms):
"My Department does not collect this information."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 195W.]
This morning, the Minister was able to give those figures, which he said were collected not by his Department but by the Health and Safety Executive. Can you give any guidance to Ministers about the importance of giving full and open responses to written questions, rather than being deliberately evasive and trying to hide the truth that we are trying to reveal in doing our duties in opposition?
Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that Ministers are expected to give full and open answers.
Mr. Eric Forth: But they don't.
Mr. Speaker: Ministers are expected to do so.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, for the first time in my experience, an hon. Member spoke in the Chamber without a tie. That may or not be the new standard. I know that from time to time you deal with the Chief Whips of the various parties, and it might be helpful if the dress code were made clear, especially to hon. Gentlemen, who have less ability to vary their clothing than hon. Ladies. If there is a change in dress code, that is fine by me. I will come in in my chinos and open-neck shirt—or maybe I will not. Either way, I should like to know what is expected of us. I have always thought that we had to wear a jacket and tie, at least.
Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Gentleman asks, my feeling would be that jackets and ties are best for hon. Gentlemen.
David Burnside: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 22 May I raised a point of order about the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not having answered my question on defining the status of the IRA ceasefire. Following your good offices, he immediately replied to me. In his reply, he said:
"We are reviewing our procedures to ensure that we avoid such omissions in the future".
I welcomed that—and thank you for your help on the matter, Mr. Speaker.

411
On 2 June 2002, I tabled another question to the Secretary of State:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will consult (a) the Northern Ireland Fireworks Association and (b) other interested parties"—
which he has a statutory obligation to do—about the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. In Northern Ireland, that is a matter of security importance, as well as being important in terms of the regulation and safe use of fireworks. I have received no answer from the Secretary of State. Could you give me some guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how I should take the matter further? If the Northern Ireland Office's performance in refusing to answer or avoiding questions continues, we might as well have a recess all year round.
Mr. Speaker: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to seek advice from the Table Office.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question concerns my constituent Mr. Phillips. I have already delivered to your office a catalogue and diary of the relevant events. My constituent's sheep were culled in a contiguous cull and his farm was sprayed with FAM30—a biocide, which happened to kill his worms, into which he had diversified. Because of that, perhaps the Ministry is taking his case lightly, although he is claiming £50,000 in compensation.
I have written to the Minister on countless occasions. I have received acknowledgements of my letters, but I have not received a reply to the kernel of the problem: Mr. Phillips's compensation claim. Indeed, I wrote again on 17 January, and finally on 24 January, my letter was acknowledged and a full reply promised. On 7 March, I tabled a written question to ask when that full reply might be forthcoming.
Finally, at the end of June, I received a reply, saying that, because my constituent had gone to a solicitor as he had received no reply, the Minister felt that the case was sub judice. I cannot think of anything else that I can do to encourage the Ministry to reply to my letters, and I wondered whether you, Mr. Speaker, might have any pearl of wisdom that you might wish to cast before us.
Mr. Speaker: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman has not received a reply. Of course he has put the matter on the record, but he could apply for an Adjournment debate—perhaps that would bring the Minister to the Floor of the House.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole House was very concerned
412
about the inadequate sentence in the rape case that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised in questioning the Solicitor-General. In her reply, the Solicitor-General explained that there were two possible courses of action: to extend the period of time in which application could be made to review the inadequate sentence, or to publicise the existing period of time. I do not know whether you noticed, Mr. Speaker, but in her answer the right hon. and learned Lady said that she inclined towards the former. However, she then went on to explain at length why she was recommending the latter. That was extremely confusing to the House on a matter of considerable concern, and I wonder whether the record can be clarified in any way.
Mr. Speaker: It could well have been a slip of the tongue by the Solicitor-General. I think that that was the case.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the parliamentary ombudsman is a servant of the House and is appointed by the House of Commons Commission. He certainly owes his allegiance to the Houses of Parliament. In the autumn, he placed a report in the Library because he could get no response from the Government. He has still received no response. Can you or the House of Commons Commission give him any advice on how he could get a response when he is carrying out his duties on behalf of the Houses of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: The ombudsman is an Officer of the House, but he is not appointed by the House of Commons Commission. The hon. Gentleman must keep pursuing the matter. If he feels disappointed by any reply regarding that matter that he has received today or from any Minister, he must keep pursuing it.

BILL PRESENTED
  WASTE (No. 2)
  Mr. Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to grant additional powers to local authorities in England and Wales for the enforcement of controls and for the prosecution of offences relating to the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste and the transporting of controlled waste without registering; to amend the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 162].
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Not amended in the Committee and as amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

  Finance Bill
    New Clause 23

      ROLLOVER OF CASH FROM ISAs AND TESSAs INTO SECURITIES
      '.—(1) There shall be inserted into the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998, No. 1870) following Regulation 9 (qualifying investments for an insurance component)—
      "Qualifying transfers from cash component to stocks and shares component
      9A.—(1) This regulation permits investments originally made under the cash component of an account or under a TESSA only account to be transferred into the stocks and shares component of an account.
      (2) Where on or after 1st October 2002 an account investor makes an election under this regulation in respect of an account then—

      (a) the amount of the qualifying investments then held under the cash component of the relevant account as is specified in the election; or

      (b) the amount of the funds then held under a TESSA only account as is specified in the election,

      may be applied in purchasing investments which are qualifying investments for a stocks and shares component, within the meaning of regulation 7.
      (3) The funds applied as mentioned in paragraph (2) shall be regarded as having always been validly made into the stocks and shares component of an account and any amount so transferred shall not count towards the subscription limits in regulation 4(2) and (3)(a) as the case may be.
      (4) An election made under this regulation shall be made in writing to the relevant account manager and must fulfil the conditions set out in paragraphs (5) and (6) below.
      (5) The election must satisfy such requirements under regulation 12 as would apply to an application to subscribe for a stocks and shares component of a new account.
      (6) The election must specify—

      (a) the cash component of the account or TESSA only account, as the case may be, out of which the transfer is to be made; and

      (b) the amount of funds to be transferred (not to exceed the maximum amount then held in that account).

      (7) The election made as described in paragraph (2) above shall be irrevocable."
      (2) This section comes into force on 1st October 2002.'.— [Mr. Flight.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.33 pm
      Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 23 is a straightforward and down-to-earth probing suggestion. PEPs, followed by ISAs, have been very successful in attracting large numbers of people, extending down into society, to the savings habit. The structure of ISAs has been perhaps more complicated than many people might like, although that structure was chosen for good reasons.
      414
      As hon. Members will know, mini and maxi ISAs are available. People can invest £3,000 in mini ISAs, all of which can be in cash, and a maximum of £3,000 cash can be invested in maxi ISAs. Historically, people also have cash savings under TESSAs. When those cash savings mature after five years, the interest can no longer be part of the contract, but the principal element can be carried forward into a cash ISA. Perhaps I should have started by declaring an interest in accordance with my entry in the register, although the matter that I am raising is purely practical.
      The issue is that once people lock into the cash element of a savings plan, they cannot move out of cash into securities. In the current economic climate people will understandably be cautious and will want to stay in cash. As times move on, however, and as markets go up and down, people may want to move into securities. Indeed, the original purpose of PEPs and ISAs was to encourage investment in securities and not just in cash. The cost to the Revenue can be more in relation to cash, as the amount of tax-free interest is usually greater than the level of dividends paid on equities.
      The new clause simply proposes that people who have their cash element in mini and maxi ISAs, and in maturing TESSAs, should, if they wish, be able to invest that cash in securities, but not revert to cash in the future. Although, in principle, it might appeal to people to be able to move all the time between cash and securities, that poses both tax and administrative problems.
      The House will be aware of the need to boost savings in this country; perhaps the savings rate should not be boosted by too much in the next few years, as that may cause a recession, but it has fallen to too low a level. I accept, however, that we face difficult and out of the ordinary circumstances in the financial markets.
      I repeat that the new clause is a simple, probing amendment. I understand that there may be some degree of support for the idea in the Treasury and in the Revenue, and it would not amount to an additional cost to the Exchequer—if anything, it might be to the Revenue's advantage. I hope that the Minister will respond supportively. I candidly do not know whether the new clause is perfect or imperfect; I expect that it is imperfect, as it is on a difficult, technical matter. What it proposes, however, is eminently clear.
      Rob Marris: I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has at last put forward an amendment that might—I stress the word "might"—have a beneficial effect on many of my constituents, because the issue affects many of them. I shall be interested to hear what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says about it.
      Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. May I make the point that a healthy and strong British economy is of enormous benefit not just to all of his constituents but to every other individual? There are many issues that may appear to be macro rather than micro ones, but they are all about the efficient working and prosperity of our economy.
      Rob Marris: Those are interesting words from the hon. Gentleman, as I am not sure that they will be a sequitur to what I am about to say. I sat through most of the debate

      415
      on the Finance Bill yesterday, the last four new clauses put forward by the hon. Gentleman—new clause 10 on attribution of gains to members of non-resident companies; new clause 11 on capital allowances for expensive cars; new clause 12 on investment companies and trading companies; and new clause 13 on stamp duty exemption on disposal of substantial shareholding—appeared to deal with taxation issues for the very rich, which do not affect many of my constituents. When I put that to the hon. Gentleman last night, he said:
      "These clauses have been proposed by the non-political and unbiased Chartered Institute of Taxation".—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 357.]
      I have no doubt that they were. Interestingly, two debates later, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) moved new clause 19. He said, at column 361—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could now move on to discuss new clause 23.
      Rob Marris: May I briefly finish my point, Madam Deputy Speaker? The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was entitled "Simpler Tax Assessment for Low-income Pensioners", and it was also suggested by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Was this new clause suggested by the institute or does the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs take up the institute's proposals only when they deal with the very rich?
      Mr. Flight: That is a pretty poor line of attack. I do not think that my track record illustrates what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply. This new clause covers a matter that has been discussed widely within the Revenue and other bodies. It has nothing to do with the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
      Rob Marris: I am grateful for that clarification. Perhaps we can now move on to debate this important subject.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I am pleased that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) recognises the important contribution that ISAs make to our savings strategy. I recognise his long-standing interest in these issues, and I know that he takes a keen interest in the workings of the ISA market. He has outlined the reasons for the new clauses, which would affect ISAs and TESSA-only ISAs. From what he said, I gather that its essence would be to allow tax-privileged cash savings to be converted into stocks and shares ISAs through what would essentially be a one-way valve. It would not then be possible to convert the equity investments back into cash.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned current market conditions and the encouragement to cash investors to diversify their savings into equities. As he recognised, there are difficulties with the drafting of the new clause. It is a little unclear what it is precisely intended to achieve. However, I have listened with interest to his proposals. As ISAs are such an important part of our savings strategy and have already extended the opportunity to save to new
      416
      groups of people—particularly those on lower incomes, women and previous non-savers—we consider the rules governing ISAs extremely carefully and keep them constantly under review.
      We would have to consider the issues and implications relating to the new clause. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are prepared to consider, in principle, his proposals along with other changes to the ISA regime, which may become possible when the review of the polarisation regime concludes following the Financial Services Authority's recent consultation paper. We take these issues seriously and we want to encourage savings. ISAs form a major plank of our savings policy, so we will keep the issues under review.
      Mr. Flight: I thank the Financial Secretary for her comments. Do not take too long, however, because many citizens in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) might think, as and when markets recover, that it was a pity that they were totally locked into cash savings. I am glad that the Government are interested in pursuing the idea in principle. I made it clear that it was a probing new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 24

      SIMPLIFYING MARRIED COUPLES ALLOWANCES
      '(1) Section 257A of the Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows—
      (2) In subsection (2) the amount specified for the year 2002–03 shall be £5,535.
      (3) Omit subsections (3) and (4).
      (4) In subsection (6), after the words "entitled to relief under this section", leave out from "this section shall have effect" to the end of the subsection, and insert—
      "he shall be entitled to the relief under this section as if he had been married throughout the year of assessment.".'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) may be pleased to learn that the new clause results from another suggestion made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. It was not suggested by the institute's Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which was the genesis of the two new clauses that I moved last night, but by the institute's campaign for simpler taxation. This evolving campaign has a manifesto for tax simplification, and this new clause derives from the proposals for personal tax quick wins. It does not really distinguish between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, because both groups would potentially gain. One change in new clause 24 would lead to a gain of the princely sum of £7 per annum for pensioners aged between 65 and 74. That is not a huge amount, although £7 is arguably worth more to someone on a low income than to those on a higher income.
      1.45 pm
      The institute is keen on the changes in new clause 24 because it wants to simplify the tax system in simple

      417
      ways—for example, by reducing the number of boxes on the self-assessment form that drops through so many letter boxes every year, by reducing the number of civil servants who have to wade through the forms and by saving time in the private sector. Every year, we need to consider how we can simplify the tax system, and new clause 24 contains two simple proposals for advancing that agenda.
      Both proposals relate to the married couples allowance, which was recently restricted to 10 per cent. and has now been restricted to pensioners and those who were born before a certain year. That strengthens the case for reform, because the allowance is effectively withering on the vine. While it remains with us, it makes sense to make its administration as simple as possible. At the moment, different rates for the married couples allowance apply to different ages of pensioner. Someone aged between 64 and 75 in the fiscal year 2002–03 has a married couples allowance of £5,465, which is £70 lower than the rate for pensioners aged 75 or above, who receive an allowance of £5,535.
      New clause 24 seeks to equalise the allowance at the higher rate. That is not a very generous change, because it would be worth only £7 a year, but it would mean that the coding that pensioners receive would not need to be changed. Savings would also be made in the production of the self-assessment form. The CIT suggested that it would remove at least one box from the form. Coupled with other simplifications that the institute suggests, 22 boxes and one whole page could be removed from the tax form and guide. This proposal is a small step towards meeting that objective.
      The second proposal is perhaps more interesting. At the moment, if a pensioner who is eligible for married couples allowance marries, he or she can receive only a proportion of the allowance in the year of the marriage. That necessitates a complicated calculation that requires five boxes on the form and half a page in the tax guide to explain. That is a waste of time. It is an unnecessary calculation, because there cannot be that many pensioners who marry aged 66 or above.
      The amount that the Exchequer would lose by the proposed change would be tiny. The new child's tax credit will not have an in-year restriction, so the change would bring the remaining age-related married couples allowance in line with the Government's legislation elsewhere and would be a slight bonus for pensioners getting married. It could not be described as giving a huge tax incentive to pensioners to rush out and wed, but it would remove complications and give them a little extra to spend on their honeymoon. I hope the Paymaster General will take the new clause in the spirit in which it is intended, so that we simplify the tax system for elderly people.
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I am afraid that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his plans to alter the married couples allowance. We have discussed the systematic approach to simplifying the system before on the Floor of the House. For example, yesterday we debated making it easier for pensioners and others to comply with their obligations in the self-assessment system. I am a little surprised at his piecemeal approach to a project that he expects the Government to approach systematically and thoroughly. His suggestions are out of context.
      418
      It is important to remind the House of the status of the married couples allowance. The hon. Gentleman said that it sits with the priorities of Government policy, but it is difficult to understand how that can be justified. The married couples allowance has been abolished for the vast majority of married couples for good reasons. He is confusing two things: the approach to simplifying the tax system where possible, and whether it is good policy to amend an allowance that has been abolished for everyone else.
      The previous Government reduced the value of the married couples allowance for a number of years before it was phased out. In the end, the allowance did not merely support marriage; it could also be given to single parents and unmarried people who were living together. That reflected the piecemeal approach of altering and fine tuning a particular relief, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants to do.
      The Government replaced the married couples allowance with the child's tax credit and other changes to the tax system to support families with children. They decided that it was correct to protect the position of elderly people who were in receipt of the higher age-related married couples allowance. It is not right in principle to go beyond the commitment to maintain the position of those pensioners in the name of simplification, and I do not think that the new clause would provide us with that in the long run.
      A line has to be drawn and logic applied. I would hardly describe having two rates of the married couples allowance which are dependent on age as complex, although I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about the form and the boxes in the self-assessment requirement. However, that goes back to the principle, which we discussed again yesterday, that it is more important for the Revenue and the Government to approach the problem of the form's complexity by asking whether we are asking for information that we do not require and whether we can remove people completely from the tax system. It is not a matter of tinkering around with the tax relief itself.
      The hon. Gentleman rightly said that it is a relatively low-cost proposal. It is. However, I remind him that most pensioners already do not pay tax. The Government's approach to the question of support for pensioners has been extremely clear, not only in the raising of allowances but in the introduction of pension credit and minimum income guarantee, and in the numerous other ways that the Government are supporting pensioners, especially the very poorest. We are now spending an extra £6 billion a year from April as a result of the tax and benefit changes that we have made.
      I entirely appreciate and accept the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's point, which is to continue to keep the pressure on the Government to simplify the system wherever we can, but I think that he falls into the very trap into which he argues that the Government should not fall: that is, to tinker for the short term without taking a strategic approach to wider questions.
      With regret, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—I know that he sincerely advocates this line—that I am not prepared to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should accept the clause. If there were a vote, I would ask them to vote against. I believe that what I said last night is a much better way to approach the matter,

      419
      namely, the work that the Inland Revenue has undertaken with TaxAid, with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group and the Working Together Group. That is the best way forward, and the new clause is not.
      Mr. Flight: The point that others have raised before becomes all the more important given the pension crisis and the fact that many people will not get the pensions that they expected. There are many who are already drawing pensions who will not get the increases that they expect.
      Certainly people older than 50 or 55 have saved for their old age, to the extent that they have made such savings, on the assumption that the married couples allowance would be there when they retired. When it was taken away rather arbitrarily and cut at the age of those born in 1935, that recognised that principle but a great raft of people were excluded who had still been making their retirement plans and their saving plans on the reasonable assumption that the allowance was a main part of the income tax system.
      When the Government think about their fundamental reforms, perhaps they would have to give a different—
      Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain why the Conservative Government reduced significantly the value of the married couples allowance. If the principle that he is now advocating applied, why did it not apply when the Conservatives were reducing the allowance from 40 per cent. to 10 per cent?
      Mr. Flight: That to which I think the Minister refers essentially did not affect the great majority of retired people. In relation to the tax credit, it affected those who were younger and earning more money. Secondly, for better or worse, the changes were phased.
      For those who have retired and for whom the married couples allowance was higher, that allowance was a material factor in terms of their disposable incomes. When the Minister finally got rid of the allowance, that significance was acknowledged in terms of increasing support for children, although people had to wait a year. The argument was that the moneys were better paid to children than to parents. For those who were retired, and particularly for the great bulk of people in the middle, I am not aware that there was any substitute for the loss of the married couples allowance.
      2 pm
      Perhaps the reform which the Minister plans to look at would need a different name to save face. Given the great fears and concerns of huge numbers of people over 50 about the value of their pension on retirement, the Minister should look at the problem urgently to alleviate it and honour the basis on which people saved for their retirement. It may be worth while incorporating the new clause in such reform, as there is little logic in having an allowance which changes slightly according to age, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out. However, the more important aspect of the proposal is the restoration of something analogous to the older persons' marriage allowance.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome the fact that the Paymaster General repeated her assurance of last night
      420
      that the Government will undertake a wide-ranging review to try to see whether the elderly person's experience of filling in tax returns and dealing with the Inland Revenue and other tax authorities could be improved by making the forms simpler and fairer. I am sure that her comments will be welcomed by people outside the House who read them.
      I obviously disagree with the Paymaster General's description of the new clause 24 as "tinkering" with the allowance. She graciously pointed out last night that I have pursued these issues for a number of years, so I hope she accepts that I am a little impatient for the overall review and a full examination of the problem. I do not apologise for a proposal of modest chunks, which would not be costly for the Exchequer. I am trying to get the Government to move a bit further as we wait for the review.
      It is a good idea to conduct a review with a wide-ranging remit, as tax simplification at all levels is about a process, not an event. We therefore need to come back to it every year and find out whether we could dispense with things that would help us to get rid of a box on the form, a page in the guidance notes or pages in the tax statute books.
      Dawn Primarolo: I concur with the hon. Gentleman, who has a long track record of pursuing the issue. As I said at 12.15 am today, we should ask first whether everyone in the self-assessment system should be part of it. If not, we should remove them from the system. Secondly, we should consider whether the form is too complex and asks for too much information or information that is not required. Consequently, we may find that changes may need to be made to the relief itself. The process is continuous—I have no qualms at all about admitting that, and have no complaints about the hon. Gentleman continuing to press me on the matter.
      I hope that I have clarified the Government's approach and explained why the new clause would make an unacceptable change to the principle of the married couples allowance. However, I agree entirely that there is not a big bang solution to the issue.
      Mr. Davey: The Minister and I agree about a lot. I accept her assurance from last night that the approach is to remove as many people as possible from the self-assessment system. However, we can envisage a different way of assessing tax for people on lower incomes. We can imagine two types of self-assessment forms, such as many other countries have. However, I do not disagree with the thrust of the Minister's remarks, given our present tax and pay-as-you-earn systems. The process underlying her thinking is correct.
      I still do not accept the Paymaster General's argument that new clause 24 is inconsistent with the Government's chosen path. It is consistent with that. I do not seek to change the Government's stated policy on married couples allowances, for which we voted. It was an overdue reform and while one can quibble about the way in which the Government went about it, particularly the delay, it was certainly needed and got money to children, which was an aim that we shared. I do not seek to go back over that ground.

      421
      The Government said stay on the statute book and that it will wither away over the years, but while it is there—it will be with us for two or three decades—it should be made as simple to operate as possible, and that was the intention behind the new clause.
      I know that the Paymaster General will not accept it today, but I have raised the issue. I have also raised the more strategic issue that the Chartered Institute of Taxation, like other tax professional bodies, is considering this area of simplification and coming up with a series of quick win, simple measures which the Government could embrace, thereby gaining political advantage. If the Government take up the institute's ideas, it will do not just the tax system but the Government good.
      As the Paymaster General has been generous in explaining how she sees Government policy unfolding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

    Clause 3

      DUTY ON BEVERAGES MADE WITH SPIRITS TO BE AT SPIRITS RATES
      Mr. Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 20 to 25.
      This is a debate about flavoured alcoholic beverages, otherwise known as FABs, but it might better take its title from another late-night beverage, Horlicks, because the Government have made a total horlicks of this provision in the Budget.
      Clause 3 introduces a tax increase of 64 per cent.— the highest percentage increase—which is about a 12p duty increase on a standard bottle of one of these beverages. The Government justified that extraordinarily high increase in the explanatory notes on clause 3, which states that between 1999 and 2001
      "the standard pub retail price"—
      of spirit-based coolers—
      "rose by around 60 pence per bottle, despite the level of duty falling in real-terms. Tax as a proportion of the retail price is now lower for spirit-based designer drinks than for any other type of alcoholic drink in both the on and off-trades."
      Based on that information, the Government said:
      "it is no longer possible to justify the concessionary duty treatment for this particular class of spirit drinks."
      In Committee, I and other members of the Committee challenged the accuracy of the facts used by the Government to justify this massive increase in duty, which, incidentally, was introduced without any consultation with the industry. The problems that have followed would not have occurred if there had been proper consultation. I accept that the Government did not deliberately get the figures in a mess, but they were negligent because, had they had proper discussions, there would not have been this misunderstanding.
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the Government for lack of consultation, provided that he is attacking the 1996 Budget statement, which also introduced a major increase in tax on those drinks without any prior consultation. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman complaining about that.
      Mr. Chope: Sadly, I was not in the House in 1996. If I had been, I am sure that I would have been alert to
      422
      that matter. As the Committee heard, when I represented Southampton, Itchen—I did so until 1992—one of the largest manufacturing plants producing the beverages was situated there. It has also emerged, however, that the current incumbent, the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, last year opened a new production facility in the area and praised the company and work force in respect of the extra jobs that would be created by the investment, but did not say anything at that time about the fact that the Government had it in mind to change the duty regime and threaten that investment.
      On 18 June, the Economic Secretary finally admitted that the Government were wrong and that the Opposition were right about whether there had been an increase of 60p or 20p in the retail price of coolers between 1999 and 2001. He said that in 1999–2001, the retail price of coolers went up not by 60p, but by an amount
      "closer to the 20p figure suggested by the industry."
      I understand that the exact figure is 20.7p—20p is almost spot on—rather than 60p. That represents a compound interest increase of about 6 per cent. over three years. To put it in context, that is slightly less than the average increase in council tax over the same period.
      Rob Marris: I wonder whether this could be a question of mixing apples and oranges. The explanatory notes refer to the standard pub retail prices, but is the hon. Gentleman referring to the retail price in, say, a shop, or to a pub retail price? As we all know, pub retail prices can be more expensive and can increase at a greater rate.
      Mr. Chope: I am referring, as the Economic Secretary was, to the retail prices cited in the explanatory notes. The Economic Secretary has admitted—as a member of the Committee, the hon. Gentleman will have received a copy of the letter that he sent to me—that the note in question was incorrect in its reference to an increase of 60p, and that the figure is closer to the 20p suggested by the industry.
      After being forced to admit that there was such a gross error in the calculations, any decent Government would have apologised to the industry, consumers and Parliament. They would have withdrawn the proposal and deferred a decision on any tax increase while reassessing the impact of the evidence. However, I am sorry to say that that is not what the Government did; indeed, that is not the way in which they operate. The Economic Secretary had the gall to say in his letter to me:
      "I want to assure you that—while regrettable—this error does not affect our rationale for this change or its estimated impact."
      What a contrast with what the Chief Secretary, formerly the Financial Secretary, told us in Committee on 14 May:
      "One of the key issues for consideration was whether the coolers market could support the removal of the concession. Our evidence showed that it could. There is nothing improper about considering whether a market can bear the burden of taxation. Between 1999 and 2001, the consumption of coolers more than doubled, and during that period, the average pub price of a bottle of coolers rose by 60p per bottle. Some hon. Members with peerages suggested that the increase was closer to 20p, but I have to tell them that the figure of 60p comes directly from an analysis of market research data by the Office for National Statistics. Customs has discussed that figure with the industry and I am confident that agreement will be reached to clear up confusion on the part of Opposition Members."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 May 2002; c. 47.]
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in price as a key issue for consideration, but when the figure was proved incorrect, what did the new Minister say'? He did

      423
      not say that he was sorry and that he would go back to the drawing board. Instead, he is still blustering away, arguing that nothing has changed and that the previous arguments still apply.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Rob Marris rose—
      Mr. Chope: I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
      Mr. Davey: I want to back up the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument by saying that, when the Committee questioned the Minister closely on the underlying rationale behind this change in the tax regime, he relied heavily on this piece of evidence. We were surprised, because there had been a change in the underlying rationale of the taxation of alcohol in other areas. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is right, and the fact that the Government have been found out suggests that this has nothing to do with rational taxation, and more to do with a raid on people's purses.
      Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is apparent that the Government are motivated by prejudice rather than reason. That is their driving force, and, as so often happens, that prejudice is tinged with a certain amount of arrogance—the inevitable ingredient of this Government.
      Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman quoted the Minister referring in Committee—I recall being there—to one of the factors. The other factor referred to in the explanatory notes is the chief medical officer's report of 2001, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was only one reason for the Government adopting this approach does not sit well with what we were told in Committee, or what is said in the explanatory notes about the health aspect of the issue.
      Mr. Chope: I have not said that that was the only justification; there were two justifications. But, in Committee—the hon. Gentleman was there; he will remember this—the Minister had to back-pedal pretty rapidly on the assertion that there was some reason for raising the tax on this particular kind of drink, when it became apparent that certain lagers and ciders with a much higher alcohol content were less highly taxed. The Minister moved back from the position of saying that the provision could be justified as a way of addressing binge drinking. Indeed, the Government's argument in Committee was that the consequence of this steep increase in tax would not involve any reduction in the consumption of coolers.
      Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The health argument put forward by the Government was put in total disarray by the fact that they had been arguing for a reduction in tax on cider. According to the chief medical officer—and evidence, no doubt, from all our
      424
      constituencies—cider is a drink most associated with teenagers and with binge drinking. So the Government's coherence on this issue is, frankly, non-existent.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing that point. Much as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) may try to argue the Government's case, I am afraid that the Government abandoned that particular ground in Committee, relying heavily on the 60p increase over the three-year period. Now, when that has been found to be totally wrong, they have resorted to bluster and other arguments.
      Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Chope: Not at the moment; I must make some progress. I am sure that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make his own speech later.
      The Government are still saying that the Budget duty increase will have little impact on the demand for coolers. That is why their argument that this would be a good way of addressing binge drinking is obviously ludicrous. A number of people who produce these drinks have written letters of complaint. One such letter comes from Bill Oddy, the managing director of a relatively small firm, employing about nine people. He says in his letter:
      "We believe that this decision is unfair to the consumer and, since these products are price sensitive, will have a seriously adverse effect on our industry and those related to it, including producers, bottlers and glassware manufacturers, many of them SMEs"—
      small and medium-sized enterprises—
      "who have enjoyed UK-based success in recent years bringing jobs and prosperity here. This success countered a large influx of foreign bottled beers in the late 1980s which saw UK bottlers and glass makers hit a low point."
      He goes on to say how disappointed he was that this measure was brought in without any consultation.
      In Committee, the Minister argued that the concerns of the industry were of no moment whatever. He quoted Karen Salters of Beverage Brands, using her words to make this assertion:
      "I do not think that anyone could argue that the measure will be an inhibitor on the business and will cost jobs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 May 2002; c. 45.]
      We were slightly dumbfounded by that, so we looked up the whole quote. We found that Karen Salters said quite the reverse of what the Minister attributed to her, as she described the measure as wholly unjust and said that it would
      "stimulate a shakeout in the trade as smaller."
      producers
      "will not be able to weather the increased duty demands".
      So, Karen Salters was arguing that the measure would put the small businesses under pressure, if not out of business, but the Minister used her words, selectively quoted, to justify quite the reverse proposition. I am afraid that it is not good enough for the Government, who should act responsibly, to address serious arguments by using selective quotes that really are critical of their policy and try to turn them round so that they seem supportive.
      We are arguing that the Government should make a fresh start with the issue, because there is confusion between what is a spirituous drink and a made wine.

      425
      There was no problem over that before, because both products were in the same tax category. Now, people will be able to use spirits as a base, mix them with wine and market them without having to pay the higher tax set out in clause 3.
      To do so, however, people will have to agree their formulae and recipes with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I shall not trouble the House with the detail, but I have here a letter from Steve Nicholson, who is in charge of alcohol and tobacco regimes, which gives guidance on the excise duty liability of spirit-based drinks after the Budget. It runs to about three and a half pages. The guidance is incredibly vague, and because it is so vague it introduces uncertainty—indeed, it is oppressive for those who are trying to invest in the industry. That is another powerful argument for the Government going back to the drawing board, holding discussions with the industry and trying to achieve a just and fair result.
      The Government have asserted fairness, consistency and consultation, and that is what we think they should deliver on the issue. Paragraph 7 of the Customs and Excise 2002 Budget press release says:
      "The Government has taken consistent steps to deliver a fairer balance in the burden of taxation falling on different alcoholic drinks and on different types of drink producers."
      They can be true to those words only by withdrawing clause 3.
      Mr. Iain Luke: Although I support the Government proposal and oppose the Opposition amendment, I speak as an individual and as a concerned parent who has served locally as a councillor for a long time. I have seen the trends—perhaps not those in other parts of the country, but those in Scotland, where alcopops or coolers have become the predominant drink taken up by youngsters. The Treasury explanatory notes show that uptake of alcopops has doubled, but I do not believe that the increase in cider uptake, especially in my part of the world, is comparable. Such arguments are fatuous.
      During my time in Committee, I came to hold the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in very high regard. I believe that they are decent, polite and knowledgeable adversaries, but this advocacy of the amendment on behalf of the drinks industry does them and their party no particular credit.
      Chris Grayling: What the hon. Gentleman says about alcopops in his part of the world may be true. None the less, does he accept the comments about cider made in Committee by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and by me? Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that a strategy that cuts duty on one type of strong drink and raises it on another has no consistency, either in protecting industries or in protecting young people?
      Mr. Luke: I am happy with my view on drinks taxation: it should be uniform and it should be high to discourage a large uptake, although I enjoy a beverage occasionally. Specifically, drinks targeted on and taken up by the young must be addressed, so I hope that those on the Front Bench take on board the points made by the hon. Gentleman and review the matter. I am setting out my concerns about the situation in my area.
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): On the objection raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and echoed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), does my hon. Friend recognise that the chief medical officer's annual report for 2001 expressed concern about binge drinking and young drinkers? It also mentioned designer drinks, but it did not mention cider.
      Mr. Luke: I acknowledge those points.
      Mr. Tom Harris: Like me, my hon. Friend was present for the first couple of Committee sittings. He may recall the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) pointing out that alcopops are a particular favourite drink of members of Christchurch Conservative club. My hon. Friend may also remember that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) subsequently pointed out the 11.7 per cent. swing from the Liberal Democrats to the Conservatives in the Christchurch constituency at the 2001 general election. Does my hon. Friend agree that there may be a causal link between those two facts?
      Mr. Luke: I am not particularly aware of the political situation in the Christchurch constituency, but I remember the informative and polite exchange between the hon. Member for Christchurch and me on that specific issue. I shall return to it, because certain elements must be addressed.
      The Government's proposals have merit in several areas and they deserve universal support in the House. First, there is an anomaly in the tax regime that should be addressed. Secondly, given how such drinks are marketed and targeted, specifically at the younger drinker, there are moral and health imperatives to introduce this tax change. Any price increase may restrict access and discourage the purchase of what is a particularly addictive drink by the most vulnerable, young and often under-age consumers.
      I was brought up in a strongly Presbyterian household, where the consumption of strong drink was frowned upon, but I must confess that I have lapsed from those strict religious leanings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] One has to be open and honest in the House. I have become more of an irregular Episcopalian in later years. Like many of my generation, I was introduced to the demon drink through the accepted convention in Scotland at that time—sipping lager and lime.
      That mixed drink was commonly how young, inexperienced drinkers came to grips, for better or for worse, with the initially harsh taste of alcohol on the younger, more innocent palate. Alcohol was made much more acceptable by the use of a sweetener, and a dash of lime cost one old penny. Times have moved on, however, and the market has become more sophisticated. Young people today have much more money than the youngsters of my generation could ever have dreamed of.
      Rob Marris: Because of the Labour Government.
      Mr. Luke: Yes. More young people, often at an early age, are encouraged to take a drink whose true strength is often masked by sweetness, which is the basis of alcopops or coolers. Such drinks can have an impact on a younger person's health owing to greater intake prompted by sweetness and accessibility, and that can cause serious damage in later life.

      427
      The habit is strengthened through the fashionable image given to such drinks by high-profile marketing campaigns undertaken by the producers of the commodity who are promoting opposition to the tax change. Again, that marketing is aimed solely at the young and the partying life that they are so desperate to enjoy as an introduction to adulthood.
      2.30 pm
      Life for the young, if it is anything, is an experience to be enjoyed to the full, with little thought for the consequences of their lifestyle. Ageing can be a difficult process, but it can also be educative. The hon. Member for Christchurch entertained us in Committee by revealing the drinking habits of members of the Christchurch Conservative club, where, he said,
      "every hour is a happy hour".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 May 2002: c. 33.]
      It seems, however, that in that club the ageing and educative process I have described stands still.
      It also emerged from our Committee debate on clause 3 that the favourite alcopop—or cooler, as it is described in the Christchurch Conservative club—is a drink called WKD.
      Mr. John Bercow: I feel duty bound to defend the honour and integrity of the upstanding—even after their consumption of alcohol—members of the Christchurch Conservative club. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) secured the result he secured because of the inactivity of those members, who were busily engaged in another pursuit, and that he recognises that they were celebrating the success of their efforts to increase his majority?
      Mr. Luke: That was an entertaining intervention. The formula succeeded in Christchurch, and may indeed be adopted by other Conservative clubs to ensure success at the next general election.
      In Committee my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was quick—perhaps too quick—to let us know that another name for WKD was Wicked. As that libation is based on a mixture of vodka and Irn Bru, the more the Christchurch Conservative club consume it, the more the people of Scotland—where Irn Bru originates—will celebrate. Given the state of the Conservative party nationally, other Conservative clubs may seek to emulate the Christchurch club's intake of WKD. Irn Bru, which purports to be made of girders, could go a long way towards stiffening the Conservatives' performance at the next general election.
      The more serious comments I made in Committee still stand, despite the changes contained in the explanatory notes and mentioned in letters from Ministers. Whatever the price increases involved, such are the sales of coolers—promoted through the "happy hours" more commonly found in student union and trend-setting bars than in the Christchurch Conservative club—and the heavy discounts to encourage overall sales and increase bar takings, that those changes will have no significant impact on jobs in the company that produces them. The Opposition's main argument against the tax increase was that jobs would be lost.
      428
      Those who take time to study local off-sales will find that nine times out of 10 there is a cut-price offer on drinks of this kind. Marketing techniques and fashionable images aimed at the young have led them to start drinking, which often—although not always—results in a catalogue of disorderly acts, especially among young females. Drinkers in that particular group have also fallen prey to a range of well-documented drink problems in later life, which may lead to criminal activity and health problems.
      It is outrageous of the Conservative party to support an amendment of this kind. The proposal should be seen for what it is. It is not accepted by the vast majority of the population, I think it deserves little sympathy in the House, and I am sure that it will find little sympathy among my many constituents. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
      Mr. Edward Davey: It is tempting to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) with accounts of my own revelries as a youngster, or of revelries I have observed in various political clubs across the country. I am sorry not to share my memories of those enjoyable events, but I want to take up some of the serious points that the hon. Gentleman made so well.
      It is true that there is a problem of binge drinking. It is true that many youngsters have a bit more money in their pockets than they had a few years ago, and—partly owing to advertising campaigns—are choosing to spend it on alcohol. I think, however, that alcohol problems extend across the age spectrum. Having spoken to magistrates and police in my area, I understand that alcohol is the drug behind most offences, especially violent offences, both in the home and on the streets. I am sure that the same applies in all constituencies, and I am sure that members of all parties accept that it is a problem.
      What we must decide now is how to tax alcohol in general. There are many types of alcohol, as our debates have revealed. I did not know that this "Wicked" drink existed, and I certainly did not know that it contained girders or Irn Bru. I now know that there is a huge variety of alcoholic drinks that people can purchase.
      Parliament, the Government and Customs and Excise really must develop an overall approach to alcohol taxation. I see no consistency or coherence in the present policy. Should there be changes in the retail price? The Government initially said that that was behind the strategy. Should the tax be based on alcohol content, on competition between different products, or on the impact of smuggling or cross-border shopping? There are a number of possibilities.
      The decision on which drinks should be taxed most heavily might indeed be based on health findings, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggested, but the Government have produced no such rationale. They have made no clear statement since their election in 1997. They have not said "Here we have a number of alcoholic products, which are varied and which are changing. Here is our overall strategy for taxing alcohol." Theirs has been a piecemeal, reactive approach, driven more by revenue-raising considerations than by anything connected with such matters as health.
      I accept that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has good intentions, but I think it unfair to castigate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) or, indeed, to describe other Conservatives who oppose the present

      429
      position as "outrageous". We share the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we are trying to probe the Government. We are asking for consistency and coherence in an important policy area.
      I shall not repeat points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, which appeared in briefings I received from the industry and which the hon. Gentleman made very well. Let me, however, refer to an example on which he touched but did not dwell. Changes such as this have an impact on the market. The associations are worried because they fear that people may switch from coolers to wine-based drinks. As a result of a ministerial decision, Customs and Excise is having to grapple with the business of labelling and categorising, and with trading standards in the regulations, when dealing with different types of drink. When the market was taxed uniformly, some of those problems did not arise. Now Customs officers must—as the hon. Member for Christchurch pointed out—deal with such matters as the difference between spirituous drink and made wine. Even from the briefings that I have received, I know that the issue is incredibly complicated. It is not yet clear what form the regulations will take. They are still under discussion because the matter is so complicated.
      When such a tax change is made, with all its implications for the market, one has to question its root cause. The Government have not given us a good reason for this change. I am not suggesting that it is easy to achieve consistency in this area, but I am pushing the Government for it, because if we do not get it we will have little changes every year that will affect relative prices, market shares and investment decisions.
      We want to avoid such uncertainty. If we want a thriving drinks industry, which I am sure the hon. Member for Dundee, East wants, despite his reservations about some of the outcomes, we have to allow it to plan and invest and take strategic decisions. Unless there is a long-term strategy on the taxation of alcohol, problems will arise. We are worried because the Government have not shown that. That is why it is right for us to probe them further on the matter today.
      John Healey: This has been a useful short debate, although it reopens discussion on a matter that was extensively dealt with in Committee. The amendment is designed to achieve the same result as Opposition Members wanted then: to allow spirit-based coolers—or alcopops, or FABs, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) called them—to retain the concessionary duty treatment that they have enjoyed since 1988 and to continue to be treated in the same way as low-alcohol wines.
      It is clear that the pretext for reopening the argument is the fact that since we debated the clause in Committee, the Office for National Statistics has uncovered a mathematical error in the data that it supplied to Customs before the Budget, concerning increases in the retail price of coolers between 1999 and 2001. I was disappointed by what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said. He is normally rational and moderate, but to describe the Government as being "found out" on this, when it was a genuine technical error, is a gross overstatement.
      I wrote to all Committee members and made a statement to them concerning the error. I do not propose to trawl over all the details again here, other than to
      430
      remind Opposition Members that the most important thing that I said in my letter and my statement—it could have saved us all a lot of time this afternoon if they had taken greater note of it—was quoted only partially by the hon. Member for Christchurch. My letter said:
      "I want to assure you that—while regrettable—this error does not affect our rationale for this change or its estimated impact. The fact remains that—over a period when consumption of coolers was rising rapidly—their retail price was also rising well above inflation. This suggests that the Budget duty increase will have little impact on demand for coolers, but will ensure that they are taxed at a fair rate rather than retaining their previous concessionary duty treatment."
      For the benefit of Opposition Members, let me explain as simply and clearly as I can why the mathematical error makes no difference whatever to the rationale for the measure proposed in the Bill. Contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for Christchurch, its justification does not rest on data that have proved to be incorrect.
      Whether the increase is 20p or 60p, the fact remains that, over a period when the consumption of coolers was doubling, the retail price was rising at a rate well above inflation. That suggests to us, and to independent market analysts, that demand for coolers is very inelastic. That suggests, in turn, that we can remove the concessionary treatment of coolers without damaging the growth of the sector. That was one of the key issues that we stressed in Committee.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Chope: The Minister says that it makes no difference whether the increase is 20p or 60p. How, then, does he explain what the Financial Secretary—now Chief Secretary—said in Committee, at column 47, where he informed us that one of the key issues for consideration was whether it was 60p or 20p? He rejected our arguments for 20p and said that it would definitely be 60p.
      John Healey: The hon. Gentleman intervened too soon and did not hear out the rest of my argument. One of the key issues, as my right hon. Friend indeed said in Committee, was whether the proposed increase in the duty rate would damage the growth of the sector. The evidence demonstrates, regardless of whether the rise is 20p or 60p, that consumption rose at the same time as prices were rising well above the rate of inflation. The sector can withstand this duty increase, and it is appropriate to make such provision.
      Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Minister now saying that the Government's taxation of alcohol is driven by an underlying rationale of price elasticities and that, where the price is deemed to be most inelastic, they believe that they can get away with shoving up the tax? Is the rationale that they will charge what they can get away with?
      John Healey: No, it is not the underlying rationale, but it is one of the factors that we take into account when considering duty changes.
      Mr. Bereow: I have to say to the Minister, who is as honest and upright a fellow as a member of this Labour Government can be, that no one believes a word of it. Everyone believes that Governments tax as much as they can get away with at any particular time.

      431
      On a lighter note, whatever the implications of the tax regime for the elasticity of demand for coolers, there is likely to be some increase in the demand for them this afternoon, in the light of the splendid news that Tim Henman has won his match.
      John Healey: I do not know whether Mr. Henman will celebrate by consuming alcopops this evening, but I am sure that the whole House will welcome his victory.
      The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pressed me on the narrow point concerning the first part of the justification and rationale for the duty increase, which is, as I stress again, that in our judgment removing the concessionary treatment, whether the price increase is 20p or 60p, can be done without damaging the growth of the sector.
      Secondly, whether the increase is 20p or 60p, the fact that coolers remain the fastest growing sector in the drinks market, and now rank alongside cider as the fourth largest sector, renders obsolete the original rationale for granting them the concessionary status alongside other obscure niche products.
      Thirdly, it seems unfair that a vodka and orange mixed at the bar should be taxed differently from a vodka and orange drink pre-mixed in the bottle. It seems especially unfair that such a bottled drink should bear a lower rate of tax as a proportion of its average price than any other alcoholic drink.
      Whether the increase was 20p or 60p made no difference to our deliberations on whether it was right to retain concessionary treatment for a drink with links to binge drinking among young people, about which the chief medical officer has raised specific concerns. In a thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) echoed those concerns in respect of his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in a moderate, measured and rational contribution.
      I genuinely hope that, based on my explanation, Opposition Members can see why the 20p–60p issue does not affect our decision that the concessionary treatment for coolers can no longer be justified, and does not warrant reopening the debate. Having said that, I am glad that this debate has enabled me to alert Opposition Members to what industry experts themselves have said about the strength of the coolers market—just as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did in Committee when he was responsible for this clause. On 1 June, a full 18 days after our debate in Committee, Drinks International said:
      "New figures reflect the relentless march of pre-mixes in the UK on-trade. Of the top 5 premium packaged drinks…in value terms, 3 are spirits-based mixes."
      On 31 May, Off Licence News said that suppliers of "Flavoured alcoholic beverages"—one of the many alternative names for coolers—
      "are looking forward to a buoyant summer, despite duty on spirits mixers being raised recently. The sector was worth £1.4bn in 2001. This year it is estimated that the category will be worth £1.6bn."
      Although I shall not stray into mentioning individual brands, I am aware that one leading cooler manufacturer has recently forecast turnover for 2002 of £50 million—a full two hundred and fiftyfold growth in just four years.
      432
      I conclude by assuring all hon. Members that although we regret reproducing the erroneous 60p figure—which I have been happy to correct on becoming aware of it—its revision makes not one bit of difference to the rationale for the change or its estimated impact. This measure supports the steps that we have consistently taken to deliver a fairer burden of taxation on different alcoholic drinks and different producers. These drinks are spirits, they are marketed as spirits and they should be taxed as spirits. Any justification that may once have existed for affording them concessionary status no longer applies. They are well established in the marketplace and they can pay their fair share of duty—at a rate that properly reflects the nature of the alcohol that they contain. Doing so will not damage the future growth of their sector. On that basis, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, I urge the House to reject it.
      Mr. Chope: We are not convinced. The Government argued that there was significance in the 60p retail price increase—and if they did not think that, why did they include it in the explanatory notes to clause 3? Why did it feature in Budget day press releases, and why did it feature so prominently in the arguments deployed in Committee by the then Financial Secretary? Only one month after being pressed on the matter, the Government admitted that the figures on which their argument was based were incorrect. They should therefore go back to the drawing board and discuss with the industry the introduction of a rational and consistent taxation regime that fits with other alcoholic beverage duties. It appears that this type of beverage is being discriminated against badly, compared with some of the more potent lagers and ciders. That is a significant factor.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) made an entertaining speech and tried to draw me back into our debate in Committee on Christchurch Conservative club. The relevant extracts from Hansard have done wonders for the reputation of the club's secretary. The hon. Gentleman made some serious allegations about the use of flavourings in such beverages to appeal to the underage market, but that practice was put to an end by the Portman Group, which worked closely with the Government. In Committee, Ministers and the then Financial Secretary accepted that, thanks to the work of the Portman Group and other responsible people in the industry, hooches are no longer on the market. The hon. Gentleman's arguments may have been relevant at one time, but they are certainly out of date now. We are talking about a growing, successful and responsible part of the drinks industry, and it is a great pity that the Government have chosen to discriminate against it in this way.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 276.

      Division No. 291]

      [2.55 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bercow, John

      Allan, Richard

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Amess, David

      Boswell, Tim

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brady, Graham

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brake, Tom

      Bacon, Richard

      Brazier, Julian

      Baron, John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Beggs, Roy

      Burnett, John

      433

      Burns, Simon

      Luff, Peter

      Burnside, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Burt, Alistair

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Maples, John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cameron, David

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Moore, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Chope, Christopher

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Cotter, Brian

      Page, Richard

      Cran, James

      Paice, James

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Prisk, Mark

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Rendel, David

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Evans, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Fallon, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Selous, Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Flook, Adrian

      Simmonds, Mark

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

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

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Francois, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Spink, Bob

      Gibb, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Streeter, Gary

      Grayling, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Swire, Hugo

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Heald, Oliver

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Heath, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Trend, Michael

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Hermon, Lady

      Tyler, Paul

      Hoban, Mark

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Holmes, Paul

      Watkinson, Angela

      Horam, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Willetts, David

      Key, Robert

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Willis, Phil

      Lamb, Norman

      Wilshire, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Laws, David

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Leigh, Edward

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lidington, David

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Banks, Tony

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Barnes, Harry

      Ainger, Nick

      Bennett, Andrew

      Allen, Graham

      Berry, Roger

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Best, Harold

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blizzard, Bob

      Austin, John

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Baird, Vera

      Bradshaw, Ben

      434

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Grogan, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Burgon, Colin

      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

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Heppell, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heyes, David

      Hill, Keith

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hurst, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Illsley, Eric

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jamieson, David

      Crausby, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Joyce, Eric

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kidney, David

      David, Wayne

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

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

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dawson, Hilton

      Laxton, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lepper, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Lloyd, Tony

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Doran, Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Dowd, Jim

      Luke, Iain

      Drew, David

      Lyons, John

      Drown, Ms Julia

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Efford, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ennis, Jeff

      McDonnell, John

      Etherington, Bill

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      McKechin, Ann

      Farrelly, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      MacShane, Denis

      Flint, Caroline

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Flynn, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Foulkes, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marris, Rob

      435

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shipley. Ms Debra

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Simon, Siôn

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mole, Chris

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Margaret

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Morgan, Julie

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mudie, George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Organ, Diana

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pearson, Ian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Touhig, Don

      Pickthall, Colin

      Truswell, Paul

      Pike, Peter

      Turner. Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pond, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tynan, Bill

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Vaz, Keith

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Price, Adam

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ward, Claire

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Wareing, Robert N

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Watson, Tom

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Weir, Michael

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Ruddock. Joan

      Winnick, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salter, Martin

      Wray, James

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Joan Ryan and Mr. Fraser Kemp.

      Sheridan, Jim

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 5

      BIODIESEL
      John Healey: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 5, line 10, leave out—
      'the date on which this Act is passed'
      and insert—
      'such date as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may by order made by statutory instrument appoint'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 41.
      John Healey: Part of the Budget 2001 package that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced to develop the
      436
      green fuel strategy was the decision to introduce a 20p per litre duty incentive for biodiesel in the Budget 2002. The Government decided to delay implementation until this year because we recognised that we would need a derogation of the EU mineral oils directive before the new rate could be introduced.
      Over the past year, we have worked to secure that derogation. Hon. Members will know that the process can be difficult and protracted, but we now expect to receive all necessary European clearance before Royal Assent, when the new rate of duty will come into force. The derogation received final approval from the EU Agriculture Council on 25 June, and is now in place. The new duty rate, therefore, awaits only clearance by the Commission as an allowable state aid. The Government expect that clearance in the next two weeks.
      However, if for any reason Royal Assent were to occur before we have been given state-aid clearance from the Commission, the UK technically would be in breach of the treaty of Rome. The amendments are simply a sensible precaution against breaching treaty obligations, although we expect to get the required clearance before the date on which Royal Assent is granted.
      Mr. Bercow: I think that the Economic Secretary has finished his speech on these amendments, so I shall ask a question to which I think hon. Members and people outside will be anxious to know the answer.
      There is an implication that the Economic Secretary might be mistaken about when clearance might be received. That is not very likely: he seemed confident that the required dates will be met, but he admitted to the possibility that they may not. That is why the Government feel it necessary to protect themselves against a possible breach of the treaty. Will the hon. Gentleman describe the revenue implications if the date that he envisages is met, and also if there is a delay?
      John Healey: We do not expect any Revenue implications. Should we not get final clearance from the Commission before the date of Royal Assent—we do not expect those circumstances—immediately we get that clearance, Customs Commissioners can sign into force this provision, and they will do so without delay.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The speeches are so short I do not know whether they are interventions or speeches. Mine is a very short speech. I simply want to ask the Minister a question. I welcome what the Minister is doing—it is important to get that across. He obviously needs to make arrangements to be sure of compliance within Europe. Can he say something about the new biofuels that are being discussed at European level? Will that impact on the Government's planning? Will it be permissible for the Government to reduce the rate still further in future or, having agreed to this derogation—which we hope will be passed—does this now tie the Government's hands as regards any further reduction and support for biofuels in future Budgets?
      John Healey: No, this does not tie the Government's hands. Any decisions that flow from this will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will stop now because I am in danger of straying well beyond the terms of a narrow technical amendment designed as a belt-and-braces job to make sure that the Government do not fall foul of the treaty of Rome.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 39, in page 5, line 17, leave out—
      'on which this Act is passed'
      and insert "appointed under subsection (6)(a)".
      No. 40, in page 5, line 26, leave out—
      'that on which this Act is passed'
      and insert—
      'the date appointed under subsection (6)(a)'.
      No. 41, in page 5, line 28, leave out—
      'day on which this Act is passed'
      and insert—
      'date appointed under subsection (6)(a)'.—[John Healey.]

    Clause 19

      VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY
      Mr. Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 13, leave out lines 41 and 42.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in schedule 5, page 135, leave out from beginning of line 38 to end of line 2 on page 136.
      No. 27, in page 136, line 4, leave out from "vehicle" to end of line 6.
      No. 28, in page 136, line 8, leave out "or (1A)(a)".
      No. 29, in page 136, line 14, leave out "or (1A)(b)".
      No. 30, in page 136, line 20, leave out "or (1A)(b)".
      No. 31, in page 136, line 25, leave out "or (1A)(a)".
      No. 32, in page 136, line 28, leave out "or (1A)(b)".
      No. 33, in page 136, line 31, leave out "or (1A)(a)".
      No. 34, in page 136, line 35, leave out "or (1A)(a)".
      Mr. Bercow: I am in the mood for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have become aware over the past 24 hours. Other right hon. and hon. Members may wish to contribute to the debate. I should like to remind the Economic Secretary of the interest taken in this subject in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). That interest was reflected in speeches from other political parties.
      Our concern all along has been about the ambiguity, if not impenetrability, of clause 19 in its unamended form and of schedule 5. Specifically, we wish to see in the Bill, as my hon. Friends previously indicated, a declaration of a nil rate vehicle excise duty for vehicles that are neither used nor kept on the public highway. We do not dispute the need to charge back VED on things that may have been vehicles if, and only if, it can be proved that they were used or kept unlicensed at one time on a public road. The terms "unregistered" and "unlicensed" could be used to clarify what the Government are aiming at. Unless there is a specific declaration in terms in the Bill that people who are manifestly innocent cannot end up copping it simply because there is no one else able to foot the bill, the concern of reputable organisations will persist that
      438
      there could be unintended consequences and financial penalty resulting from the way in which, no doubt inadvertently, the clause is drafted.
      I am also aware, as no doubt other hon. Members are, that the Government have provided themselves with their old and favourite facility: the statutory instrument. If memory serves me correctly, they are in a position to proceed on this matter through their preferred route, the negative—as distinct from the affirmative—resolution procedure. While on the subject of ambiguity and impenetrability, I am conscious of a certain irony and I owe it to the House and, more important perhaps, to people outside the House, to underline the significance of the difference between the two.
      3.15 pm
      If there is an affirmative resolution procedure and the regulations, which in due course are forthcoming, are subject to debate on the Floor of the House, however inadequate and truncated that debate might be, we shall at least have the opportunity to see whether the spirit to which we think the Government during the Committee and Report stages have committed themselves, is reflected in the terms of the regulations. If, however, we are to be fobbed off—I hesitate to use that term in relation to the Economic Secretary, because he is a decent cove—with the negative resolution procedure, there will not be another opportunity to debate this matter and we have to take the Government purely at their word—the Government purely at their word in terms of what they say and of their capacity to ensure the equity as well as the intelligibility of the regulations.
      Once again I therefore ask the Minister whether he recognises that there is a case for ensuring that only people who are guilty will face a charge and that those who have not possessed a vehicle for a long time and are thus in no sense liable for its current whereabouts will be faced with a VED charge back. That is what we want to know. It seems a reasonable request. It is not necessary to go to the wall on it, but I am not persuaded that my hon. Friends' efforts have met with the fair result that they wanted and that the Automobile Association and other organisations have a right to expect.
      John Healey: The amendments would stop the registered keepers of vehicles which ceased to be mechanically propelled from being liable for their vehicle. That would not help to tackle the abandoned vehicles problem, but it would undermine the integrity of the vehicle database that we are seeking to reinforce, and the whole thrust of our policy that those who abandon their cars are more easily called to account and made to pay would be undermined.
      The purpose of clause 19 and schedule 5 is to reduce the number of abandoned cars and to deal with VED evasion by improving the quality and integrity of the vehicle records that we keep through ensuring that the registered keepers retain liability for their vehicles until they notify the DVLA of a change in circumstances. Were the amendments successful, the registered keeper could abandon their vehicle and avoid their fiscal responsibilities for the vehicle simply by disabling it. That would not help us tackle the problem of abandoned vehicles but would undermine the thrust of our policy.
      The hon. Gentleman was concerned, as he said in rather colourful language, about innocent people "copping it". The schedule already contains clear exemptions from the

      439
      new offence of being the keeper of an unlicensed vehicle. These include circumstances in which the vehicle has been stolen, the DVLA has been notified of its disposal or that it has been scrapped, and the vehicle has been taken off the road and a statutory off-road notification has been made.
      The schedule also allows for new exemptions to be made through secondary legislation if necessary. The hon. Gentleman might see this as a strength, rather than a weakness. It could be the outcome of the discussions and consultations that the Government are conducting with stakeholders, including the AA, on the best way to implement the provisions.
      Let me again give the assurance that clause 19 and schedule 5 will not affect the current exemptions for pre-1973 vehicles and that the current system of statutory off-road notification will remain in place. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Bercow: I fear that the Minister has said his final word on the matter. I do not dispute the fact that the regulations could provide an opportunity to give reassurance to the AA, the DVLA and other organisations that may not be convinced that the clause is as fair, or will prove to be as judicious, as Ministers suppose.
      The Minister and the Paymaster General will be aware of my deep attachment to the affirmative procedure. I am very suspicious of the negative procedure. It is always supremely ineffective for Ministers to say, "Ah, but it happened when your lot were in power." I always reply, "I wasn't here, I didn't know, I'm not responsible, I couldn't care less, I won't be held to account. I will deal with that for which we are responsible now, rather than that which was ostensibly done in our name at some time in the past when I was busily completing my A-level studies." If there were to be a proper debate on the Floor of the House at a later date, we would have the chance to put to the test what the Minister is inviting us to accept on trust.
      I know that hon. Members will want to move on to consideration of the amendments relating to controlled foreign companies and a number of other important matters, so, in my usual genteel and understated fashion, I will accept the Minister's assurances and not press the matter any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 89

      CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES: TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIONS FROM S.748 EXEMPTIONS
      Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Bercow: Well, this is a first. One never knows what will happen on these occasions; my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)—
      Dawn Primarolo: I wonder whether it might help the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) if he moved
      440
      the amendment and I responded to it. If he feels that I have not quite covered everything that he wanted me to cover, he can then make his substantive points.
      Mr. Bercow: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 64, line 16, at end insert—
      'and ceases to have effect in relation to accounting periods of controlled foreign companies beginning on or after the earlier of:

      (a) the third anniversary of the day on which this Act is passed; and

      (b) the expiry of any twelve month period during which no statutory instrument is approved under section 748A(5) of the Taxes Act 1988 (territorial exclusions from exemption under section 748).'.

      The Paymaster General made an extraordinarily helpful suggestion. As she knows, it is just that I do not want to subject the House to my tones for too long. I am thirsting to hear her mellifluous tones, and I know that hon. Members will prefer hers to mine.
      Dawn Primarolo: Clause 89 provides for a reserve power to make regulations specifying overseas jurisdictions in which all controlled foreign companies would automatically fall within the charge to tax made by the controlled foreign company rules. The aim of the measure is to protect the United Kingdom against harmful tax practices where they continue to be prevalent. It reflects the Government's determination to promote fair tax competition and to take effective action where jurisdictions do not remove the harmful features of their tax regimes. It would not be used where appropriate action is being taken by jurisdictions to remove harmful tax practices.
      The amendment accepts clause 89, but seeks to insert a sunset clause to limit the life span of the reserve power to the earlier of either three years from the date on which the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent or the expiry of 12 months during which no statutory instrument specifying a jurisdiction has been made. I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham is, as he said, very attached to the affirmative resolution procedure. The reserve power ensures that the Government would have to bring before the House regulations making it clear why a jurisdiction had been designated, and no jurisdiction could be designated unless and until the House voted through regulations to that effect.
      The clause was introduced for a specific and highly focused purpose, and we hope never to use it. But we should signal that we are serious about our desire to protect the United Kingdom's interests in the long term and to be in a position to provide that protection should harmful tax practices be introduced in the future or continued in some way. If the amendment were to be accepted, and the clause lapsed, we would have to consider reintroducing such provisions in Parliament, taking up valuable parliamentary time to have exactly the same debate.
      In 1985, the Conservative Government took the same reserve power, which could have been used against the United States in respect of unitary taxation. It did not contain a sunset clause. The hon. Gentleman takes the view that he bears no responsibility for what happened in the name of his party before he entered the House. I hate

      441
      to have to point out to him gently that there is such a thing as responsibility in politics, which is not only about discharging one's obligations but about understanding that one has to account for decisions taken in our collective names. We entirely supported the reserve power taken in 1985. The Conservatives never sought to remove the provision and, although it has not been used, it remains on the statute book as section 812 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
      Clause 89 provides for the Government to defend the UK's best interests in exceptional circumstances. I could not agree to recommend to the House that we limit the time period over which the power could be used without seriously undermining the Government's ability to defend our tax base. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter. If he presses the amendment to a vote, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to oppose it on the basis that unfortunately, in this instance, his party is not acting in the best interests of UK taxpayers.
      Mr. Bercow: The Paymaster General did her best to reassure us, but, as she knows, I am not easily reassured. As things stand, the Treasury has far-reaching powers in these matters, and we are not convinced that those powers are desirable or will be needed. We are concerned about the Government's intentions towards several Crown dependencies.
      The thrust of our proposed sunset clause is sound. If it turns out that the Government do not need these provisions, they should not rue the passage of the sunset clause because all it says is that these provisions will expire after
      "the third anniversary of the day on which this Act is passed"
      or
      "the expiry of any twelve month period during which no statutory instrument is approved"
      under these provisions.
      If the Government have had no reason to use these provisions, it is not clear why they should object to the sunset clause. However, if the Government use these provisions, they ought to be prepared to go through the minor and trifling inconvenience of returning to Parliament to renew them on the statute book, given that it is a matter of legitimate contention whether they will need these provisions.
      3.30 pm
      I was a little disappointed, particularly as the Paymaster General is rather a keen parliamentary advocate, to hear her talk about valuable parliamentary time being taken up. This is an extremely important matter. If the Government used these provisions, they would have far-reaching implications for the people and companies affected. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Government would be willing to tell Parliament that, because these important provisions have expired, they need legislatively to renew them.
      Moreover, there is some form on this subject, as the Paymaster General will know. She chided me because the Conservative party did not propose a sunset clause when we were last in government. The answer is that we subsequently recognised that it would be wise to introduce all sorts of things that we did not do then. The theme of
      442
      sunset clauses was taken up enthusiastically by a number of my hon. Friends and myself during the previous Parliament.
      Rob Marris: Apart from sunset clauses, would the hon. Gentleman care to give some other examples of things that were not done that he now thinks should have been done?
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a path that is not altogether virtuous and that I doubt will prove to be in my interest, but on the basis that I cannot be accused of saying something new—I merely repeat what I have said before—I shall tell him that I prefer to put it the other way round: we have done things that I should have preferred we had not done and to which I never signed up. We passed a silly treaty at Maastricht. I was opposed to it then, and I am opposed to it now. I hope that we would not pass it again.
      I shall be tempted no further down an unvirtuous path, the prospect of which the hon. Gentleman has dangled before me. However, I would tell him that a decent debate on sunset clauses has taken place. Sadly, he did not contribute to that debate because he was not a Member of Parliament at the time. I highlighted the significance and potential of sunset clauses with reference to the experience of our friends in the United States of America when, on 27 April 1999, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that related to this subject, among others.
      I was mortified that the Government did not accept my Bill. I thought that they would provide time for it. I rue the fact that it never became law, but I note that some significance and value were attached to my proposal on sunset clauses because the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), subsequently included a sunset clause in the Electronic Communications Act 2000.
      The then Secretary of State was very proud of the inclusion of that sunset clause. He drew attention to it during our exchanges on Second Reading and said he thought that I ought to be satisfied, having highlighted the arguments for such clauses in my ten-minute Bill, that he had introduced such a clause. The trouble is that the Government have since lost enthusiasm. Their appetite has diminished. I am not aware that there have been further such clauses. If a sunset clause was good for that Act, there is at least an argument for the Government to consider such a clause in relation to the Bill.
      However, there are other matters to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is now in the Chamber. He has a wealth of expertise on this subject; he may be tempted to share just a portion of it and therefore I shall now, blessedly, conclude my remarks.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the amendment?
      Mr. Bercow:I withdraw. No, I wish to press the amendment to a Division. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, I was tempted to withdraw the amendment because I thought that you were accusing me of a parliamentary infelicity. My hon. Friends and I wish to press this matter to a vote. That is why I have been banging on about it for the past 10 minutes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has now made his intentions quite clear.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 305.

      Division No. 292]

      [3.34 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lidington, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Luff, Peter

      Bacon, Richard

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Baron, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Beggs, Roy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bercow, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Maples, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Brady, Graham

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Brazier, Julian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Burns, Simon

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Burnside, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Page, Richard

      Cameron, David

      Paice, James

      Cash, William

      Prisk, Mark

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Clappison, James

      Ruffley, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Selous, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Cran, James

      Simmonds, Mark

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Spink, Bob

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Spring, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Fallon, Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Swire, Hugo

      Flight, Howard

      Syms, Robert

      Flook, Adrian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Francois, Mark

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Gibb, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Tredinnick, David

      Grayling, Chris

      Trend, Michael

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hammond, Philip

      Whittingdale, John

      Hayes, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Heald, Oliver

      Wiggin, Bill

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wilkinson, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Willetts, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wilshire, David

      Horam, John

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Key, Robert

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Tellers for the Ayes

      Lansley, Andrew

      Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Charles Hendry.

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bailey, Adrian

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Baird, Vera

      Allan, Richard

      Bames, Harry

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bell, Stuart

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      444

      Blackman, Liz

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ennis, Jeff

      Borrow, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Brake, Tom

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brennan, Kevin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Fisher, Mark

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flint, Caroline

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burden, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike

      Burnett, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burstow, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Cairns, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Challen, Colin

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heath, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hermon, Lady

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heyes, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Hill, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hope, Phil

      cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

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

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)*

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hurst, Alan

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Illsley, Eric

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Drew, David

      Joyce, Eric

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      445

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rendel, David

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lamb, Norman

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Rooney, Terry

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Roy, Frank

      Lepper, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Linton, Martin

      Ryan, Joan

      Lloyd, Tony

      Salmond, Alex

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salter, Martin

      Love, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Luke, Iain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lyons, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MrAvoy Thomas

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore Brian

      McCabe, Stephen

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McDonnell, John

      Simon, Siôn

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWalter, Tony

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

      McWilliam, John

      Soley, Clive

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Spellar, Rt Hon John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marris, Rob

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Meale, Alan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mole, Chris

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Moran, Margaret

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Morgan, Julie

      Touhig, Don

      Mountford, Kali

      Truswell, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tyler, Paul

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Tynan, Bill

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Vaz, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Organ, Diana

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Ward, Claire

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pearson, Ian

      Watson, Tom

      Perham, Linda

      Weir, Michael

      Picking, Anne

      White, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pike, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pound, Stephen

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Willis, Phil

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Winnick, David

      446

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Wray, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and Derek Twigg

      Wyatt, Derek

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 91

      SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE IN RESPECT OF RING FENCE TRADES
      Amendment proposed: No. 43, in page 64, leave out from beginning of line 34 to end of line 33 on page 68.—[Mr. Salmond.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 270.

      Division No. 293]

      [3.46 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Francois, Mark

      Allan, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Amess, David

      Gibb, Nick

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Goodman, Paul

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Grayling, Chris

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Bacon, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Baron, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beggs, Roy

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hayes, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Heald, Oliver

      Brady, Graham

      Heath, David

      Brake, Tom

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hendry, Charles

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hermon Lady

      Burnett John

      Hoban, Mark

      Burns, Simon

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Bumside, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Horam, John

      Butterfill, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cameron, David

      Key, Robert

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Lamb, Norman

      Cash, William

      Lansley, Andrew

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Laws, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Clappison, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cran, James

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Luff, Peter

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Doughty, Sue

      Maples, John

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mates, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Mercer, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Page, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Paice, James

      447

      Prisk, Mark

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Tredinnick, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Trend, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ruffley, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Salmond, Alex

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sanders, Adrian

      Weir, Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wiggin, Bill

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Spink, Bob

      Wilshire, David

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Yeo, Tim

      Streeter, Gary

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Simon Thomas and Hywel Williams.

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cohen, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Austin, John

      Cox, Tom

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cranston, Ross

      Baird, Vera

      Crausby, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Cruddas, Jon

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bell, Stuart

      Cummings, John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Best, Harold

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      David, Wayne

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

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

      Borrow, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Dowd, Jim

      Cairns, David

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Casale, Roger

      Edwards, Huw

      Caton, Martin

      Efford, Clive

      Challen, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Etherington, Bill

      Chaytor, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Flint, Caroline

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Foulkes, George

      Clelland, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Clwyd, Ann

      Gardiner, Barry

      Coaker, Vernon

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Gerrard, Neil

      448

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Grogan, John

      Marris, Rob

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Meale, Alan

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Merron, Gillian

      Healey, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mole, Chris

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moran, Margaret

      Heppell, John

      Morgan, Julie

      Hesford, Stephen

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Mountford, Kali

      Heyes, David

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hope, Phil

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Olner, Bill

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Organ, Diana

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Perham, Linda

      Hurst, Alan

      Picking, Anne

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pike, Peter

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jamieson, David

      Pond, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Joyce, Eric

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rooney, Terry

      Kidney, David

      Roy, Frank

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ruane, Chris

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ryan, Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Laxton, Bob

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Sawford, Phil

      Lepper, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Linton, Martin

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Luke, Iain

      Simon, Siôn

      Lyons, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McFall, John

      Soley, Clive

      McKechin, Ann

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      MacShane, Denis

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McWalter, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      449

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      White, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark

      Touhig, Don

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wyatt, Derek

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wareing, Robert N

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and Derek Twigg.

      Watson, Tom

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 98

      GIFT AID: ELECTION TO BE TREATED AS IF GIFT MADE IN PREVIOUS YEAR.
      Mr. Flight: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 75, leave out from beginning of line 39 to end of line 6 on page 76 and insert—
      'or a series of qualifying donations made by him in one or more of the previous three years of assessment (a year in respect of which an election is made being an "elected year" for the purposes of this section).
      (2)Any such election may be made by notice in writing to an officer of the Inland Revenue before or at the time that the donor delivers the return required under section 8 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9) (personal return) for the year in which the gift is actually made.
      (3)An election may be made in respect of an elected year only to the extent that the grossed-up amount of any gift or part-gift would, if made in that elected year, be payable out of profits or gains brought into charge to income tax or capital gains tax for that elected year. Where an election is made to treat a single gift as if it had been a series of qualifying donations made in one or more years, the sum of such qualifying donations may not exceed the amount of the actual gift.
      (4)On receipt of an election under this section, the Board of Inland Revenue shall make such payments and adjustments as appear necessary to them to leave the donor in the position he would have been in had he made the relevant gift or part-gift in the relevant elected year and the provisions of section 25(6) to (9A) of the Finance Act 1990 had then taken effect.'.
      We have previously welcomed the Government's initiative to follow United States law and practice in terms of introducing incentives for the gifting of substantial assets. As hon. Members will be aware, when the first package was introduced, it was confined to listed securities. We then argued that it should be extended to land, unlisted securities and works of art, all of which qualify for gift-aid relief in the US. The package now includes land, but not the other two assets. At this rate, unlisted shares and works of art may be covered next year and the year after that.
      In the case of land and unlisted securities, a wealthy potential donor may often be rich in assets but not particularly rich in income terms. As the incentives currently stand, they will not work particularly well and—dare I say it—there might be an element of intent that they should not. I hope that that is not so.
      There are lessons to be learned from the United States, so our simple proposal is that those gifting substantial assets but who do not have the income in the year of
      450
      gifting sufficient to qualify for the relief should be able to cast back three years or obtain relief against income in the previous three years. That would change the provisions in the Bill, which allow only a single year's carry-back, to make it easier to fit into the self-assessment regime. The amendment would allow an individual to go back three years by making a claim at the time that they submit their tax returns for the year of the gift and to split large gifts between years, through an adjustment outside the self-assessment return.
      4 pm
      The Minister may tell me that the amendment needs further technical improvement—I hope not—but we want an acknowledgement from the Government of the need for a bigger carry-back than one year if the gift aid scheme is to be really effective. That is particularly so with the gift of land and buildings, because in those cases the owners are more likely to be asset-rich but income not-so-rich.
      Our objective is to make the welcome reform of gift aid relief work. The bigger the voluntary sector the better, and we want to encourage people to give to universities and schools to build up the voluntary sector which so often does things for better value and more efficiently than the public sector. That is the motivation behind the amendment.
      Chris Grayling: I rise to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 4. Through gift aid, successive Governments have made a significant contribution to an important part of our society—the voluntary sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, the voluntary sector makes a significant difference across our society in a variety of ways.
      The amendment highlights the role played by more substantial gifts and endowments. In the US, major institutions, foundations and charities benefit from substantial donations from wealthy individuals who have often built their wealth in the form of assets, rather than in ready and available cash. Many people in this country—I know of some in my constituency—have the resources to be major contributors to the voluntary sector. I hope that our society will become more like the American model, with people more inclined to make substantial donations to support our major institutions or to enable significant charitable facilities to be established.
      My hon. Friend has highlighted a potential extension of the gift aid provisions that would encourage substantial donors to take a major step towards enabling charitable and voluntary organisations to build substantial foundations for the work that they do. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit of the amendment even if, as my hon. Friend suggested, it is not drafted in a way that he finds acceptable. I hope that the Government will recognise the potential that has been developed in the US and accept that it could make a significant difference in this country. If the Government cannot accept the amendment today, I hope that they will undertake to accept the principle in the future.
      John Healey: I welcome the welcome for the tax breaks that the Government have provided to boost gifts to charity, especially through the extension of gift aid. In

      451
      many ways, the arguments that we have heard from the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) were a brief reprise of the discussions that we had in Committee, which turned on a concern for those who may be asset-rich, but income not-so-rich. Amendment No. 4, however, relates to gift aid, which applies only to cash. The arguments that both hon. Gentlemen voiced are not relevant to gift aid, which is not effective for gifts of assets.
      I recognise the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, but it would add considerable complexity to a system that we have introduced to benefit both charities and taxpayers. The existing measure in the Bill will act as a prompt and an incentive to higher rate taxpayers by making gift aid relief immediately available.
      The amendment would give further time for electing to gift aid a donation by extending the time limit, but the link to the filing of the self-assessment return for the previous year is a key part of the Government's planned measure in offering the incentive of claiming relief early rather than waiting until completion of the return for the year in which the gift was made. Allowing further time for an election to be made would dilute the incentive to take a decision and make a donation.
      The amendment would go further by allowing the donation to be deemed to have been made not only in the previous tax year but also in one or more of the three previous tax years. For a small number of donors that would be beneficial, perhaps because they were unable to claim higher rate relief in the previous year but had higher rate liability in an earlier year. However, in practice, for higher rate taxpayers it would mean that earlier years would have to be reopened and tax liabilities recalculated. Clearly, taking advantage of a gift aid scheme would no longer be a straightforward part of the completion of the self-assessment return, which is the purpose of the provision.
      The current measure uses the self-assessment return to provide a straightforward mechanism for the donor to make the gift aid election and claim the relief without the need to complete any further claim forms. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment No. 4 and allow the House to report clause 98 as it stands.
      Mr. Flight: The Minister has responded negatively on the grounds that the amendment is defective. However, I had hoped to hear from him a response to the intention of the amendment. The intention was to ensure that if large donors to charities, whether by gifts of land, securities or cash, do not have sufficient income in the year of the gift to take advantage of the income tax offset, they should be able to cast back the value of the gift for up to three years and gain the full income tax incentive on the gift. I apologise for the imperfect wording of the amendment, but it is tricky territory.
      The Government reject the amendment on technical grounds, because they want to limit the income tax incentive to the year in question. Our worry is that that would not encourage major gifts, especially of property, because the income tax write-off will not work.
      I wanted the Minister to reply to the substance of my argument. Even if the amendment is defective, we will divide the House on it as a matter of principle. We want
      452
      the tax incentives for gifting highly valuable assets to work as well in this country as they have worked in the United States.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 260.

      Division No. 294]

      [4.10pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Allan, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Amess, David

      Horam, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bacon, Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Baron, John

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Beggs, Roy

      Key, Robert

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Boswell. Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brady, Graham

      Lamb, Norman

      Brake, Tom

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Laws, David

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Leigh, Edward

      Burnett, John

      Lewis, Dr Julian(New Forest E)

      Burns, Simon

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Burnside, David

      Lidington, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Burt, Alistair

      Luff, Peter

      Butterfill, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cash, William

      Maples, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mates, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clappison, James

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Cran, James

      Moore, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Osborne, George(Talton)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Paice, James

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Prisk, Mark

      Evans, Nigel

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Salmond, Alex

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Francois, Mark

      Selous, Andrew

      Garnier, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gibb, Nick

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

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Goodman, Paul

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Spink, Bob

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Spring, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Greenway, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Swire, Hugo

      Hancock, Mike

      Syms, Robert

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heath, David

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hermon, Lady

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hoban, Mark

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      453

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Willetts, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Trend, Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Wilshire, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Watkinson, Angela

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Charles Hendry.

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      David, Wayne

      Austin, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Bailey, Adrian

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

      Baird, Vera

      Barnes, Harry

      Dawson, Hilton

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bell, Stuart

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dismore, Andrew

      Berry, Roger

      Dobbin, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Betts, Clive

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blackman, Liz

      Doran, Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dowd, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drew, David

      Borrow, David

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brennan, Kevin

      Efford, Clive

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Etherington, Bill

      Bryant, Chris

      Farrelly, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foulkes, George

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gapes, Mike

      Casale, Roger

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caton, Martin

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Challen, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hendrick, Mark

      Connarty, Michael

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Heppell, John

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Heyes, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hill, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hope, Phil

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      454

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Pike, Peter

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hurst, Alan

      Pond, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Pound, Stephen

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jamieson, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jenkins, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Joyce, Eric

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Rooney, Terry

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Roy, Frank

      Kelly, Ruth

      Ruane, Chris

      Kemp, Fraser

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kidney, David

      Ryan, Joan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Salter, Martin

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sawford, Phil

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Laxton, Bob

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Sheerman, Barry

      Lepper, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Linton, Martin

      Simon, Siôn

      Lloyd, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      Love, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      Luke, Iain

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lyons, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Steinberg, Gerry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McDonnell, John

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McFall, John

      McKechin, Ann

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      MacShane, Denis

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      McWilliam, John

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Todd, Mark

      Mallaber, Judy

      Touhig, Don

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Truswell, Paul

      Marris, Rob

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Martlew, Eric

      Tynan, Bill

      Meale, Alan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Merron, Gillian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Ward, Claire

      Mole, Chris

      Wareing, Robert N

      Moran, Margaret

      Watson, Tom

      Morgan, Julie

      White, Brian

      Mountford, Kali

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mudie, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Wray, James

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Olner, Bill

      Wright, David (Telford)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Organ, Diana

      Wyatt, Derek

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Perham, Linda

      Jim Fitzpatrick and Mr. Ian Pearson.

      Picking, Anne

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 99
      FILMS: RESTRICTIONS OF RELIEF TO FILMS GENUINELY INTENDED FOR THEATRICAL RELEASE
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 76, line 13, leave out Clause 99.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
    Clause 114

      CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF AN ESTATE OR INTEREST IN LAND CHARGEABLES AS CONVEYANCES
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 92, line 9, leave out from first "of' to "exceeds" in line 10 and insert "the consideration".
      No. 20, in page 92, line 13, leave out from "consideration" to "exceeds" in line 14.
      No. 21, in page 93, line 1, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
      No. 22, in page 93, line 15, at end insert—
      '() Schedule [Stamp duty: contracts chargeable as conveyances: supplementary provisions] contains provisions supplementing this section.'.
      No. 23, in page 93, line 16, leave out subsection (9).
      No. 24, in page 93, line 17, leave out "applies" and insert "and that Schedule apply".[Dawn Primarolo.]

    New Schedule 1
      STAMP DUTY: CONTRACTS CHARGEABLE AS CONVEYANCES: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS—

        SUBSALES
        Introduction
        1 This Part of this Schedule has effect for affording relief from duty under section 114 (contracts chargeable as conveyances) on a subsale.
        Meaning of "subsale"
        2 For the purposes of this Schedule there is a subsale—

        where the purchaser under a contract or agreement for the sale of an estate or interest in land in the United Kingdom ("the original sale"), without having obtained a conveyance of the property contracted to be sold, contracts to sell the whole or part of the property to another person, or

        where the sub-purchaser under a subsale of an estate or interest in land in the United Kingdom, without having obtained a conveyance of the property contracted to be sold, contracts to sell to another person the whole or part of the property contracted to he sold by the original sale,

        so as to entitle that person to call for a conveyance from the original seller.
        Relief where duty paid on original sale or earlier subsale
        3 (1) Where duty under section 114 has been paid—

        on the original sale, or

        on an intervening subsale,

        duty under that section on a subsale, or subsequent subsale, is chargeable only in respect of the amount (if any) by which the chargeable considerationon that transaction exceeds the chargeable consideration on the earlier transaction.
        (2)If there is more than one such earlier transaction on which duty has been paid, the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the chargeable consideration on the earlier transaction shall be read as a reference to the higher or highest amount of chargeable consideration on which duty has been paid.
        (3)If the subsale does not relate to the whole of the property to which the earlier transaction related, the references in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) to the chargeable consideration on an earlier transaction shall be read as references to an appropriate proportion of that consideration.
        (4)What is an appropriate proportion shall be determined on a just and reasonable basis having regard to the subject matter of the subsale and of the earlier transaction.
        (5)For the purposes of this paragraph the chargeable consideration on a transaction is the consideration that falls to be brought into account in determining the duty chargeable on it.
        (6)Where under this paragraph duty on a subsale is chargeable in respect of part only of the consideration for the subsale, it is chargeable at the rate that would be applicable if the whole of the chargeable consideration on the subsale were taken into account.

        SUBSEQUENT CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER
        Introduction
        4 (1) This Part of this Schedule has effect for affording relief where ad valorem duty is chargeable both—

        under section 114 on a contract or agreement ("the original sale"), and

        on a subsequent conveyance or transfer by the original seller to the purchaser, or a sub-purchaser, in conformity with that contract or agreement.

        (2) References in this Part to the purchaser under the original sale, or a sub-purchaser under a subsale, include a person by whom the rights of the purchaser, or a sub-purchaser, are exercisable by virtue of any assignment (in Scotland, assignation) or agreement (other than a subsale).
        Conveyance or transfer of property contracted to be sold
        5 (1) Where the original seller conveys the whole of the property contracted to be sold—

        to the purchaser. Or

        to a sub-purchaser in circumstances in which section 58(4) of the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39) applies (conveyance chargeable only on consideration moving from sub-purchaser),

        the conveyance or transfer is chargeable with duty only to the extent (if any) that the ad valorem duty chargeable on it (apart from this sub-paragraph) exceeds the duty paid under section 114 on the original sale together with the amount of any such duty paid on an intervening subsale.
        (2) Where—

        the original seller conveys the property contracted to be sold to different sub-purchasers in parts or parcels. And

        section 58(5) of the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39) applies (conveyance chargeable only on consideration moving from sub-purchaser),

        the conveyance or transfer of each part or parcel is chargeable with duty only to the extent (if any) that the ad valorem duty chargeable on it (apart from this sub-paragraph) exceeds an appropriate proportion of the ad valorem duty paid on the original sale together with an appropriate proportion of any such duty paid on an intervening subsale.
        (3) What is an appropriate proportion shall be determined on a just and reasonable basis having regard to the subject matter of the conveyance or transfer and of the earlier transaction.
        (4) Where sub-paragraph (1) or (2) applies to reduce or extinguish the duty payable on a conveyance or transfer, the Commissioners shall, upon application and upon production of the earlier instrument or instruments, duly stamped, either—

        denote the payment of the whole of the ad valorem duty upon the conveyance or transfer, or

        transfer to the conveyance or transfer the ad valorem duty paid on the earlier instrument or instruments.

        Repayment of duty in certain cases
        6 (1) Where—

        duty is paid under section 114 on the original sale,

        one or more conveyances or transfers are executed in conformity with that contract or agreement so that the whole of the property contracted to be sold is duly conveyed to a purchaser or to one or more sub-purchasers,

        those conveyances or transfers are all duly stamped, and

        the aggregate amount of the duty that would have been paid on those conveyances or transfers but for duty having been previously paid on the original sale is less than the duty paid on the original sale,

        the Commissioners shall repay the difference to the person by whom the duty was paid on the original sale.
        (2) If duty has been paid under section 114 on one or more intervening subsales, sub-paragraph (1) has effect with the following modifications—

        the reference to duty having been paid on the original sale shall be read as a reference to duty having been paid either on the original sale or on an intervening subsale;

        the reference to the amount of duty paid on the original sale shall be read as a reference to the aggregate of the amounts paid on the original sale and any intervening subsales, and

        any repayment shall be apportioned among the persons by whom those amounts were paid.

        (3) The apportionment mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(c) shall be made on a just and reasonable basis having regard to the subject matter of the original sale and of the subsale or subsales in question.

        GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS
        Construction of references to duty on transactions
        7 Any reference in section 114 or this Schedule to duty chargeable or paid on a transaction is to duty chargeable or paid on the stamping of the instrument by which the transaction is effected.
        Transactions relating to land in the UK and to other property
        8 (1) Where a transaction relates both to land in the United Kingdom and to other property, section 114 and this Schedule apply as if there were separate transactions.
        (2) Similarly, the reference in section 114(1)(b) to a series of transactions is to a series of transactions so far as relating to land in the United Kingdom.
        (3) If, in a case where a transaction or series of transactions relates partly to land in the United Kingdom and partly to other property, the consideration is not apportioned in a manner that is just and reasonable, section 114 and this Schedule shall have effect as if the consideration had been apportioned in such a manner.
        Person claiming relief to establish entitlement
        9 It is for a person claiming any relief under this Schedule to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that he is entitled to relief and in what amount.
        Construction as one
        10 Section 114 and this Schedule shall be construed as one with the Stamp Act 1891 (c. 39).'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 8

        CHARGEABLE GAINS: EXEMPTIONS IN CASE OF SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDING
        Amendment made: No. 12, in page 153, line 36, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
        5 (1) Where in pursuance of arrangements to which this paragraph applies—

        an untaxed gain accrues to a company ("company A") on a disposal of shares, or an interest in shares or an asset related to shares, in another company ("company B"), and

        before the accrual of that gain—

        company A acquired control of company B, or the same person or persons acquired control of both companies, or

        there was a significant change of trading activities affecting company B at a time when it was controlled by company A, or when both companies were controlled by the same person or persons,

        none of the exemptions in this Schedule applies to the disposal.
        (2) This paragraph applies to arrangements from which the sole or main benefit that (but for this paragraph) could be expected to arise is that the gain on the disposal would, by virtue of this Schedule, not be a chargeable gain.
        (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) a gain is "untaxed" if the gain, or all of it but a part that is not substantial, represents profits that have not been brought into account (in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) for the purposes of tax on profits for a period ending on or before the date of the disposal.
        (4) The reference in sub-paragraph (3) to profits being brought into account for the purposes of tax on profits includes a reference to the case where—

        an amount in respect of those profits is apportioned to a company resident in the United Kingdom by virtue of subsection (3) of section 747 of the Taxes Act 1988 (imputation of chargeable profits etc of controlled foreign companies), and

        a sum is chargeable on that company in respect of that amount by virtue of subsection (4) of that section for an accounting period of that company ending on or before the date of the disposal.

        (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ii) there is a "significant change of trading activities affecting company B" if—

        there is a major change in the nature or conduct of a trade carried on by company B or a 51% subsidiary of company B, or

        there is a major change in the scale of the activities of a trade carried on by company B or a 51% subsidiary of company B, or

        company B or a 51% subsidiary of company B begins to carry on a trade.

        (6) In this paragraph—
        "arrangements" includes any scheme, agreement or understanding, whether or not legally enforceable;
        "major change in the nature or conduct of a trade" has the same meaning as in section 768 of the Taxes Act (change of ownership of company: disallowance of trading losses);
        "profits" means income or gains (including unrealised income or gains).'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

      Schedule 28

        DERIVATIVE CONTRACTS: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ETC
        Amendment made: No. 45, in page 375, line 11, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) and insert—
        '(4) If the sum of the amounts that would, on the assumptions in sub-paragraph (6)(a) and (b), have fallen to be brought into account as regards the contract in accordance with—

        Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Finance Act 1993 (c. 34), or

        Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Finance Act 1994 (c. 9),

        for the purposes of computing corporation tax for an old period of the company is different from the sum of the amounts that would, on the assumption in sub-paragraph (6)(c), have fallen to be brought into account as regards the contract in accordance with Schedule 26 for those purposes (if that Schedule had had effect in relation to that period), sub-paragraph (5) shall apply as regards the amount of that difference.
        (5) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the amount of the difference shall be brought into account—

        as a credit under Schedule 26 in the company's first new period, if a greater profit or smaller loss would have been brought into account for the old period under that Schedule, or

        as a debit under that Schedule in the company's first new period, if a smaller profit or greater loss would have been brought into account for the old period under that Schedule.

        (6) The assumptions referred to in sub-paragraph (4) are that—

        section 137 of the Finance Act 1993 (c. 34),

        sections 165 to 168A of the Finance Act 1994 (c. 9), and

        paragraphs 23 to 31 of Schedule 26,

        would not have had effect in the case of the contract.'.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

      Schedule 29

        GAINS AND LOSSES OF A COMPANY FROM INTANGIBLE FIXED ASSETS
        John Healey: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 434, line 22, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
        '(4) Sub-paragraph (1) has effect subject to—

        paragraph 126 (application of Schedule to fungible assets), and

        paragraph 126A (certain assets acquired on transfer of a business treated as existing assets).'.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15 to 18.
        John Healey: I shall be brief. Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 18 are designed to correct a mismatch which has come to light between schedule 29 and the capital gains rules on company reconstructions. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 deal with a problem in the drafting that was identified by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) in Committee. The hon. Gentleman was assiduous throughout our proceedings in Committee, paying great attention to detail. I promised further consideration when he withdrew his amendments in Committee. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are the result of that further consideration. They will help to ensure that
        460
        the major reform of corporation tax treatment of intangible assets will now work in a way that all those with an interest in these matters would wish.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 15, in page 437, line 28, at end insert—
        126A (1) This paragraph applies where—

        an asset that is an existing asset in the hands of a company ("the transferor company") is transferred to another company ("the transferee company"), and

        the transfer is one in relation to which—

        section 139 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (reconstruction or amalgamation involving transfer of business), or

        section 140A of that Act (transfer of UK trade to company resident in another member State),

        applies with the effect that the transferor company is treated for the purposes of that Act as disposing of the asset for a consideration that secures that neither a gain nor a loss accrues to that company.
        (2) Where this paragraph applies the asset shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as an existing asset in the hands of the transferee company.
        (3) This paragraph does not apply where the transfer mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) occurred before 28th June 2002.'.
        No. 16, in page 437, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
        '(3) If the asset—

        (a)was acquired before the beginning of the first accounting period to which this Schedule applies in relation to it, and

        (b)is a chargeable intangible asset immediately after the beginning of that period,

        it shall be treated for the purposes of Part 7 (roll-over relief on realisation and reinvestment) as if it had been a chargeable intangible asset at all material times between its acquisition and the beginning of that period.'.
        No. 17, in page 438, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
        '(4) If the asset—

        was acquired before the beginning of the first accounting period to which this Schedule applies in relation to it, and

        is a chargeable intangible asset immediately after the beginning of that period,

        it shall be treated for the purposes of Part 7 (roll-over relief on realisation and reinvestment) as if it had been a chargeable intangible asset at all material times between its acquisition and the beginning of that period.'.
        No. 18, in page 444, line 5, at end insert "(and see paragraph 126A)".—[Dawn Primarolo.]

      Schedule 31

        GAINS OF INSURANCE COMPANY FROM VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
        Amendments made: No. 35, in page 456, line 40, leave out—
        'and also includes any debentures'.
        No. 36, in page 456, line 41, at end insert—
        'and also includes any debentures'.
        No. 37, in page 458, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (2).-[Dawn Primarolo.]

      Schedule 37

        AGGREGATES LEVY AMENDMENTS
        Mr. Alex Salmond: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 478, line 29, at end insert—
        '(3A) In subsection (3) at end insert—
        "(g) it consists wholly of uncrushed aggregates to be used for harbour sea defence projects or coastal erosion protection.".'.
        We were making such good progress too, but now we come to something slightly more controversial, and something significant to the economic life and environmental concerns of many coastal communities throughout the United Kingdom.
        I have debated the issue several times with the Minister's predecessor in a number of different places, including Westminster Hall and a statutory instruments Committee. Given that that Minister was promoted to the Cabinet half way through these debates, it could only be that his promotion was based on his superb ability to deliver a very bad case in a really eloquent way. That is what delivered the right hon. Gentleman's promotion. I commend the present Minister, however, and perhaps he could deliver a much better case in an eloquent way. Who knows where he might end up if he were able to do that? A number of Members across the House would appreciate a reasonable concession on this important issue.
        The amendment is specifically about exempting coastal protection defences from the imposition of the aggregates levy. We have had debates in other places at other stages of consideration on the aggregates levy as a whole, and I do not intend to repeat these arguments, except to say that there are aspects of the levy that should cause concern even for those who say that it was justified on environmental grounds.,
        For example, there is regional disparity in the impact of the levy. The levy is gathered on aggregates as produced. The Government announced that there was to be a fiscally neutral measure and proceeded to offer a small rebate on national insurance contributions. However, areas that have few people but many aggregates—for example, rural areas such as Scotland, Wales, much of Northern Ireland and much of the north of England—could end up paying a substantial proportion of the tax, whereas areas with large numbers of people will get a rebate in the form of national insurance contributions.
        An example that I shall give concerns Peterhead Bay Authority. The impact of the aggregates tax on its proposed breakwater is an extra £1.2 million imposition. In return, it will receive a rebate of about £650 in national insurance contributions. I accept that that is an extreme example, but even when a tax is announced as neutral by the Treasury, it is as well for many people in many areas carefully to count their fingers to assess what the impact will be in practical terms.
        I have a real concern. Unlike the oil tax, which, as we debated yesterday, was a surprise to many people, not least some Labour Members representing constituencies in the north-east of Scotland, the aggregates levy, to be fair to the Government, was announced several Finance
        462
        Bills ago. It went through exhaustive consultation and debate with the industry. There is nothing wrong with a consultative process in terms of the levy, but basically the problem with the tax is that the Government, after that consultation, went for a sharp change in direction, which took in things such as coastal defences and the aggregates that are used for those defences. Originally the Government had intended them not to be taxed, but that was an unintended consequence very late on in the process of consultation.
        The Government originally envisaged that aggregates used for coastal defences would be untaxed because by and large these are uncrushed, unprocessed and unmachined aggregates. The environmental impact of such aggregates is much less than the ones that have gone through an industrial process. The Government's intention in introducing the tax was to try to substitute reclaimed and recycled aggregates for machine-processed aggregates. In Peterhead Bay Authority's proposal, 99 per cent. of the aggregate to be used for a breakwater in my constituency is uncrushed, unprocessed aggregate from a quarry five miles away. There is no environmental saving whatsoever in taxing that aggregate, as large blocks of rock will be taken from one part of Buchan and moved five miles along the road to another.
        4.30 pm
        There is no environmental gain from putting the finances of that breakwater in jeopardy, but there will be a substantial environmental and economic loss if it is not built. The bay authority, like many small harbour trusts and boards the length and breadth of the country, is responsible for sea defences, protection against the erosion of beaches and sea walls, and other aspects of coastal protection. If we are to believe Government forecasts, there is a genuine possibility that much of southern England may be under water, or at least under threat, within a hundred years or so. On balance, that is bad thing, although it is a close call.
        Given those environmental problems, we can expect a greater call for coastal defences in the next generation. Many of the organisations with responsibility for defences are not multi-million-pound or billion-pound bodies—they are small trust ports or harbour authorities charged with the task of securing the defence of the coastline. In my constituency, Peterhead Bay Authority has been husbanding its resources for 10 years, and has saved up £10 million in revenue. It undertook an extensive consultation to produce the breakwater project, which will provide a calm harbour 365 days of the year—arguably the best deep-water port on the east coast of Scotland—and secure coastal defences. Late in the day, as an unintended consequence of the imposition of the aggregates levy, the authority was faced with an additional bill of —2 million, which has subsequently been reduced to about —1.2 million, but which still makes the economic viability of the project marginal.
        To be fair to the Minister, whom I met this morning, and his predecessor, every Minister or Government spokesman to whom I have spoken is sympathetic to the project in my constituency, and I am sure that they would be sympathetic to ports and bay authorities contemplating similar harbour defences throughout the country. Everyone agrees that such projects are a good thing for the environment and the economy, so why are they being taxed under the aggregates levy? It has been argued that

        463
        the objective of the levy is to secure more recycled aggregates. The technical specifications for the breakwater in my constituency make it impossible to use recycled aggregates. The authority has reduced the use of aggregates to the minimum needed to secure the calming of the harbour for which they have statutory responsibility.
        It is invidious to tax a body that is trying to discharge its responsibilities for protecting the environment and providing an infrastructure to stimulate the economy in north-east Scotland. It would be wrong to make a similar imposition on other authorities which are trying to do comparable things. It is not as if there are not exemptions from the levy. In fact, there are a total of some 22 exemptions, including, for example, the sand for children's playground sandpits. Clay pigeons are exempt from the levy—good news for clay pigeon fanciers across the country.
        Mr. Tom Harris: For real pigeons too.
        Mr. Salmond: I can hear roars of assent, and am sure that Labour Members lobbied hard, as I would have done, and now approve of the exemption of clay pigeons from that iniquitous tax.
        Harbour walls, defences and breakwaters are as important as the pursuit of clay pigeon shooting which, naturally, we all support. I urge the Government to see whether they can find a way of not penalising such important work. Coastal communities are experiencing a range of pressures—those of us representing constituencies with fishing interests are only too well aware of pressures on the fishing industry. Projects undertaken by relatively small organisations to deal with the ever-increasing environmental threat from rising seas are expensive, so it is unfair to impose an additional burden on them, given that their work is for the public good. I urge the Minister, whose predecessor was sympathetic to the argument, but unable to deliver a solution without damaging the integrity of the tax, to use his ingenuity and fresh approach to see whether it is possible to avoid the huge imposition on harbour and bay authorities across the county that is an unintended consequence of the levy.
        Sir Robert Smith: I support the amendment and the arguments of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). In particular, I support his point that there are unintended consequences from not thinking through the aggregate tax, as environmental costs will be recycled back into the community. When the environmental impact of quarrying was assessed, much was found to be local to the community in which the quarry is situated. However, the tax takes money away from that community and spends it across the whole country, well away from the quarry. In Peterhead, the fact that the aggregates will have to be transported five miles suggests that any recycling, even if up to specification, would hardly reduce journey times or environmental impact.
        The Government would do well to accept amendment No. 11, which would maintain the status quo on coastal defences and allow them to find another way to close a worrying loophole, which stems from a lack of thought
        464
        about the impact of the aggregate tax and the way in which it would work. I urge the House to support the amendment, but it would be even better if the Government came up with a constructive proposal that would render it superfluous by making it possible to get coastal defences built without an unnecessary tax burden.
        Mr. Alan Reid: I, too, support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
        Climate change is leading to higher sea levels and increasingly violent storms, which means that coastal communities are under even greater pressure. Coastal communities on the Atlantic islands suffer from extremely violent storms and are under great threat from coastal erosion. The aggregates tax will simply put a greater burden on Argyll and Bute council and private individuals who want to build coastal defences to protect local villages and roads.
        The tax is supposed to have an environmental purpose, but I do not envisage any environmental benefits from imposing a tax on aggregates used for coastal protection. On islands, for example, the aggregates would be quarried and moved, in some cases only a few hundred yards, for use in coastal protection. Alternatives simply do not exist. The Economic Secretary, in his letter to me of 11 June, said that "alternatives do exist." I should certainly like to hear exactly what they are. On small islands like Tiree and the slate islands of Easdale, Luing and Seil, villages are under threat, as the tax puts a greater burden on their efforts at protection.
        Mr. Salmond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The alternative would be to bring a recycled aggregate, which would be suitable for some projects, many hundreds of miles by land and then over sea, but that would hardly meet environmental standards.
        Mr. Reid: That is a valid point. An alternative may exist several hundred miles away, but in environmental and financial terms a long road and sea journey would be more expensive than paying the tax. The alternatives simply do not exist on the islands.
        The purpose of the tax was supposed to be environmental, but I cannot see the environmental benefit in charging people more money to avoid having their house washed into the sea. There cannot be a much greater environmental disaster than that. I hope that the Government will listen today and accept amendment No. 11.
        Mr. Flight: I, too, support amendment No. 11, which is obvious common sense. I am not at all happy with the aggregates levy. I was in Inverness last weekend and I must warn hon. Members that I shall be in Scotland again next week, so sinking England is driving us north.
        Mr. Salmond: We will make appropriate sea defences for the hon. Gentleman's visit.
        Mr. Flight: Yes, sea defences for the invasion.
        Coastal protection work is needed elsewhere in the British Isles and I can see no logic in simply increasing the cost of that as a result of the aggregates levy. If we

        465
        cannot stop that misguided tax altogether, let us at least have the exemption that is proposed here for something that of itself serves an environmental cause.
        John Healey: I welcome this short debate and was glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) this morning.
        Let me begin by being blunt. I do not accept that there is a case for exempting virgin aggregates used for harbour sea defences or coastal erosion protection projects from the aggregates levy. The levy is designed to address the significant environmental costs of extracting aggregates, including dust, noise, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity. Those environmental costs are associated with aggregates used in coastal defences, just as they are associated with aggregates used in other construction processes.
        Sir Robert Smith: Was not the levy initially aimed at the crushing of aggregates to the fine aggregates, which gave rise to the estimates of the impact of dust, while this measure is aimed at large boulders and rocks, which do not produce that much dust or noise when put into the sea?
        4.45 pm
        John Healey: I shall come to the rationale for the clause dealing with uncrushed aggregates, and treating them in the same way as crushed aggregates, which were part of the original legislation.
        Mr. Salmond: The Minister will confirm that the Government's original intention was not to include uncrushed aggregates within the levy. I understand that he says that the Government responded to consultations with the industry and so on, but if they are environmentally damaging, why were they not included in the original Government proposal?
        John Healey: The nature of legislation is that it evolves. As the hon. Gentleman says, we are making this amendment as a result of points raised with us by the industry, which was concerned that not to do so would create opportunities for avoiding the tax and for unfair competition, to which I shall come in a moment.
        The levy, in building in a recognition of the environmental costs of extraction, recognises those costs by making the price of aggregates better reflect their true social and environmental costs; encouraging more efficient use of aggregates; encouraging the use of alternative materials such as recycled materials and certain waste products in construction; and encouraging the development of a range of other alternatives, including the use of waste glass and tyres in aggregate mixes.
        Mr. Alan Reid: Will the Minister explain where on a small island one can find those materials in sufficient quantities to substitute them for the aggregates that are being taxed?
        John Healey: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we simply cannot devise a fiscal regime with a particular constituency in mind. This is a UK tax regime designed to apply consistently across the piece. It is not practicable
        466
        to take into account arguments about whether a particular material is transported five miles or more in primary legislation.
        Mr. Salmond: Surely special island allowances in the fiscal regime, support for lifeline services or the passenger duty, are examples of where a fiscal regime has been tapered to meet social need and common sense, so why not do the same here?
        John Healey: Social need and other objectives are often built into tax and duty legislation. However, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) was putting the case of his own constituency, and that level of detail cannot be dealt with.
        I have explained why the aggregates levy was introduced on 1 April this year and I want briefly to elaborate on why this Finance Bill brings into its scope aggregates that are extracted as uncrushed aggregates.
        Rob Marris: Will my hon. Friend elucidate for hon. Members such as myself who represent constituencies in the middle of the country? Who pays for coastal erosion projects, for example, on the island of Tiree, and have special island allowances been adjusted for the increased cost that might be incurred by coastal defences as a result of the aggregates levy?
        John Healey: A feature of my hon. Friend's interventions during the passage of this Finance Bill has been a request for such factual information. An exhaustive list of the sources of support for such projects would take some time. They range from local authorities to special Government funds and, in the case of Scotland, the Scottish Executive would have a part to play.
        Armourstone, the large blocks of aggregate that are often used in sea walls or coastal protection, was brought into the scope of the levy as a result of the levy's extension to uncrushed rock. That was a necessary change. Because aggregates can be produced from rock without crushing it, consultation with the industry suggested that there was a danger of distortion of competition and the distinct possibility of avoidance.
        Mr. Alan Reid: The Minister referred to a distortion of competition, but we are talking about small islands. Does he seriously think that there will be two competing quarries on one small island?
        John Healey: The operation of the levy will encourage much greater efficiency in the use of aggregates, which will help in the sort of circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. It will also help to encourage the use of alternatives to virgin aggregates and a reduction in the amounts that are used.
        If coastal protection projects were to be exempt, as the amendment proposes, requests for exemption would inevitably be made in respect of other worthy projects such as the building of schools and roads, for which there may be the social case to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan referred.
        Mr. Roy Beggs: I, too, represent a coastal area, and I cannot foresee any means of reducing the amount of aggregate that is needed to provide

        467
        sea defences. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government plan to compensate those who will have the responsibility of providing sea defences by giving grant aid towards such defences?
        John Healey: If the hon. Gentleman doubts that the levy can help to encourage those who are considering plans for such projects to reduce the amount of aggregate that is involved, he might like to have a word with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as that is exactly what is currently happening as a result of the levy in the Peterhead bay project, to which he referred.
        The Government are sympathetic to the fact that coastal defence projects are designed to protect the environment. We support such projects in a range of ways, but I must tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that I do not propose that an exemption from the aggregates levy should become one of the ways in which we support such work.
        The hon. Gentleman also raised with me the question whether an alternative source of support may be available through the Public Works Loan Board in relation to the Peterhead bay project. I am sympathetic to that idea. As he knows, I am sympathetic to the project itself and would not want it to be jeopardised. I understand that there may be some legal difficulties in securing a loan from the board, but I would urge the local authority to explore that option with the board as a way of providing extra support.
        On that basis, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to withdraw his amendment. If he is not prepared to do so, I ask the House to reject it.
        Mr. SalmondI thank the Minister for those last few words. Hon. Members will understand that the bay project in Peterhead is very important to my constituency, not least because of the economic benefits that could flow from it in an area that has been extremely hard pressed economically, so I welcome his sympathy and support. I also freely acknowledge that his predecessor shared a similar opinion. I hope that we can find a way forward through other mechanisms and I accept his bona fides and word on that matter.
        However, I hope that the Minister will not think that I am grudging if I wish to push the matter in principle. Although we agree that the project in my constituency and, no doubt, similar projects in other constituencies, are a good thing, a principle is involved, and I should like to spend a very few minutes explaining what I think is the disagreement in principle.
        As I pointed out, the Government originally accepted that uncrushed, unmachined aggregates did not pose the same risk of environmental damage as machine-processed aggregates. They moved from that position only because it was suggested that there might well be areas of exemption and unfair competition. Indeed, if I had proposed in the amendment again to exempt unprocessed aggregates, that would have been a fair argument against it. However, the amendment suggests only that as coastal defences are a good thing for the community, they should be exempt.
        I pointed out to the Minister that some 22 exemptions were already covered, arid I gave some illustrations involving clay pigeons and other things. I have no quarrel
        468
        with those exemptions and have suggested merely that approved coastal defence projects seem to me a legitimate exemption.
        Sir Robert Smith: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that the Minister's strongest argument was that he was frightened of agreeing to add coastal defences to the list because someone else might want to be included on it afterwards? That is one the weakest arguments to have come from the Government. Obviously, the coastal defence issue would be defined by the fact that there were no alternatives.
        Mr. Salmond: That point makes itself.
        I have a lot of sympathy with the Minister, as he has had to argue a very difficult case. His predecessor had exactly the same difficulty in Westminster Hall and in the Committee considering the statutory instrument. Ministers sometimes find themselves in that position, but they also have a wider responsibility. When a case appears very difficult to progress, it may be because there is something wrong with the argument that the Minister is being asked to deliver.
        The case of the island communities has been made. Other legislation sets out special requirements for such communities and I see no reason why the Bill should not contain similar measures. In respect of the particular case in which I have a constituency interest, it is impossible to argue that environmental damage will be caused by taking materials from Stirlinghill quarry five miles along the road, with community support, and putting them in the breakwater to calm the harbour. There is no environmental concern in my constituency.
        Rob MarrisI appreciate that that may be the case in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but perhaps he will also accept that it might not be the case in other parts of the United Kingdom. Would not a better way of addressing the issue be for those in Banff and Buchan, Tiree and other places to seek greater grant aid, rather than to change the basis of the tax system for the whole country?
        Mr. Salmond: I thought that I was doing quite well in gaining the Minister's sympathy with regard to the Public Works Loan Board. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we up the ante for grants, I would be the first to agree. None the less, he has a fair point. When introducing legislation, we have to look for unintended consequences. If the Government had said that they were going to end up taxing coastal defences without having meant to do so and were putting in place fiscal help to compensate through grant aid, his point would have been well made. We are not in that position, however, and the reason for tabling the amendment progressing the case is to advertise to the Minister that there is a genuine problem that will affect my constituency immediately and will very shortly affect island constituencies. I suggest that it will also affect coastal constituencies throughout the United Kingdom. The problem needs to be dealt with in one way or another.
        While I welcome the Minister's assurances and sympathy in relation to the Public Works Loan Board—the principle could perhaps be applied not only in my constituency, but to appropriate cases in a wider sphere—

        469
        I would like to press the amendment in principle. I believe that coastal defences are a good thing and should not be taxed, because the community purpose that they serve will increase in future, not decrease.
        Question put,That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided:Ayes 161, Noes 263.

        Division No. 295]

        [4.58 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Allan, Richard

        Hayes, John

        Amess, David

        Heath, David

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Hendry, Charles

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Hermon, Lady

        Bacon, Richard

        Hoban, Mark

        Baron, John

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Beggs, Roy

        Holmes, Paul

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Horam, John

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Brady, Graham

        Hunter, Andrew

        Brake, Tom

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Brazier, Julian

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

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

        Burns, Simon

        Burnside, David

        Key, Robert

        Burstow, Paul

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Burt, Alistair

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Buttetfill, John

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Lamb, Norman

        Cameron, David

        Lansley, Andrew

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

        Laws, David (NE Fife)

        Leigh, Edward

        Cash, William

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Lidington, David

        Clappison, James

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Luff, Peter

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Cotter, Brian

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Cran, James

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Malins, Humfrey

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Maples, John

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Mates, Michael

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Mercer, Patrick

        Doughty, Sue

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

        Moore, Michael

        Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

        Moss, Malcolm

        Evans, Nigel

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Norman, Archie

        Fabricant, Michael

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Fallon, Michael

        Ottaway, Richard

        Feid, Mark (Cities of London)

        Page, Richard

        Fight, Howard

        Paice, James

        Flook, Adrian

        Price, Adam

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Prisk, Mark

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Francois, Mark

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Rendel, David

        Gibb, Nick

        Robathan, Andrew

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Goodman, Paul

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Grayling, Chris

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Ruffley, David

        Greenway, John

        Salmond, Alex

        Grieve, Dominic

        Selous, Andrew

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Hammond, Philip

        Simmonds, Mark

        Hancock, Mike

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

        470

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Tyler, Paul

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Spink, Bob

        Waterson, Nigel

        Spring, Richard

        Watkinson, Angela

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Weir, Michael

        Streeter, Gary

        Whittingdale, John

        Stunell Andrew

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Swayne, Desmond

        Wiggin, Bill

        Swire Hugo

        Wilkinson, John

        Syms Robert

        Willets David

        Tapsel Sir Peter

        Williams, David

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Wills, Phil

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Wilsire David

        Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Yeo, Tim

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Thurso, John

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Tredinnick, David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Trend, Michael

        Mr. Simon Thomas and Hywel Williams.

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Ainger, Nick

        Cooper, Yvette

        Allen, Graham

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Cousins, Jim

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Cox, Tom

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Cranston, Ross

        Austin, John

        Crausby, David

        Bailey, Adrian

        Cruddas, Jon

        Baird, Vera

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Banks, Tony

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Barnes, Harry

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Bell, Stuart

        David, Wayne

        Bennett, Andrew

        Davidson, Ian

        Berry, Roger

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Best, Harold

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

        Betts, Clive

        Blackman, Liz

        Dawson, Hilton

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Blizzard, Bob

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Borrow, David

        Dobbin, Jim

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Doran, Frank

        Brennan, Kevin

        Dowd, Jim

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Drew, David

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Bryant, Chris

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Edwards, Huw

        Burden, Richard

        Efford, Clive

        Burgon, Colin

        Ennis, Jeff

        Cairns, David

        Farrelly, Paul

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Fisher, Mark

        Casale, Roger

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Caton, Martin

        Flint, Caroline

        Cawsey, Ian

        Flynn, Paul

        Challen, Colin

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

        Foulkes, George

        Chaytor, David

        Gapes, Mike

        Clapham, Michael

        Gardiner, Barry

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

        Goggins, Paul

        Clelland, David

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Grogan, John

        Coaker, Vernon

        Hain, Rt Hon Peter

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Cohen, Harry

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Coleman, Iain

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hanson, David

        471

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Moran, Margaret

        Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

        Morgan, Julie

        Healey, John

        Mountford, Kali

        Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

        Mudie, George

        Henderson Ivan(Harwich)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Hendrick, Mark

        Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

        Heppell, John

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hesford, Stephen

        O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

        Heyes, David

        Olner, Bill

        Hill Keith

        O'Neill, Martin

        Hinchliffe, David

        Organ, Diana

        Hodge, Margaret

        Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

        Hood, Jimmy

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Hope, Phil

        Pearson, Ian

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Perham, Linda

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan(Newport E)

        Picking, Anne

        Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hughes, Beverley(Stretford)

        Pike, Peter

        Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

        Plaskitt, James

        Hurst, Alan

        Pollard, Kerry

        Illsley, Eric

        Pond, Chris

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Pound, Stephen

        Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

        Jamieson, David

        Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Joyce, Eric

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Keen, Ann(Brentford & Isleworth)

        Rooney, Terry

        Kelly, Ruth

        Roy, Frank

        Kemp, Fraser

        Ruddock, Joan

        Kidney, David

        Ryan, Joan

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Salter, Martin

        King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Sawford, Phil

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Laxton, Bob

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lepper, David

        Sheridan, Jim

        Lewis, Terry,(Worsley)

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Linton, Martin

        Simon, Siôn

        Lloyd, Tony

        Singh, Marsha

        Love, Andrew

        Skinner, Dennis

        Luke, Iain

        Smith, Angela(Basildon)

        Lyons, John

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris(Islington S)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

        McCabe, Stephen

        Smith, John(Glamorgan)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

        MacDonald, Calum

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McDonnell, John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McFall, John

        Stewart, David(Inverness E)

        McKechin, Ann

        Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        McNamara, Kevin

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        MacShane, Denis

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann(Dewsbury)

        McWalter, Tony

        Taylor, Ms Dari(Stockton S)

        McWilliam, John

        Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Timms, Stephen

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Tipping, Paddy

        Mallaber, Judy

        Todd, Mark

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Truswell, Paul

        Marris, Rob

        Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

        Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

        Turner, Dr Desmond(Kemptown)

        Marshall, David(Shettleston)

        Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

        Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

        Tynan, Bill

        Martlew, Eric

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Meale, Alan

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Merron, Gillian

        Ward, Claire

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Wareing, Robert N

        Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

        Watson, Tom

        Mole, Chris

        White, Brian

        472

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Wright, David(Telford)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

        Wright, Tony(Cannock)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Winnick, David

        Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wray, James

        Mr. Ivor Caplin and Derek Twigg.

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Question accordingly negatived. Order for Third Reading read.
        5.10 pm
        Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        Five years ago, the Government's first Budget set out our objectives, our plans for reform, and the disciplines to achieve economic stability, higher employment and sustained prosperity. On 17 April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to report in his Budget speech that Britain had enjoyed the lowest inflation and the lowest interest rates for 40 years. For the first time for half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, Japan and Europe. In the year just ended, Britain had the highest growth of any of our major competitors.
        Last year, the main economies of the industrialised world started a synchronised slowdown. In the past, during such slowdowns Britain entered weaker and suffered longer, unable to act because of higher inflation and higher borrowing. Britain has faced this world downturn with low inflation and sound public finances, both delivered by our new monetary and fiscal frameworks. This time, the Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way. Last year, it cut interest rates seven times.
        With the support of fiscal policy, we have been able to safeguard economic stability and growth, and last year Britain was the fastest-growing G7 economy. The challenge for British industry and investors at this time is to build on hard-won stability and to accelerate productivity improvements, thereby increasing output, employment and prosperity. The economy has been stable, but it can and must grow stronger.
        Mr. Edward Davey: The Paymaster General is giving a eulogy on the Government's macro-economic performance. Will she say a few words about manufacturing? In the last four quarters, output has fallen; in the last six, manufacturing employment has fallen.
        Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, expectations are rising and output was improving in the last quarter. As he rightly acknowledges, the long and hard position of the manufacturing industries is improving—[Interruption.] It ill behoves Opposition Members to make jests or to laugh from a sedentary position about the serious issues and considerations for the British economy.
        I was stating the current position to the House and putting the Bill in that context. Clearly, it is important that we build on that increasing output, employment and prosperity, and there is a clear role for the Government in establishing the conditions necessary for that development, which must take place. The UK is—
        Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr)rose—
        Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I shall give way later.

        473
        The UK is, and will remain, a low-tax environment, and the Bill introduces important measures to modernise tax, keep pace with real-world developments and the global economy, promote enterprise and cut red tape.
        Adam Price: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving way. She knows, of course, that manufacturing output is down 6 per cent. over the last year whereas retail spending is up 6 per cent. Is that not a case of simultaneous boom and bust?
        Dawn Primarolo: It is necessary that the Government establish the right framework and the stability for that growth. Of course, investment, which is very much part of the Bill, is a key driver of growth. To encourage more investment, we have, in past Budgets, cut corporation tax from 33 to 30 per cent.— the lowest rate in our history. To enable investment in high-growth, high-technology industries, clause 53 and schedule 12 extend and enhance the research and development tax credit to all companies. That means a £400 million boost for innovation and research.
        Clause 44 and schedule 8 specify an exemption for companies disposing of substantial shareholdings. That will enable them to restructure without an essential business decision being constrained by the tax system. The new relief forms part of the Government's commitment to reforming and modernising the corporate tax system, and ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a good place in which to do business.
        The Bill establishes a new regime to provide relief for the cost of intangible assets, including intellectual property and goodwill. The relief proposed in clause 84 and schedules 29 and 30 will encourage business to take advantage of opportunities in the knowledge-based economy. That is another important step in our programme of corporate reform, ensuring that our tax system supports, encourages and reflects the change in the business environment.
        Mr. John Redwood: When the Government imposed their big windfall licence fee on the telecommunications industry—a very big one-off tax—I warned that it would lead to job losses and slashes in the investment programmes of our lead sector. The Government said it would not. Will the Minister now apologise and explain what went wrong?
        Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman has made many forecasts that turned out to be wrong. If there is a list of apologies that need to be made to the House, we may be here for a long time hearing members of the last Government apologise for all their errors.
        In clause 91 and with the reforms of North sea oil taxation, the Government recognise the need to strike the right balance between a fair share of profits for the nation from the exploitation of a scarce resource and the encouragement of investment. The 100 per cent. first-year allowances on capital expenditure, along with the commitment to abolish North sea royalties and the supplementary 10 per cent. charge, strikes that balance.
        Small businesses account for 55 per cent. of all private sector jobs, more than 10 million, and for nearly half the economy's output. Small firms are important drivers of growth and support for them is an important theme of
        474
        the Bill. In 1997 we cut the small companies tax rate from 23p to 21p in the pound, and in 1998 we cut it again to 20p, with a starting rate of 10p. Now, in 2002, clause 31 lowers it further, to 19p, with immediate effect.
        Clause 32 proposes a fall in the starting rate for corporation tax from 10 per cent. to zero. That means that companies with profits of up to £10,000 will pay no corporation tax, and that the tax regime for small companies is more favourable than those of any of the other advanced industrial countries.
        To fund the growth of our young companies, we need to increase business investment. Private equity investment has doubled since 1997, which is an important contribution to an entrepreneurial economy. But there is more to be done, and to maintain the momentum the Bill cuts capital gains tax to 20 per cent. in respect of business assets held for a year or more. In the case of business assets held for more than two years, it cuts the tax to 10 per cent. That means that, overall, Britain's capital gains tax regime is more favourable to enterprise than that of the United States.
        I know that for many small businesses the cost of compliance is important. The Budget set out proposals to reform the administration of VAT, to help smaller firms comply with PAYE, and to remove unnecessary regulation. Clauses 23 to 25 set out the steps we are taking to simplify and streamline the VAT regime.
        In disadvantaged areas too, however, businesses can be a catalyst for community regeneration. In recognition of that, in 2000 we designated enterprise neighbourhoods. Small business tax cuts will be supported by further measures to encourage social entrepreneurs. We introduced the community investment tax credit, creating an incentive to invest in disadvantaged communities.
        The emerging consensus on the idea of sustainable development is also an opportunity for British companies. Investing now in energy-saving technologies and techniques is the best way of getting ahead of the game and gaining an important advantage over our foreign competitors. Investment in energy-saving technologies will qualify for enhanced capital allowances at a rate of 100 per cent., strengthening our economy as we move towards our Kyoto targets. Incentives will also be introduced to drive cleaner vehicles, with a reduction in the licence fee of £30 for the most efficient cars, £55 for the least polluting vans and £35 for the least polluting motor cycles. This is a balanced approach, taking into account the needs of the economy and our communities and the need for secure employment.
        To ensure fairness for taxpayers and for business, we must act swiftly to close tax loopholes and be vigilant against tax avoidance. We have decided to act with immediate effect on the avoidance of stamp duty on property and to put an end to artificial schemes for VAT avoidance.
        The United Kingdom remains a low-tax environment, favourable to business and enterprise. That has been acknowledged by a wide range of surveys and reports from business management. The Institute of Management development study, published recently, states that the United Kingdom has better withstood the uncertainties of the global economy. The Government have put in place a comprehensive set of measures aimed at raising competitiveness and closing our productivity gap with our major competitors.

        475
        Another survey, conducted earlier this year, said:
        "In our analysis of the business environment the United Kingdom and the United States of America stand out as leaders in the environment they provide for growth companies."
        The Bill promotes investment in our families and communities, in those who are disadvantaged, in enterprise, in the future growth of the British economy and in the national health service and our public services, providing for the people of the United Kingdom security, opportunity and a future in which they will be able to contribute to a growing and flourishing economy. I commend it to the House.
        5.23 pm
        Mr. Flight: The Bill is, to use the old cliché something of a curate's egg. There are certainly some good things in it, such as the simplification of the VAT regime for small business, the modernisation of business taxation and, we hope, the capital allowance regime for larger companies— we hope that the one for smaller ones will not be too complex to be effective. I thank Treasury Ministers for their courtesy in Committee, where we underwent a useful process and some issues that we raised were noted for inclusion in the Bill.
        However, some bad things remain, and some for which the case was not made at all in any of our debates. I do not intend to repeat the exhaustive debate that we had on increased taxation on North sea oil exploration yesterday, but we remain powerfully convinced of the view that it will damage Britain's interests and greatly reduce extraction of the oil that remains there, at a time when our current account position is already the worst it has been in our history. I noticed that there was no response to the crude point that the loss of output will add on average about $12 billion a year to our current account deficit, although I am not saying that the tax increase is the only cause.
        Yes, we all like small business, which is the majority employer. A small tax will be popular, and we must all like it, but it is unwise of the Government to forget about the self-employed, because self-employment is crucial. The ability to make a living through self-employment has been one of this country's strengths, particularly in difficult economic circumstances. All measures tend to have contrarian effects if they are not thought through, but as we have argued, masses of modest self-employed people will have to queue up to incorporate, in order to gain—potentially—£3,000 or £4,000 a year in tax terms. The costs will be a lot greater than the Government estimate, and it is not desirable for small self-employed businesses to incur yet more regulatory costs and hassle as a result of incorporation. It would have been better to balance fiscal incentives for small businesses between the incorporated and the unincorporated.
        Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman share my surprise that this is one tax cut for business that many people do not welcome? However, they do not welcome it because, as he says, it might distort choice in an unplanned and unstrategic way.
        Mr. Flight: Indeed. Many self-employed people tell me that they thought they were getting a tax cut, only to
        476
        discover that they are not. They ask me what they should do to get it, and I tell them to get an accountant. To be candidly cynical for a moment, the Government have not got the bang for their buck from the small business community that they perhaps expected. The point is one of principle: if the objective was pure, there should have been a mixed reduction involving the incorporated and the self-employed, rather than a reduction weighted entirely in one direction.
        The Government may regret their approach to stamp duty. It is fine and correct to attack tax avoidance, but the basic issue is whether it is right and economically sensible for business to pay 4 per cent. stamp duty. That has not been a huge issue until now because there were many schemes through which to avoid such duty; indeed, many businesses believed that the Government regarded such schemes as an incentive for business. Whether there has been a change of policy or merely a waking up to it, the fact remains that a business's physical assets—the property—are just as much of a component as the machinery and the people. Taxing them more will lead to less mobility and greater costs.
        We have debated the unfortunate principle of the alcopops tax, whereby it is okay to proceed with a tax based on data that prove bogus. On green fuels, green taxation and car legislation, I do not understand why the Government did not include liquefied petroleum gas in the incentives. Some of the fiscal arrangements, particularly those relating to company cars, may prove mind-blowingly complex.
        We had a strong debate on mandatory e-filing. Of course, technology advances and we will all comply with it, but regardless of the intention, it must be wrong to begin by saying that we will force everybody—businesses, little old ladies—to file tax returns electronically. The underlying mindset is unnecessarily authoritarian.
        I apologise for not being present when controlled foreign company legislation—the Jersey clause—was addressed in detail. I strongly object to two aspects of CFC legislation. First, it is bad for the UK as a multinational base for business. Whatever the Government may think, we are becoming less attractive in terms of tax and regulations, and are slipping down the competitive league table. If multinational companies based here become subject to an arbitrary power to change the tax rules governing their international operations—in other words, if the Treasury suddenly has random power to decide that they would not get the CFC exemption—they will face a disincentive to doing business. Arbitrariness of any sort is undesirable.
        Secondly, I believe that one element of the legislation has been mis-sold, as there is widespread support for the savings directive. It was the alternative to the silly proposal that is the common EU withholding tax, and it was effective against tax evasion. However, the Opposition certainly do not like the notion of EU tax harmonisation, and elements of the EU unfair tax competition code lean in that direction. I want this country to retain its autonomy to set taxes as we wish, as a way of encouraging what we want to encourage. Competitive taxation is healthy: anything that compromises that rather invites a tax cartel.
        Finally, 30 years ago huge negotiations took place with regard to the Channel Islands. They had a degree of independence, and they remain outside the EU. I do not

        477
        like the UK exerting back-door leverage to bring them within the ambit of EU initiatives. Given their particular relationship with the UK, there is some justification for that approach when it is in Britain's interests, but not when it is used to get around, by the back door, a position settled 30 years ago.
        The Prime Minister visited Jersey in June. I was amazed to read that he said Jersey had its own rights in this situation, that the Government would protect them, and that the Government were not trying to affect tax rates. Either the Prime Minister does not know what he is talking about, or he was being deliberately misleading.
        It was a pity that the new clause on the tax law commission did not get selected for debate. The exercise of trying to rewrite tax law more simply has had some success—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not comment on Third Reading on a new clause that was not selected for debate.
        Mr. Flight: Let me put it another way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are faced with 505 pages of taxation—surely it is possible to have tax rules that are simpler and more comprehensible. It is a question not merely of drafting tax law more simply, but of establishing bodies that would contribute to simplifying our tax system.
        The Bill does not address the pension crisis that we face and that is largely a result of the Finance Act 1997. I shall not repeat what was said in yesterday's debate, but I hope that the Government took note of the growing concern registered by the financial community, citizens and others at the growth in off-balance-sheet, Enron-style accounting.
        People are also worried by what can only be described as the tangled web involved in getting public sector investment off the balance sheet. It seems that tax vehicles are being shaped to meet the rules rather than the substance, and I wonder whether the Government know the full extent of the liabilities that are lurking in wait. If not, given the difficult economic times, some extremely unpleasant things could happen.
        Above all, the Budget in aggregate is bad for business, and it is bad for business at the wrong time. It will do some helpful things to encourage research and development, but it also imposes massive increases in employment costs on business, just when business and enterprise face considerable problems.
        At the root of the problem and the reason why the stock exchange has been collapsing is the problem of corporate profitability. If anything, corporate profitability is contracting. Companies are finding it increasingly difficult to sustain profits, let alone increase them. Continually adding regulatory and fiscal costs to business produces a downward spiral which will then reduce pension fund values and investments still further, and so forth.
        The Chancellor thought, as ever, that he was very clever with his Budget. He went out to the focus groups who said, "Yes, we quite like the idea of hypothecating extra national insurance to pay for more health care." I think they also said, "We certainly agree with more spending but, like the Conservatives, we do not agree that more spending will be effective without the necessary reforms." The Chancellor sold the whole package on
        478
        hypothecation: more money to pay for more health expenditure. The figures, however, show that half of it is not that at all.
        There are £4.7 billion-worth of tax credits, bringing the total tax credit cost up to some £16 billion. As we have pointed out, those tax credits will discourage pension saving for many and are in danger of providing excess job subsidies, militating against skill training and increased productivity. It may be no accident that after four years of the working families tax credit we are now seeing productivity declining. We have not only the lowest productivity growth for some time, but falls in productivity when for five years the Chancellor has gone on saying that his Government will increase and improve productivity.
        It is no use spending huge sums on health unless those amounts will be effective. As we have said again and again, a package of increased spending without the necessary reforms should not be supported. The crude fact that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, where spending as a proportion of national income is already above European levels, delivery is even worse than in England is straightforward evidence that reform is needed. We hear of more administrators than beds and only 17 per cent. of new expenditure going to front-line delivery. Those have all the hallmarks of the inefficiency of nationalised industries the world over. The risk is that all that expenditure will in reality go on wage increases.
        In an entirely different area, the problem is becoming more apparent of the black hole in the Chancellor's plans—something like £7 billion. Indeed, it was heartening to find the Government's own new economic adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry, Vicky Price, warning publicly that the Government may be about to embark on too much spending which they will not be able to finance. The expectation is that quite soon taxes may have to increase again. Apparently the Chancellor said that he thought the statement was a spoof. Perhaps it is he who is out of touch and not the rather tough and honest speaking new economist at the DTI.
        Productivity is falling. London job prospects are the worst since 1993. Tax receipts are declining for the first time in nine years. Corporation tax receipts are down 12 per cent. and Inland Revenue receipts down 7 per cent. Hearing the rosy picture which the Paymaster General described, who would imagine that we had a crashing stock market? Of course, it happens just like that. Stock markets are not at all predictive, are they? That is not their role. But what the stock markets are telling us is that corporate profitability is vulnerable and falling. That is the key point. The worst aspect of the Budget overall is that it will be bad for business, as business has made clear.
        We have heard all the spin about the Government's wonderful finances. That is the point of raising the off-balance-sheet issue, because however one looks at it—whether one talks about sticking to the rules rather than the substance, or potentially breaking the rules—all that has been happening is that the capital expenditure side is being hidden off balance sheet. People know that. There may be several benefits in involving the private sector, but everyone knows that in reality the state of the public finances is not the rosy picture that is painted by the Chancellor.
        Yet again, we had a clever-clever Chancellor's Budget. It got all the headlines that he wanted on the day, but now people are focusing on realities such as their declining

        479
        pensions, businesses weighed down with tax and regulation, and the problem of sustaining profitability. This morning I turned on my radio as I was getting up and the chap said, "Yes, the Chancellor's going from boom to bust." One of the problems with allowing the savings ratio to fall so badly is that when it recovers—and it will recover in a recession—consumption falls by too much. The Chancellor has presided over a period in which overall saving has declined too much, consumption has risen too much and the external balance has gone to hell; and the time will come to pay the price for that. It was an arrogant and unwise Budget. The details of the Bill are good and bad, but there will be a growing mess for us to sort out in due course, and the Government will need more than the ability to deliver a bad case in an eloquent fashion.
        Above all—this is why we are going to vote against the Bill—there has been a foolish arrogance as regards the whole issue of North sea oil taxation. The resource of North sea oil is not the family silver in the Treasury, but one of nature's great gifts of good fortune to this country. The new tax measures mean that instead of managing it to make the most of it, we are going to under-exploit it. That will be to the country's disadvantage over the coming years.
        5.43 pm
        Mr. Luke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad to have caught your eye in the twilight of our deliberations on the Budget and to be able to make a further contribution to the debates on the Finance Bill as it proceeds through its final stages towards enactment. As a Back Bencher new to the ways of the Budget and to the intricacies of the tax-raising powers of this House, I feel privileged to have been able to make contributions at every stage of the Budget process.
        I am glad to have witnessed at first hand the nature of the response by Opposition Members to the proposals brought to the House by the Chancellor in his Budget on 17 April. There has not generally been a great deal of heat in the arguments that they put forward, despite the contribution just made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), but sufficient light has been engendered in Committee and on the Floor of the House for us to recognise that although there have been genuine areas of disagreement, the many positive aspects of the Budget have met with general agreement.
        The Budget was carefully crafted and constructed not to deceive the British people but to create a fairer and more efficient tax regime that will benefit the majority of taxpayers, investors and companies that contribute so much to the well-being of the economy and to the UK's continued economic health and prosperity. I firmly believe that, as the Paymaster General said, the initial view of many of the informed commentators who voiced opinions on the nature of the Budget will be fully substantiated: that view was that it was a defining moment in the life of this Government.
        The major issue of this Budget is close to my heart, close to the heart of the labour and trade union movement of which I am a representative and, indeed, close to the hearts of my constituents and all those who believe in Britain: it is the health and well-being of this country in
        480
        the widest sense. The future of the national health service and how it will be financed was certainly the major focus of the Chancellor's Budget.
        I shall take up the points made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. In the past two to three years, the people in my constituency have noted the much improved health service in Scotland. We have done away with the internal market. We have reorganised the service in Scotland to provide a sharper, leaner service, and I believe that the money coming from the Budget will obviously deal with many of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Scottish NHS and ensure that the services are delivered properly.
        I shall not linger on this, but there has to be recognition of the fact that rates of illness are obviously higher in Scotland. There is a need for greater spending given the higher levels of cancer and coronary heart disease. It is right in a country that cares for all its component parts that the Government should take account of that in their Budget formulae.
        Leaving that aside, the Budget was certainly crafted to ensure not only that the NHS survives but to secure the health of Britain's poorest communities, the health of the British economy and the health of this country's companies and corporations—the sinews and muscles of Britain's economic health.
        I am certain that, just as the people's Budget at the beginning of the last century laid the foundations of Britain's nascent welfare services, in bringing the Budget proposals to the statute book at the beginning of the new century, this Finance Bill will reaffirm this Government's and this nation's belief in and commitment to modern, inclusive welfare provision, where wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.
        The Government and the Chancellor have clearly indicated the need for a process of redistribution to ensure the vitality and the very existence of Britain's poorest, most disadvantaged communities and social groups, so that they are given an injection of assistance and support, delivered, in the words that Winston Churchill used when Chancellor of the Exchequer, via the ambulances of state aid.
        Many fellow Members of Parliament will welcome those Budget provisions that directly relate to their constituencies, be they the community development tax credits and community development funds; the new incubator funds to help new innovative companies to grow; the removal of the stamp tax on the sale of property in Britain's most socially deprived areas—I am glad to say that my constituency will be one of those that benefits most from those innovative provisions—or the encouragement of small business start-ups and enterprise. All those provisions will help areas that have suffered significantly through urban and social change and economic decline to begin to make serious starts to regenerate themselves.
        I believe the Budget proposals in the round are to be welcomed. They clearly show the political differences between the two major parties, despite the many agreements that we have had in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Government believe in social justice, equity, enterprise and opportunity, but the Opposition put business first, not the people. In Committee, the Conservative party defended the tobacco industry, just as Conservative Members have today

        481
        defended the drinks industry. They have promoted the abolition of inheritance tax and the complete removal of the stamp tax, while opposing the Government's prime proposal to improve this country's health service.
        Politics can best be defined as the battle of two conflicting groups of ideas, struggling to achieve popular endorsement for policies and programmes. The Budget has been branded as unwise, but the British people have clearly indicated their massive endorsement of the Budget proposals—even a majority of Conservatives endorse them—and by implication accept the means by which they are to be funded. In a question asked recently at Prime Minister's questions reference was made to our all being Thatcherites now, but the Budget and the Labour party's stewardship of the nation's finances invite us to beg to differ.
        5.49 pm
        Mr. Edward Davey: May I start by agreeing with a major point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)? He said that the Paymaster General's opening remarks describing the performance of the British economy and its management under the Government were far too rosy; I would say that they were Panglossian. There may have been successes in the last five years, particularly Bank of England independence and the increased stability that that has given to monetary policy, which Liberal Democrats have welcomed on many occasions. To suggest that the whole picture of the macro-economy is rosy, however, is far from the truth.
        I suggest to the Paymaster General that, rather than simply reading the briefing from Treasury officials, she should go to the House of Commons Library to read the latest research paper on economic indicators, published this week. Merely browsing through that will show her that a whole range of indicators are flashing red, which the Government appear to be ignoring totally. I was therefore very worried by the right hon. Lady's speech.
        Manufacturing output has fallen in the last five quarters. Indeed, in 2001, it fell by 2.3 per cent. We can also consider other industries, such as agriculture, hunting and fishing, whose output has of course been falling for many quarters; it fell in 2000 and 2001, and it fell in the first quarter of this year. Other industrial sectors show similar falls. Manufacturing is perhaps the most worrying because of its importance to the tradeable sector. We have seen large falls in that sector, especially in manufacturing employment, which fell in 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, and is falling again this year. In fact, manufacturing employment is falling at around 5 per cent. a year, while manufacturing output is falling at 6 per cent. a year. Can the Government be proud of that?
        I remember that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in opposition in his role as shadow Chancellor and, prior to that, as the Opposition spokesman on trade and industry, he was on the television night after night talking about manufacturing—manufacturing investment, manufacturing output and manufacturing jobs. Under his stewardship, however, we have seen declines in all those areas. He does not have a record of which to be proud.
        Mr. Tom Harris: I had not intended to intervene at this stage. I must point out, however, that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was making those points in opposition, it was in the context of interest rates of
        482
        10 per cent. or 11 per cent., which are debilitating to manufacturing industry. The fact is that we have the lowest interest rates for 40 years, which is testament to the success of the Government and to my right hon. Friend's policies.
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right about interest rates. The problem with the Government's management of the economy has been a totally benign approach to the exchange rate.
        Mr. Flight: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is wrong about interest rates. As soon as we came out of the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, interest rates fell like a stone, and they were miles lower than 10 per cent. while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making his points throughout the period from 1992 onwards.
        Mr. Davey: I would caution the hon. Gentleman about intervening too much to praise the Conservatives' record on managing the economy. I am afraid that I will not agree with him on their overall performance, given that we saw debt triple and years of high interest rates.
        I was focusing on Labour's record. Because of the high exchange rate—which is still too high—the manufacturing sector has been haemorrhaging jobs.
        Mr. Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the Liberal Democrats would engineer a devaluation of the pound to help manufacturing industry? I know that that is a very dangerous thing for any Government to do. I presume that the reason why the Liberal Democrats claim that they can do it is that they will never be the Government.
        Mr. Davey: We have argued consistently—it is not a new argument but one that we have been making for many years—that if the Government had a positive approach to joining the single currency and gave us an indication of when the referendum would take place, the foreign exchange markets would push sterling down to a competitive rate.
        Mr. Harris: Fingers crossed.
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, "Fingers crossed"—
        Adam Price: Signalling effects.
        Mr. Davey: As the hon. Gentleman says, however, the signalling effects have been proven, not just in the case of the UK but in the case of Italy when it announced that the lira would join the single currency. There was a sensible, slow, gradual and sustainable depreciation, so that the lira could move in a competitive way into the single currency.
        Directly after the general election, the markets perceived that the Government, who had kept their large majority, might be more positive about their approach to, and timetable for, joining the single currency, and the foreign exchange markets reacted to that by putting downward pressure on the exchange rate. The Treasury stepped in to say, "Hold on a minute. We have no

        483
        intention of joining," and tried to scupper the rumours, and it was only then that the pound went back up again. That proves my point entirely.
        The Government have failed to give a clear lead on the exchange rate and so must take the blame and the responsibility for many of the thousands of jobs that have been lost in manufacturing. Let us remember that 500,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing over the past five years.
        Rob Marris: I represent a constituency in the west midlands, the manufacturing heartland of the United Kingdom. In contrast to the hon. Gentleman's view, it seems to me that the cross rates between sterling and non-euro currencies show that the problem is that the euro is too low rather than that the pound is too high. Does the hon. Gentleman disagree with that analysis? If so, what level does he think the pound should be at?
        Mr. Davey: When we carried out a review with a whole range of independent economists who were experts on exchange rates, we published a guideline on the sort of range at which the pound could join the single currency. We challenged the Government to provide their range and enter the debate. That is how we should start to consider and face up to the issue. The Government's failure to do that concerns me greatly.
        Mr. Flight: Since the hon. Gentleman has focused on this territory, will he complete the story? The Chancellor and the Treasury are terrified that, if sterling were to depreciate significantly, inflation would be imported into this country, interest rates would rise and the housing market would crash. The Government would then become the most unpopular of all time. That completes the circle.
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is almost beginning to suggest a conspiracy theory which says that the Government are deliberately not acting because of the housing market. I am not sure that that is the case. The Government do not control interest rates; they rightly gave power over them to the Monetary Policy Committee, which has the difficult task of trying to judge the balance between the external side and the domestic side and to deal with the dilemma of domestic inflation in sectors such as the housing market and external deflation in the tradeable sector.
        Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The Bank of England will certainly continue to control interest rates; but given the state of the economy, the Government know that if they talk down sterling, inflation is likely to increase. If inflation increased, the Bank of England would be obliged to put up interest rates. If interest rates were put up in the current property market, with many people dangerously over-borrowing at low rates of interest, there would be the risk of a crash in the property market. That is the circle.
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Many people in the Treasury and the Bank of England would like a readjustment of monetary policy in exactly the way that he describes—a lower exchange rate and a higher interest rate. That would probably be a much better
        484
        solution. The Government could engineer that if their policies on the euro were much clearer, but the examples that I have given show that their failure to go down that route is leading them into a dangerous position in which the housing market is being allowed to overheat. That will store up trouble for the future.
        Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of detail, the Government in fact retain control of monetary policy by virtue of the fact that they set the target for inflation. Section 11 of the Bank of England Act 1998 requires the Bank and the MPC thereafter to hit that target. If the Chancellor wanted to affect the range of interest rates, he could, if he so wished, change the inflation target.
        Mr. Davey: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I refer him to the report of the Committee that debated the Bill. I served on that Committee and argued for target independence for the Bank of England, so that the Monetary Policy Committee could set its own targets instead of the Chancellor doing it—in the same way as the European Central Bank does. I argued that because if the markets think that the Chancellor may use that remaining power to set targets and thus affect interest rates and the exchange rate, that will undermine the credibility of the inflation rate.
        Long-term interest rates show some evidence that we are still paying a premium in the UK. We have slightly higher long-term interest rates than many other of our competitor countries. That slight premium exists partly because the Bank of England does not have target independence.[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to dispute that, I am more than happy to show them some of the figures that I have seen. I also refer them to the recent article in the Financial Times by Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament.
        Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman cares to check today's Financial Times, he will see that the long bond yield in Germany is slightly higher than the long bond yield in the UK. He has only to read it.
        Mr. Davey: The House of Commons information document on economic indicators, which was published this week, shows that on 10-year Government bonds, the figure for the UK is 5, in the US it is 4.83, in Switzerland it is 3.21 and in Japan it is 1.25. My point is backed by the evidence in the latest publication from the Library.
        The Government's rosy picture of the economy is complete nonsense. Indeed, the whole strategy behind the Bill is very worrying. In the Budget, the Chancellor increased his forecasts for the underlying growth rate of the economy. He did that to try to balance the public finances. By increasing the underlying rate of growth by just 0.25 per cent., the Chancellor found £4 billion or so over the forecast period.
        The change in forecast is highly contestable, for reasons to do with the overall performance of the economy that I have discussed and, if one looks at the background documents published at the time of the Budget, the overall rationale behind it. On Second Reading, I asked why the Government had not chosen the central forecast from the Government Actuary's Department. The rationale for increasing the growth rate was that the population was increasing faster than had previously been expected.

        485
        The Government relied on the report from GAD for that information. However, instead of taking the central forecast from that report, the Government chose a figure in the mid-range between the central forecast and the most optimistic forecast. By doing so, they tried to provide an explanation for increasing the underlying growth forecast.
        I received no reply when I asked why the Government had decided to make that change. It was arbitrary and stealthy, and the only way in which the Chancellor could balance the books. I am concerned by that. The Government's positive spin on the performance of the economy is very worrying, because they are misleading themselves into believing their own public finance forecast.
        I support the Government on one major change: the increase in taxation to fund the extra health spending, which is key to the Budget. My hon. Friends rehearsed the argument in favour of such a policy on Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill and elsewhere, although we would not raise the money in the same way. Income tax is our preferred route because it would be fairer and more efficient. It would not hit employers and would ensure that people who enjoy high investment incomes pay their fair share.
        The fundamental question that the Conservatives have ducked is whether they support the extra money for the health service. That is the key consideration. We have campaigned for that increase in spending for many years. It is one reason why we voted against Third Reading of the Finance Bills in 2000 and 2001. It would be hypocritical to vote against Third Reading today because the Government have done what we have been calling for, albeit with significant differences. The basic thrust is right, however, which is why we support them.
        Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman's comments highlight the often two-faced nature of Liberal Democrat politics: on the one hand, he criticises the Government on manufacturing industry and is concerned about the predicament that it faces; on the other, he supports tax increases that place a huge additional burden on manufacturing industry. Can he explain that?
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. When we debated the key problem facing manufacturing, I spoke about the exchange rate. Had I spoken about the rate of taxation, he would have a point, but the key problem facing manufacturing is the exchange rate because they are the major exporters in our economy. He need only talk to a few manufacturers to know that. It is possible to be in favour both of a higher rate of tax to ensure that the health service has the money that it needs and of an exchange rate that is competitive and assists our exporters, which is why we support the euro.
        There are a few problems with the details of the Bill—the North sea oil issues and the freeze in personal allowances, for example. I think that the cut in the starting rate of corporation tax to 0 per cent. is a mistake, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs explained. However, the Bill contains some good measures, such as those on amateur sports clubs, the tidying up of film tax relief and the streamlining of VAT.
        It is worth focusing on one significant aspect of the Bill and the Committee proceedings. Some 60 per cent. of the Bill—300 pages—was published in draft form for
        486
        consultation. That is a major and serious change. It should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and should be repeated and extended. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have said that one major problem is the complexity and vastness of tax legislation. By publishing things in advance we can ensure that the professionals have a chance to make comments to us and the Government so that many of the problems are ironed out by the time the Bill is introduced. For that reason, the Committee proceedings were relatively uncontroversial. There was much agreement among hon. Members and excellent work was done, not least by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who did an exceedingly good and thorough job.
        The Government have some way to go on the simplification agenda. The Bill adds some complexities. They should continue some of the good work but also go much further. I have a radical suggestion to make. One reason why we have an annual Finance Bill is the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. We do not need a huge Finance Bill every year. One reason why the tax system is so complicated and weighty is that the Chancellor, Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue want to get their sticky fingers on the statute book every year. We should move to a system in which a full Finance Bill is introduced every other year. That would enable the Government to undertake even more consultation on draft clauses. In the years when we did not have a proper Finance Bill, we could have a small Bill that followed the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, to make sure that income tax and corporation tax could be collected each year. That would mean that we would not keep adding so much extra taxation legislation every year, which by its nature has a degree of complexity.
        Mr. Flight: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Secondly, I say, "Dear God, not 1,010 pages every other year!"
        Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If we moved to a biennial Finance Bill, I would not want that Bill to be twice the size of the present annual Bill. The purpose of the idea is to stop the tax legislation juggernaut. I think it would complement the way in which the Government are now trying to consult.
        Having spoken for 38 minutes on Second Reading, I promised myself that I would not speak for so long on Third Reading. I intend to draw my remarks to a close.
        I am delighted that the Government did a U-turn by understanding that taxation needed to increase if we were to make essential investments in our public services. I have some concerns about the amount within the economy as expressed. Similarly, I have some concerns about the way in which the Government are presenting their public finances. However, overall it was a tax rise that was needed both by the health service and to ensure that our public finances are on a secure footing. For that reason alone, we shall be giving the Bill our support in the Lobby.
        6.11 pm
        Mr. Jack: This has been an interesting Finance Bill, first, in terms of the personnel who have dealt with it on both sides of the Committee and on both sides of the

        487
        Chamber. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). He did a remarkable job, in many instances singlehandedly, speaking with a rapid-fire delivery about incredibly complex matters, which he at least followed. Occasionally, the rest of us were left trailing verbally in his wake, trying to keep up with his flow of intellect. He did the proper job of probing the Government sometimes on their more technical measures, leaving the more salacious parts of the Bill to lesser beings sitting behind him.
        I acknowledge the excellent work that was carried out by my hon. Friends the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who were considering their first Finance Bill. They performed an admirable task.
        On the Government Benches there was a sort of game of musical chairs. We started with the Financial Secretary who became the Chief Secretary, while the Economic Secretary was promoted to be the Financial Secretary. In the past few days, we had the pleasure of welcoming the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wentworth (John Healey), as the new kid on the block. I tried my very best to try to read the new body language of Treasury Ministers, not always with great success. However, I think we learned something about what goes on in their minds by their demureness and the way they communicated with us.
        The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) marked himself out by developing an interesting line of asking the uncomfortable question but without quite getting himself into the uncomfortable position. The Government have found someone on the Labour Benches who is prepared to ask the difficult question, and the Bill's scrutiny was made the stronger as a result.
        For a moment, I shall take up the thoughts that have been expressed by those on the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Front Benches about the complexity and length of legislation. With no disrespect to those who have spoken of the subject, perhaps they did not press the Government to give us a definitive statement. A Bill of more than 500 pages and in excess of 125 clauses illustrates that we have added much more legislation to the statute book, and it shows that the world is a complex place and that tax law reflects it.
        I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and suggest that we should have a biennial Bill. Sometimes there are people who seek to avoid their just deserts. A Finance Bill must move quickly to secure the revenues for whichever Government were legitimately elected. Over the years, I have received representations from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and many other individuals and organisations, all of whom, notwithstanding the tax law rewrite exercise, call for work to simplify our tax system and to improve its scrutiny.
        The publication, "Towards a better tax system", issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, points out that the Finance Bill of 1978 had 75 clauses and the Finance
        488
        Bill of 1999, 140 clauses. In 1978, 53 clauses were debated, but in 1999, only 42 were debated, which illustrates a scrutiny deficit that has crept into our proceedings. For perhaps understandable reasons of pre-legislative scrutiny, we did not go through every single clause in the current Finance Bill, but the time has now come for the Treasury to consider bringing together representative bodies who have made representations and, more importantly, have ideas about ways in which the operation of the tax system could be improved beyond the rewrite exercise. Discussion of the rewrite is timely, as next week a new measure on the topic—the second—will be published, demonstrating the totality of part of the tax universe. When preparing a Finance Bill, no Treasury Minister ever sees all the relevant parts of the Taxes Act 1988. Those Ministers only see one bit and consider one set of implications. Only when the rewrite is submitted can we see the enormity of their proposals.
        It is time to assemble a body under Treasury chairmanship, including parliamentary representatives with an interest in the subject and, more importantly, practitioners, to try to map out an agenda to simplify the tax system and improve its operation. The idea that simplification can do the surgeon's job of cutting chunks wholesale from the tax system is not realistic. The Government, and indeed the previous Government of whom I was a member, have always looked for opportunities to remove unnecessary legislation. Making legislation work better and making it more understandable, however, as well as the need to consider the effect of the tax code on the economy, provide a perfectly legitimate opportunity for people involved in tax to have their say.
        I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary in her winding-up speech nodded in that direction, and accepted the need for the Treasury to consider a meeting of interested parties to try to find a way forward. There is universal support for that, and not of a party political nature, deriving from a genuine and rational wish to establish a better tax system, which would build on pre-legislative scrutiny and the rewrite exercise for the benefit of all of us.
        In conclusion, I have often asked Treasury Ministers for an explanation or economic, arithmetical or algebraic justification of the formulae used to support their position. In a world of increasing transparency, with greater pressures for freedom of information, the Treasury must re-examine the need for clearer statements on the economic effect of its measures and their justification; the way in which things have been calculated; and indeed the very oil of the system—details on tax revenue. I have asked for forward monthly projections from the Treasury, which are required for resource accounting and with which Departments illustrate their cash flows, but so far the Treasury has been reluctant to make that information available.
        If our country's financial institutions are to map the progress of the economy, it is important that information on the cash flow of the British economy be made available to them on a regular basis. On the question of simplification, however, I hope that the Treasury is willing to be more sympathetic and call the type of meeting which I have suggested.
        6.19 pm
        Mr. Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests.
        I, too, join my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in paying tribute to those Opposition Members who have worked hard in Committee—I have read of their progress—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) who has done sterling work, as a result of which there have been improvements to the legislation.
        I am glad that my hon. Friend is asking the official Opposition to vote against the Bill on Third Reading in principle. We have heard Labour Members explain that the Bill presents a series of tax measures that they say are necessary to fund our health service. If only it were so. But when I have sought promises from Health Ministers that the taxes in the Bill would lead to the provision of consultants, nurses, doctors and other personnel whom I need in my local hospital, I can get no guarantee. I have every fear that we shall not get them quickly or in the numbers that we need.
        When I read in my papers and hear in the House from time to time of the massive losses being built up in the Post Office, the financial catastrophe that is Railtrack and the massive increase in budgets for the Government's burgeoning welfare bills, I see that this legislation is part of the Government's policy of tax and waste. It is the high taxation side to pay for large bills, many of them going on things that the public does not want, or just reflecting bad management.
        I am not just voting against the Bill because I object to the whole strategy; I am also voting against it because some of the taxes embedded in the legislation are especially damaging.
        Paul Farrelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of his wisdom in relation to the Conservative party's policy on funding the NHS, or would he admit that we still await that?
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist that invitation while we are debating the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
        Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        We need to spend money on sensible things and to raise taxes for that, but I believe that the Government are raising far too much and that a lot of it will not be well spent, which is what the public thinks.
        The first tax in the legislation that I am worried about is stamp duty. Some amendments have been made, but the Bill does nothing for an area such as mine, with high and rapidly rising house prices, in which many people who are seeking to buy for the first time will be paying rather high levels of stamp duty compared with the modest sums that they have been able to save in their short careers so far.
        That should matter to a Government who want more teachers, nurses and junior doctors, the very people who will have to pay those penal stamp duties when they are struggling to get together a deposit to buy their first flat or small house. In many parts of the country now where house prices are high and when the duties and thresholds incorporated in the legislation leave such people cruelly
        490
        exposed, it makes it so much more difficult to populate the public sector with the good young talent that we need. Stamp duty is becoming one of the substantial barriers to their successful mobility and employment in places of high cost.
        Mr. Edward Davey: I have just spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and he agrees with me. Is it right that one pays stamp duty on one's first house purchase? Does not one pay it when one sells?
        Mr. Redwood: I have always had to pay it on purchase. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but it is a tax imposed when one buys a property. It is particularly hard for someone with a big student loan, who has tried to save for two or three years and put together a small deposit, to then discover that the biggest cost that they will have to face in addition to the legal bills and other necessary expenses will be stamp duty to a Chancellor belonging to a Government who say that they want such public sector workers to be able to work in expensive parts of the country as well as in cheaper parts, and then weep crocodile tears about the housing problems that they face.
        The second tax that I wish to express concern about is the one highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs as his principal reason for opposing the legislation—that is, the taxation that is likely to be enacted for the oil industry. Here, again, one would hope that the Government would listen and learn from their own experiences if not from those of Governments in other parts of the world. Surely they can understand that the decision to impose a large one-off tax on the telecoms industry a few years ago was one of the main reasons for the precipitate collapse in investment expenditure and employment in that industry. What was once the proud growing industry that led the renaissance of the British economy in the 1990s is now a disaster area that is leading the economy down. We hope that that will not spread to every part of the economy, but it was a very big chunk of it to hit so heavily. Please will the Government understand the damage that will be done by taking that much money out of a high-investing industry? Will they recognise that their oil taxation, which is on a smaller scale and is therefore unlikely to do so much damage will, none the less, do some damage to the investment and employment prospects of that industry?
        Mr. Tom Harris: I intervene on a point of clarification. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the one-off tax on telecoms. Was he referring to the auction of digital bandwidths? We must be very clear that an auction is not a taxation policy. The Opposition have made mistakes about that many times before. The process was freely and voluntarily entered into by the telecoms industry.
        Mr. Redwood: It certainly was not. It was a tax on staying in business, because if the companies wished to stay in business, they had to buy a licence. The Government did not offer enough licences, of which they were the monopoly supplier, so the measure acted in exactly the same way as a tax and they were taking huge sums out of a very successful industry. Surely the hon. Gentleman can at least grasp the very simple point that if

        491
        £22.5billion is taken out of the pockets of companies that were going to invest a great deal, they will spend less and get into financial difficulties. Indeed, some of them went bankrupt or needed financial reconstruction.
        Rob Marris: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be setting out a very curious scenario that does not at all accord with my recollection of history. Companies were bidding for licences, and the Government were selling a state asset—access to the airwaves—for a decent price, in contradistinction to what happened when his party was in office. In Italy, for example, where a similar process was undertaken, some of the telecommunications companies simply dropped out of the bidding or failed to bid, as some in the United Kingdom did. He is trying to blame the Government for the commercial decisions and mismanagement of telecoms companies in the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Redwood: Labour Members protest too much. The policy was a tax and it did a lot of damage. I am warning the House and the Government that they are now imposing a less dramatic tax on the oil industry, but one that will have a proportionate effect on investment and jobs in the oil industry. The danger in the oil industry is that if even a marginal increase in taxation coincides with a lower oil price or some other worsening of the terms of trade of an oil company, it could lead to a very big cancellation of investment programmes.
        The Government are therefore in a paradox. If they are lucky, the oil price will increase a lot, which will conceal the impact of their taxation, but have all sorts of other unpleasant consequences for the economy. If they are unlucky, the oil price will go down, which will magnify the impact of their tax increases and lead to the cancellation of projects or to a desire in the industry not to pursue marginal North sea projects that will be very damaging. A previous Labour Government found that out in the 1970s, so one wishes that the current Government had some folk memory of those experiences and had learned from them.
        Ruth Kelly: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that, by introducing a 100 per cent. first-year capital allowance, it is the Government who are taking the risk of lower oil prices and not the companies?
        Mr. Redwood: One must consider the impact of all the oil tax measures that the Government are proposing, and not just the capital allowances. As the oil industry has made clear to the Government, the overall impact will be negative, and if circumstances deteriorate further on the demand or price side, further cancellations will result. I am surprised that the intelligent Minister cannot understand that.
        Mr. Flight: My right hon. Friend might also be aware that large numbers of new participants in the North sea have not got any profits on which to use a capital allowance.
        Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. Of course, that is exactly what I had in mind when I was saying that if other conditions deteriorated further,
        492
        more companies would find themselves in that position, which reinforces the fact that the overall balance of tax measures will be negative in the industry.
        My third worry about the Bill is the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted in relation to Jersey. I think that the offshore Crown dependencies that are part of the Great Britain island group have done an amazing job for their people and demonstrated that good honest businesses that generate many well-paid jobs can be run by keeping corporate and financial taxes low and keeping regulation within bounds. I regret that the Government are not standing up for that important set of principles and for the offshore islands within the European Union in the way that they should.
        I fear that the measures in the Finance Bill are only part of a series of measures that are going to be taken gradually to make it more difficult for the offshore islands under the Crown to pursue their legitimate and decent businesses with the benefits of lower taxation and lighter regulation that are essential to their well-being. These islands are great success stories. They have little other natural advantage, but they have attracted talent and now have home-grown talent. They have good levels of employment and income as a result of concentrating primarily on financial services, and encouraging them through lower taxation and light regulation.
        The Bill is another step in the wrong direction. It may not be the killer step, but it is part of a process in which the terms are going to deteriorate for the offshore islands. It may also spark more political opposition on the islands to their continuing relationship, in its current form, with the United Kingdom. That is something that I rather regret, and we ought to be very worried about it.
        My fear about the Bill is that, when it targets specific areas or places for extra taxes without understanding the impact that it will have, it is too draconian. In other ways, however, it does not measure up to the growing storm clouds here and elsewhere in the world that might have benefited from a rather different response from a Government concerned about our future prosperity, the value of our savings, and our livelihoods.
        The Government would be well advised to take the message of the United Kingdom stock market a little more seriously. It has now been falling solidly for two and a half years. It has been falling not just because of the world background, and it is certainly not just because a few big companies in the United States of America have made mistakes, or worse, in their accounting practices and undermined confidence recently on Wall street. It is falling partly because too much tax has been taken out of companies by the Government, and partly because the Government are moving towards greater hostility to the idea of making a profit on enterprise and being able to reinvest it.
        The savings rate is too low, and our pension funds are in a state of crisis, as we debated recently in the House. The Finance Bill reaffirms the £5 billion a year tax hit on those very pension funds, which should be providing a better future for many of our constituents than they are now going to do, because of this continuing tax raid.
        The Finance Bill is the product of a tax-raiding Chancellor who really believed that British business was so successful and so profitable that it did not matter what taxes he threw at it. I fear that we are going to discover

        493
        that mistakes have been made in the Bill in its taxation of savings, its taxation of the housing market, its taxation of profits and, in particular, its taxation of the oil industry. Times are tough and different out there now. The Bill does not recognise that; it is part of the Government's policy of tax and waste, when we need a policy that promotes savings and enterprise.
        6.33 pm
        Chris Grayling: This has been a wide ranging and fairly complex Finance Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned, it is the first experience of a Finance Bill for my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and me. I have been impressed by the good spirit that has existed both in Committee and in these debates today. Having listened to all the arguments, however, there are still a number of points on which I take great issue with the Government over what they are trying to do.
        The issues relating to business taxation touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) a moment ago are at the heart of my concerns. The debate about national insurance contributions has taken place under a different umbrella, but that is part of a complex range of issues relating to business taxation which reflects a careless approach to business by the Government. I do not think that they understand what they are doing. Nor do I think that they understand the implications of their actions for individual companies and for industrial sectors. Moreover, the Government are doing this at a time when it is only too clear that business is under pressure. I was flicking through the financial pages this morning, and thinking that, in recent years—probably since the late 1980s—I could not remember seeing quite such consistent bad news right across the corporate spectrum.
        Precisely when the storm clouds seem to be gathering, the Government have chosen to put significant additional taxes on business. I fundamentally disagree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) following my intervention. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the debate on the euro, they cannot be dealt with now, but the new taxation measures on business will affect business now, they will affect profitability this year, they will cost jobs, they will cost investment and they will make a cash difference to companies when they can ill afford it. The consequence of that—inevitably, in my view—will be seen in the employment market.
        We have discussed extensively the Bill's impact on the North sea oil industry, which is probably the most acute example of the Government's failure to understand the consequences of what they are doing. The Government, in all their arguments on the North sea, remind me of a mugger who takes someone's wallet, but is kind enough to give him back the bus fare home.
        The Government talk about the capital allowance that they are making available, but at Question Time a couple of weeks ago the Chancellor referred to the £500 million that he is levying from the industry. He cannot take £500 million out of an industry that employs 300,000 people and is a significant part of the employment base, not just in Scotland, but across the country, without affecting jobs and investment.
        494
        The Budget's cumulative tax measures will have an adverse effect on businesses beyond North sea oil. We have discussed the impact of the aggregates levy and the climate change levy. In Committee, we talked about the problems that the aggregates levy will pose in remote areas where such companies are often the principal local employer and a real driving force in the local economy, yet its continuing provision will remove funding from those companies and local communities and take it back to the metropolitan areas. That, inevitably, will affect communities in such areas.
        There are, undoubtedly, good points for business in the Budget— no Government ever do everything badly— but equally there are fundamentally ill-thought-out measures. We have discussed the shortcomings of the mandatory e-filing proposals as well as the implication of the zero tax rate for small listed companies and the failure to extend that same benefit to unincorporated companies. Likewise, the measures to tackle the deductions to payments to subcontractors where there are undoubted anomalies go some way to solving the problems, but it is far from clear that they have dealt with all the difficulties that my constituents and others have raised with me.
        The Bill also contains inconsistencies. We heard this afternoon and in Committee that the Government wish to raise duties on alcopops to tackle health and social issues, but they are also cutting duty on strong ciders, which we know are also a contributing factor to the problems that the Government are trying to address through the alcopops measures. There are vehicle excise duties adjustments for low-emission cars, yet, as I argued in Committee, the measures for vans do not reflect the changes in that marketplace.
        My other big concern is key workers and the impact of the tax increases on the labour shortages in London and the south-east, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred, as well as in other parts of the country that are affected by high housing costs and other high costs of living. We discussed the raised national insurance contributions during proceedings on the National Insurance Contributions Bill, but this Bill will enact a freeze in personal allowances, which will add another burden. That burden will be relatively small, but it will also be another straw on the camel's back for public service workers who find it increasingly difficult to live and work in the south-east.
        As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, the more the Government tax those people, the more difficulty they have buying a house under the stamp duty system. That will make it less likely that they stay and work in our high-cost areas and less likely that we will have good, effective public services in those areas. If that happens, we will undermine the very areas that deliver the tax revenues that support public services across the country.
        I believe that the Finance Bill fails badly, and it comes from a Government who do not understand that if they put up taxes on an industry, it will cut jobs and invest less. The Government do not understand that if they increase the complexity of tax rules and tax regulations for small businesses and make their life more complicated, fewer people will take the trouble, invest the time and work the long hours that it takes to run a small business.

        495
        The Government do not understand that if they put up taxes for key workers, even in relatively small amounts, those people will not stay in the most expensive parts of our country. They will look to work elsewhere, and our labour and skill shortages as well as the absence of teachers, nurses and doctors will get worse.
        This Budget, and this Finance Bill, fail to address problems that are manifesting themselves throughout our country. For that reason— along with many others that we have discussed in detail over the past couple of months—I shall be joining my colleagues and voting against Third Reading.
        6.40 pm
        Mr. Mark Hoban: I share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling)—this is my first Finance Bill. I thought it would be remiss of me not to participate in its closing stages.
        I see a number of strands in the Bill. Let me say first that from time to time the Treasury has betrayed what could be described as a lack of understanding of the way in which businesses and people work. One example is the complexity of the relief for community and sports clubs, which have to jump through a number of hoops to claim it. Requiring treasurers of such small clubs to calculate how much expenditure is allowable and how much is not places a burden on them that I think will restrict take-up in many instances.
        Mandatory e-filing has been mentioned. A few days ago it was reported that the Inland Revenue could not even allow its staff to use e-mail. How much confidence will small businesses have in their ability to transmit their tax returns to the Revenue electronically if at this stage the Revenue cannot even sort out its own e-mail system? It is legitimate for people to ask whether it is appropriate for them to deal with the Revenue when it has manifestly failed to provide services for its own staff.
        In this and other debates, we have discussed the differential tax treatment of small businesses. It was interesting that the Paymaster General carefully used the word "company" rather than the word "business" this evening when welcoming the changes. In fact, many small businesses will lose out. I am not thinking just of sole traders; many other large unincorporated businesses and, in particular, partnerships will not be able to take advantage of the reliefs. Those that can will see a move towards incorporation, along with the costs involved in becoming a limited company—the costs of maintaining registers of shareholders, directors, mortgages and debentures, and of opening books for public inspection. The Government should consider changing the balance to remove the possibility of any deliberate or even implicit policy in favour of incorporation.
        Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman seems to be advancing a curious, if interesting, argument. If I have not understood it properly, perhaps he will correct me. He seems to be saying that if the costs of incorporation outweigh the tax breaks in the Bill, a small business will not incorporate. So what? The business will be where it
        496
        is now. If the costs of incorporation are less than the tax breaks, it will incorporate. Again, so what? It will still be ahead of the game.
        Mr. Hoban: What we do not want to do is impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on small businesses. Yes, there will be a financial incentive if the tax benefits of incorporation exceed the costs, but do we really want to impose those costs? We do not want to place an ongoing burden on small businesses; we want those businesses to focus on building themselves up, rather than complying with rules and regulations dreamt up to keep them occupied.
        Rob Marris rose—
        Mr. Hoban: I am loth to give way to the hon. Gentleman again, but as he asks such penetrating questions I will do so.
        Rob Marris: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer the tax breaks not to be there at all? That seems to be the thrust of his argument.
        Mr. Hoban: It manifestly is not the thrust of my argument. I would like a level playing field for businesses, be they incorporated or unincorporated. They should not be forced to choose one legal form or another simply to benefit from tax breaks. The Government have shown a lack of understanding of how business operates and how people run their personal affairs.
        We have also seen the benefits of consultation, and the way in which certain aspects of the Bill have been discussed with representative bodies has been very valuable and has cut down the amount of time that we needed to spend discussing them in Committee. It is interesting to note, however, that the area of greatest disagreement has been the one on which there has been no consultation—oil taxation. The Government need to learn the lesson that consultation makes for a better Finance Bill—one that gains the acceptance of the community for which it is trying to create a suitable tax regime. The oil industry has been in uproar because the Government failed to consult it.
        This is a long and complex Finance Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was right—we need simpler tax legislation to reduce the burden of compliance on business and its advisers and to make it far easier for people throughout the country to understand their own tax affairs, without recourse to expensive legal and tax advice.
        6.46 pm
        Mr. Mark Field: As with many Finance Bills, I suspect that this one will be remembered as being good for lawyers and tax accountants. They, perhaps alone, will admire the increasing complexity introduced by a somewhat meddlesome Treasury team.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke skilfully about many matters throughout our proceedings. As he said, we find the oil and gas provisions and the straitjacket imposed on the Channel Islands and other Crown dependencies especially objectionable, and that is why we will vote against Third Reading.

        497
        Even the Government's own advisers now highlight the fact that the Chancellor's growth projections are likely to prove grossly optimistic. Projections made only a matter of weeks ago now look hopelessly out of date. We are expecting to have growth of 2.25 per cent. in the current year, rising to 3.25 to 3.5 per cent. in the next financial year. On that basis alone, we have had vast acceleration in public expenditure. A Government who promised the end of boom and bust have placed their foot firmly on the spending pedal at just the wrong time in the business cycle.
        Spending on health is rising, not just for the next five years as shown in the Budget, but presumably at similar rates for the period beyond 2006–07. It seems that it will largely be business that continues to be milked. Many of us have spoken in past years about the Government's redistributive agenda, which may have seemed out of keeping with a generally fairly successful economy, but we had an interesting discussion on property and capital taxes in what seemed a fairly innocent debate on clause 115 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, it seems that the Government regard London and the south-east as fair game for a higher burden of tax, be it inheritance tax, a vast increase in stamp duty or a whole array of other corporation and income taxes; yet there is little evidence of the investment in the public sector to which the Paymaster General refers as being focused on that area.
        As the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster, I have been the first to give credit where credit is due. To a large extent, in their first five years the Labour Government have been able to be true to their watchword of stability in the economy. They have gained many plaudits for that from the business community, of which I was a member before 7 June last year. Many business people admired what the Government had done, especially when we take into account the fears that existed before May 1997. However—there is always a "however" on the Opposition Benches—although the Treasury has played the hand that it inherited in 1997 skilfully, it is fair to say that it was a very good hand. That fact has, perhaps, not been recognised as readily as Opposition Members hoped.
        In keeping with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I am concerned about the sense of denial and complacency in much of what the Treasury—and the Government as a whole—say about the future of the economy. For the good of the economy and the country, I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that when we gather next year to consider another Budget and another Finance Bill—I fear that the wish of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for a biannual Finance Bill will not come true for some years to come—the economic climate will be very different. By then, we will see the damage to business of much of the meddling to which we have referred.
        I wish Treasury Ministers the very best, because it is in the interests of this country that we have a strong economy—not least in respect of the investment in the public and private sectors that we all want to see. However, difficult times lie ahead. We have put prudence to one side, and the foot is firmly on the public expenditure pedal at what is probably entirely the wrong time.
        498
        I shall be interested to hear what the Financial Secretary has to say. I thank her and her ministerial colleagues for providing a constructive basis for our discussions in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. However, I shall join my hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs—in voting against granting the Bill a Third Reading, because some serious problems lie ahead.
        6.52 pm
        Ruth Kelly: I welcome this opportunity to bring the debate on Third Reading of the Finance Bill to a close. This, too, was my first Finance Bill, and I have enjoyed it very much. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, the special interest groups and others who took a great interest in the Standing Committee's proceedings. Their close attention to detail and their unflagging enthusiasm have done much to smooth the Bill's passage. We certainly heard some interesting speeches—from both sides of the House—today and in Committee.
        Government is all about choices, and the Finance Bill is no exception. We have chosen in favour of economic growth and prosperity; in favour of enterprise and innovation; in favour of a sustainable future. Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) have accused the Government of being Panglossian—of putting too rosy a glow on our economic success. I am the first to admit that there is great uncertainty about the world economic outlook, but the fact is that the macro-economic framework that we have put in place is the right one.
        On coming to power in 1997, we gave the Bank of England independence, and an independent Monetary Policy Committee is delivering pro-growth low inflation. It has the right symmetrical inflation target to deliver the dual objectives of growth and low inflation. We also have a tough fiscal framework. Over the next five years, net debt will rise no higher than 31 per cent., according to the figures in the Red Book. We now have the most open and transparent fiscal framework that I know of in any of the major G8 countries. The evidence of the success of that framework is clear. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for 40 years. We have had the longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s. Employment has risen by 1.5 million since 1997, and in the past year we have enjoyed the strongest growth of any of the seven largest industrialised economies.
        Mr. Redwood rose—
        Ruth Kelly: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make a little progress.
        The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) highlighted the prospects for manufacturing. Of course, I acknowledge that world trade growth was near zero in 2001—down from 12 per cent. in 2000. It was inevitable that UK manufacturing would be hit when world trade growth collapsed, and that the internationally exposed sectors of the UK would be affected. Manufacturing output fell in all industrialised nations, but by less in the UK than in our major competitors. For example, manufacturing output in Japan fell by 13.75 per cent. last year—more than twice the fall in this country.

        499
        The first signs of tentative recovery in the manufacturing sector are appearing. The Red Book forecasts that output will gradually pick up in the second half of the year. The answer is not artificially to massage down the exchange rate, as the Liberal Democrats proposed. That has been tried in the past, and it does not work. It leads only to higher inflation, and boom and bust.
        Mr. Redwood: If everything is so stable and well run, why have we had boom and bust in the stock market and in the telecom and high-tech industries over the past five years?
        Ruth Kelly: It is clear that stock markets across the industrialised world have fallen, or does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the UK stock market has been especially badly affected? The causes have been the uncertainty of the world economic climate and the vulnerability of corporate profitability which, as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out, has resulted from the recent Enron and WorldCom events.
        I turn now to some of the issues raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs claimed that the Budget was somehow bad for business. It is not; it is good for business. It promotes enterprise, growth and productivity.
        The Government have introduced measures to extend the research and development tax credit to all companies. The Budget cuts the small companies rate of tax by 1p and, by means of a 10p cut, reduces the starting rate to zero. We have introduced measures to reduce the administrative burden of VAT for small companies, and to improve their cash flow. We have also introduced the community investment tax credit. The Budget will increase enterprise and promote entrepreneurship in the UK economy.
        The other major point raised in the debate concerns the North sea oil regime. It is right in principle to tax a scarce resource produced under Government licence. Every oil-exporting country has a special tax regime for that purpose. The Government are clear about our principles—to raise a fair share of revenue for the country, and to promote investment.
        That is what we have done with the 10 per cent. supplementary charge on oil, and with the 100 per cent capital allowance. The reform is right in principle, and we now have a stable oil taxation regime for the future.
        Opposition Members have criticised the Bill for its complexity, even though 152 of its pages introduced tax relief, 160 simplified the tax system and more than 200 pages were repealed.
        I know that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has a great interest in simplification. He has demonstrated a long-standing interest in the tax rewrite project, and I was privileged to serve on the consultative committee before I became a Minister. However, he suggested that the Bill has not been scrutinised thoroughly. In fact, the Government have involved just those representative bodies that the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the extensive consultation that has been carried out on the measures.
        The Bill means that the UK will remain a stable, low-tax environment, favourable to business, enterprise and innovation. The overall tax burden is lower than the
        500
        EU average, and lower than each of our main EU competitors. The atmosphere and climate in the UK are right for economic growth.
        The Bill supports innovation and entrepreneurs. It releases productive potential as it promotes sustainable development. It joins the hands of business and communities in the cause of regeneration.
        Innovation, enterprise and regeneration: those are the Government's ambitions, for the Bill and for Britain. I believe that we are achieving them, and I commend the Bill to the House.
        Question put, That the Bill be read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 109.

        Division No. 296]

        [6.59 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Clwyd, Ann

        Ainger, Nick

        Coaker, Vernon

        Alexander, Douglas

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Allan, Richard

        Cohen, Harry

        Allen, Graham

        Coleman, Iain

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

        Connarty, Michael

        Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

        Anderson, Janet(Rossendale)

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin(Livingston)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Cousins, Jim

        Austin, John

        Cox, Tom

        Bailey, Adrian

        Cranston, Ross

        Baird, Vera

        Crausby, David

        Banks, Tony

        Cruddas, Jon

        Barnes, Harry

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Bell, Stuart

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Bennett, Andrew

        Davey. Edward(Kingston)

        Berry, Roger

        Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

        Best, Harold

        David, Wayne

        Betts, Clive

        Davidson, Ian

        Blackman, Liz

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

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

        Blizzard, Bob

        Borrow, David

        Dawson, Hilton

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Dobbin, Jim

        Brake, Tom

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Brennan, Kevin

        Doughty, Sue

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L

        Dowd, Jim

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Drew, David

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Bryant, Chris

        Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Efford, Clive

        Burden. Richard

        Ennis. Jeff

        Burgon. Colin

        Farrelly, Paul

        Burstow, Paul

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        Fisher, Mark

        Caborn. Rt Hon Richard

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Cairns, David

        Flint, Caroline

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Flynn, Paul

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Caplin, Ivor

        Foster, Don(Bath)

        Casale, Roger

        Foulkes, George

        Caton, Martin

        Gapes, Mike

        Cawsey, Ian

        Gardiner, Barry

        Challen, Colin

        George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Chaytor, David

        Gidley, Sandra

        Clapham, Michael

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Goggins, Paul

        Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

        Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

        Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

        Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

        Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

        Clelland, David

        Grogan, John

        501

        Hain, Fit Hon Peter

        Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

        Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

        Mole, Chris

        Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

        Moore, Michael

        Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

        Moran, Margaret

        Hancock, Mike

        Morgan, Julie

        Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

        Mountford, Kali

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Mullin, Chris

        Healey, John

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Heath, David

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hesford, Stephen

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Heyes, David

        Organ, Diana

        Hill, Keith

        Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Holmes, Paul

        Perham, Linda

        Hood, Jimmy

        Picking, Anne

        Hope, Phil

        Pickthall, Colin

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Pike, Peter

        Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

        Plaskitt, James

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Pond, Chris

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Pound, Stephen

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

        Hurst, Alan

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Jamieson, David

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Jenkins, Brian

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Rendel, David

        Joyce, Eric

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Kelly, Ruth

        Rooney, Terry

        Kemp, Fraser

        Roy, Frank

        Kidney, David

        Ruddock, Joan

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Ryan, Joan

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Salter, Martin

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Sawford, Phil

        Lamb, Norman

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Laws, David

        Sheridan, Jim

        Laxton, Bob

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Lazarowicz, Mark

        Simon, Siôn

        Lepper, David

        Singh, Marsha

        Linton, Martin

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lloyd, Tony

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Love, Andrew

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Luke, Iain

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Lyons, John

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Spellar, Rt Hon John

        McCabe, Stephen

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        MacDonald, Calum

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        McKechin, Ann

        Stunell, Andrew

        McKenna, Rosemary

        Sutclifte, Gerry

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        McNulty, Tony

        Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

        MacShane, Denis

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        McWalter, Tony

        Thurso, John

        McWilliam, John

        Timms, Stephen

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Tipping, Paddy

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Todd, Mark

        Mallaber, Judy

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Marris, Rob

        Touhig, Don

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Merron, Gillian

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Tynan, Bill

        502

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Winnick, David

        Ward, Claire

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Wray, James

        Watson, Tom

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        White, Brian

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Mr. John Heppell and Mr. Ian Pearson.

        Wills, Michael

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Amess, David

        Lidington, David

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Luff, Peter

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Bacon, Richard

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Baron, John

        Malins, Humfrey

        Beggs, Roy

        Maples, John

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Mates, Michael

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Mercer, Patrick

        Brady, Graham

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Brazier, Julian

        Moss, Malcolm

        Burns, Simon

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Burt, Alistair

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Butterfill, John

        Ottaway, Richard

        Cameron, David

        Page, Richard

        Cash, William

        Paice, James

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Prisk, Mark

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Clappison, James

        Robathan, Andrew

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Cran, James

        Ruffley, David

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Selous, Andrew

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Simmonds, Mark

        Djanogly, Jonathan

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

        Spink, Bob

        Evans, Nigel

        Spring, Richard

        Fabricant, Michael

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Streeter, Gary

        Flight, Howard

        Swayne, Desmond

        Flook, Adrian

        Swire, Hugo

        Francois, Mark

        Syms, Robert

        Garnier, Edward

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Gibb, Nick

        Taylor, Ian(Esher & Walton)

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Goodman, Paul

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Grayling, Chris

        Tredinnick, David

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Trend, Michael

        Greenway, John

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Waterson, Nigel

        Hammond, Philip

        Watkinson, Angela

        Hayes, John

        Whittingdale, John

        Hendry, Charles

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Hoban, Mark

        Wiggin, Bill

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Wilkinson, John

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Willetts, David

        Hunter, Andrew

        Wilshire, David

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Yeo, Tim

        Key, Robert

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire,)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Mr. Laurence Robertson and Mr. Stephen O'Brien.

        Leigh, Edward

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

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

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      DELEGATED LEGISLATION

        INVESTIGATORY POWERS
        That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 10 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].

        INVESTIGATORY POWERS
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 10 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 5 and 6.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
        That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 101) (HC 942), on Personal Social Services Performance Grant for 2002–03, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

        GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
        That the draft Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Trading Fund (Variation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
        Question agreed to.

      Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords]
      Motion made,
      That, during the proceedings on the Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Joan Ryan.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      PETITIONS

        Water and Sanitation
        7.12 pm
        Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to present a petition, which was signed by about 300 people in my constituency, that states that safe and affordable water and adequate sanitation are an essential part of ending world poverty.
        The petition states:
        The petition therefore requests that the House of Commons takes steps to ensure that the Prime Minister and the UK Government urge all UN member governments to agree an action plan for meeting the UN agreed target to halve the number of people without access to drinking water by 2015, and to increase the UK's official development assistance to the agreed UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP, prioritising…water resources within that.
        To lie upon the Table.

        The Wilson Hospital
        Siobhain McDonagh: The petition has more than 4,000 signatures and states:
        The petition of residents of Mitcham and Morden
        Declares that the present provision of intermediate care services for the people of Mitcham and Morden is inadequate and that the Wilson Hospital, presently used as health authority offices, should be re-opened as an intermediate care home.
        The petitioners therefore request that the Hose of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to make adequate provision to protect the health of the people of Mitcham and Morden, by providing locally-based intermediate care services at the Wilson Hospital.
        To lie upon the Table.

Care Homes (Kent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
7.14 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am very grateful to have this opportunity to raise an issue of supreme importance for my constituents in Kent, where 236 care beds and 17 care homes have closed in the last year alone.
I am not seeking to make specific party political points in this debate. The Minister may or may not be aware that in 1990 I led a rebellion—very unlike me, of course—against the then Government on a similar issue in respect of a constituent, Florence Smith, who I believed under regulations that then existed, but which were changed, was not getting a fair deal in her care home. Today it is a widespread phenomenon for people who are in care homes to face eviction through closure.
In that debate in March 1990, when I raised the case of Florence Smith, I was supported by the now Leader of House. He said:
I am bound to ask how we, as a legislature, can have permitted circumstances in which elderly men and women—too confused and too disoriented to know what is happening to them—are evicted from residential care homes.—[Official Report, 13 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 198.]
Tonight, I ask exactly the same question. The Government, through the care standards regulations, are assessing not the degree of care, attention and love that should be given to the elderly and the vulnerable but the extent of the physical facilities. That is causing untold hardship.
The new minimum care standards will impose a considerable cost burden on the new care homes and on their owners. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say, as he did when answering questions yesterday, that some of these regulations will not take effect until 2007. Some of them take immediate effect, and I shall refer to one of them specifically, but even if others do not have to be introduced for a few years, we must remember that things cannot be introduced overnight: preparations must be made now, money must be found now, plans must be made now, and an immediate financial burden results from all of that. We end up with a complete nonsense whereby married couples are unable to share a bed.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Rubbish.
Miss Widdecombe: I will give the exact case. Further examples include sisters separated by fixed screens, and en suite facilities that are never used because residents are incapable and need to be escorted to specially adapted bathrooms. All that regulation has not been backed up with the funding to meet it. Care home owners are therefore being driven out of business because they cannot afford the provision of the facilities now laid down as required.
For example, I have received a letter from an elderly constituent who until a few weeks ago was resident in a home that has now closed. She said:
I am nearly 70, and have been in Residential Care for the past 18 years. I suffer from short-term amnesia. We have just been told that the …Nursing Home has to close down, in a matter of weeks,
506
as it cannot come up to new guidelines: i.e. en-suite bathrooms and other absurd requirements. I have been wonderfully cared for here, and have no other place to go, especially as I am on Income Support. I have written to Mr. Blair asking him what option he would take, in my position
Regulations have led not only to homes closing but sometimes to their tottering on the brink of closure, thus creating uncertainty and tensions for some of the most vulnerable people for whom they are caring.
Under the Care Standards Act 2000, it has become an offence to run a home that is not financially viable, yet homes now have to meet huge extra costs to meet the regulations. If that means that they cannot break even, they risk prosecution if they continue to function. Precisely because of that, two homes in my constituency have closed. I submit that that is not just an unsatisfactory but a profoundly cruel state of affairs.
Let us consider the case of Hawkhurst Castle in Kent. It has become another casualty of the ongoing crisis in the care home sector. Because it does not come up to specifications, it has failed to win placements from social services, and that has led to a decline in the number of residents. Kent is not exactly generously treated under the revenue support grant settlement. Kent gets for a granny in Kent only a third of what a granny in Islington would get, and it finds it difficult to meet the current standards. It is certainly not able to fund the new standards that are required. Sadly, as a result of that, Hawkhurst Castle will close on 14 August.
One resident who has been in the home for 20 years says that she would like to spend the rest of her life in what has naturally become her home. Not only does she say she is happy, but her friends who visit her say objectively that even when they arrive unannounced they find that she is well cared for, happy and content. In that same home is a man with Down's syndrome. His sister has said that the home is wonderful and the staff devoted and that the family has no idea how it will find another home.
I now turn to the case of the Greenbank residential care home and will develop the comment that caused the Minister to heckle "rubbish" at me. The proprietor of Greenbank is concerned about standard 23.11, which is due to come into force on 1 April 2007. The standard stipulates that existing homes must provide 80 per cent. of places in single rooms. Greenbank currently has 15 rooms, 13 of which are single and two double—so 86 per cent. of its rooms are single, but only 76 per cent. of the places are in single rooms. The home thus falls below the standard.
The problem is not even ridiculous. The owner says that, if a double room is converted to a single room, the cost will be about £16,000 per annum. That is the hard money involved. And what about choice? A husband and wife who had been together for 50 years would have to be split up. Even if a room that could take two people were available, it could not be used because it would take the home below the standard 80 per cent. of places. The choice should be left with the residents whom the decisions will affect. Indeed, the proprietor of Greenbank says that we are talking about counsels of perfection. It is simply not possible to meet all the requirements.
The Salvation Army care homes in the London and south-east division also raise major concerns. The sheer costs of refurbishment and staffing to bring them up to

507
the new standards will only exacerbate what is already a bad situation caused by gaps in local authority funding. In the three care homes that the Salvation Army runs, it faces an estimated deficit of £340,000 for this financial year, and that is even before all the new regulations take effect. Of course, it will now be an offence to run a home that is not viable.
Refitting the Salvation Army's homes will make hundreds of thousands of pounds of new work necessary. The Salvation Army—like other care home owners to whom I have spoken, residents and the Conservative party—accepts that a Care Standards Act is, in principle, a good thing and that there is no possible objection to minimum standards. However, practicalities must be taken into account and sensible commonsense standards applied.
Probably worst hit of all are the religious orders, which now cannot even nurse their own members, because the standards cannot be met. Iden Manor in my constituency, which closed recently, was run by Roman Catholic nuns. They used to care for drug and alcohol-dependent women, a rare service to which it is not easy to find alternatives. As they told me when I visited them last weekend, they had to close because it was illegal to run a home that was not viable. With the new regulations and requirements, there was no earthly way their home would be viable.
Where will those women dependent on drugs and alcohol go now? It is not only the elderly who are affected by the present situation. It is a sad state of affairs when a devoted nursing order, which has run Iden Manor for years and years, to the huge benefit of individuals, has to close its doors simply because the physical requirements do not match up. That is God's work being destroyed by the wisdom of bureaucrats.
What is the answer to the problem, not least given that NHS beds, which are urgently needed, are occupied by people ready for discharge but who have nowhere to go? The Government should suspend the implementation of the minimum standards and follow our suggestions in the new clause 4 that we tabled when the 2000 Act was discussed. The Government rejected that new clause. At the time, we argued that while we accepted the need for minimum standards, we also needed to ensure that they did not become counter-productive. Therefore, we needed an extensive consultation period and then to subject all the standards to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
New clause 4 also suggested other safeguards to try to ensure that the minimum standards that would be imposed on those essential services would be reasonable and achievable, and that did the job of ensuring proper quality of care without making it impossible to provide that very care. The feeling in Kent, in Greenbank, Iden Manor, Hawkhurst Castle and other homes that are tottering on the brink but are not quite over it, is that the minimum standards as currently laid down—I have given the House only a selection tonight, because I could not go into full details if I wanted to hear the ministerial reply—spring from an Alice in Wonderland world in which the Mad Hatter rules. Sadly, the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable are the victims.
I ask the Minister today for the application of some common sense, before more care homes close, more residents have nowhere to go and more people are stuck
508
in hospital through no fault of their own, occupying desperately needed beds. We need sensible standards and proper funding for local authorities and, at the same time, a recognition that it is the care, love and attention received, and not the presence of a fixed screen and an en-suite lavatory, that decide whether someone is happy in old age,
7.28 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this debate on an issue that is. I agree, important and significant. She has rightly had much to say about the state of the care home sector in her area. I recognise that the care home market in Kent is not ideally balanced, and some care home owners remain under pressure to sustain viable businesses.
It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got to this position. It is important to remember that Kent, along with other parts of the country, experienced a significant, but unplanned and unmanaged, expansion in the independent care home sector as a result of the use of an uncapped Department of Social Security budget throughout the 1980s. That led to the unnecessary and completely avoidable admissions of many older people, and others, into institutional care. We are still dealing with that legacy of the 1980s.
Let me make it clear that I agree that some people will always need residential care, and we need to ensure that they get it, but the Opposition have been all too quick to scaremonger about a crisis in the care home sector. Care homes have always closed. What the Opposition choose to ignore is that new homes are opening and existing homes are expanding.
According to the independent care consultants, Laing and Buisson, there has been a drop of about 19,000 places since 1997. That is a far cry from the figure of 50,000 often bandied around by the Opposition, although I accept that the right hon. Lady did not quote it this evening. Once again, even within Kent, there is evidence of expansion in care homes. I understand that 25 care homes either received planning permission in the past year or are awaiting it so that they can extend their premises. The story is not all one way as the right hon. Lady would have us believe.
What matters, however, are not political number games but whether older people are getting the right care in the right place at the right time. The legacy that we inherited means that there are genuine concerns in the sector. We are addressing those by providing extra money, for which the right hon. Lady called, and by developing innovative new approaches to care.
The Government have made unprecedented investments in social services. Between 1996–97 and 2002–03, personal social services resources increased by more than 20 per cent. in real terms—an average real terms increase of more than 3 per cent. a year. That compares with an average annual real terms growth of only 0.1 per cent. per annum between 1992–93 and 1996–97 under the previous Government. The right hon. Lady outlined the issues on fees, but the build up of underfunding in our social services departments as a result of the level of funding provided when she was a Minister bears some responsibility for that.

509
The right hon. Lady can see the results of the Government's investment in her area. Kent county council's personal social services standard spending assessment increased by 4.9 per cent. this year following an increase of 5.7 per cent. in the previous year. We acknowledge the need for continuing investment in social services. That is why personal social services resources will increase, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. That increase is a result of the Budget and the Finance Bill that Conservative Members have just voted against.
We listened to the concerns of local authorities and announced the £300 million building care capacity grant last year to address how we maintain capacity in long-term care, especially for older people. Kent received £2.1 million last year and £4.4 million this year from that grant. It has enabled Kent to improve on its target of a 25 per cent. reduction in delayed transfers from hospitals by using the funds in a variety of ways.
About half the grant has been used to uplift contract prices in the types of homes that the right hon. Lady mentioned, especially in localities where supply had been under the most acute pressure. I agree that it is important for the extra resources to be reflected in fee levels. However, I disagree about who has been prepared to will those extra resources into local authorities, and we should bear in mind who has voted against them. Local councils are also choosing to spend some of their additional money on fee increases for care homes, which in Kent amounts to an increase of £2.5 million for 2002–03. It has also committed £1.54 million to domiciliary care price increases. Those have largely been funded by the grant.
Although money is important, alone it is not enough. Local commissioning arrangements also need improving. That is precisely why my predecessor formed the strategic commission group, and why I continue to chair it. We have established a new and more positive partnership between the statutory and independent social care and housing sectors at a national level. This needs to be replicated at a local level. That is why we published the agreement "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" last October. This guidance sets down how councils and their partners should work together.
Kent council has also heeded the advice of the joint review undertaken by the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate between November 2000 and February 2001. The report, which was published in October 2001, encouraged Kent to develop more locally sensitive commissioning through consultation with precisely the providers that the right hon. Lady is concerned about. There is a need, especially in a council with 1.3 million residents, to balance carefully the allocation of resources to the different types of need.
In addition, the Department's change agents team is to provide further assistance to the local whole systems planning groups in Kent in getting the balance and composition of local services right. That is largely due to concerns expressed not least by my hon. Friends the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). They have expressed their concerns, along with their colleagues, about the position in Kent. They have taken up especially what the Government can do to support the commissioning that is necessary for older people.
510
The change agents team will also work at a regional level to analyse the structure of the market, and the trends that are evident. This will enable councils and their partners, working collaboratively, to make the appropriate decisions to ensure that the national standards for older people are achieved, and that independent living is a reality for those who wish it.
I move on to the issue of national care standards. It has always been the case—at least since 1984—that, rightly, care homes have been regulated. However, before the Care Standards Act 2000, they were regulated by 150 different authorities in a different way, often with different standards. There was confusion among users and their families, and there was confusion also among providers. That is why those providers were among some of the most vocal of those arguing for national minimum standards and for the National Care Standards Commission to enforce them.
I acknowledge that there is considerable concern and anxiety about the new care standards and how they will be enforced. Some care home providers are worried that the new standards will impose unreasonable and unsustainable costs on them and force them out of business. I shall shortly set out the action that the Government have already taken to ensure that that is not the case. However, such concern is not alleviated by hon. Members—the right hon. Lady is not alone in this—who choose to misrepresent the truth of what the standards mean. Misinformation is good neither for the older people and others who depend on care homes, nor for providers.
It is not the case that our standards prevent those who choose to share from sharing. Married couples would not be forced to separate. Existing homes do not have to have en suite bathrooms. The constant repetition of these claims by people who should know better and could read the facts which are set out in the national minimum standards does nothing to safeguard our care homes and does nothing to reassure our older people.
Miss Widdecombe: The Minister has said categorically that it is not necessary for people who want to share to be split up. How does Greenbank address the issue that the standards refer not to 80 per cent. of rooms but 80 per cent. of places? Unless it splits up the occupants of double rooms, it will not be able to meet that standard. Is the Minister saying that it need not bother?
Jacqui Smith: The answer is found precisely by recognising the right hon. Lady's concerns for a commonsense approach. Earlier this year—I wrote to hon. Members about this as well—I instructed the National Care Standards Commission to consider precisely those circumstances where the needs of older people in a home should take precedence over the type of environmental standards issues that the right hon. Lady raises. I have made it completely clear that the needs of older people should be considered when enforcing those standards. As the National Care Standards Commission itself made clear, those standards are not about closing good homes—that clarification was welcomed by care home representatives as a common-sense approach.
The right hon. Lady slipped in concerns about staffing. I must take issue with her, as it is not unacceptable for us to expect that the care homes that some of our most vulnerable older people live in should be staffed by people

511
trained to care for them. The right hon. Lady seemed to imply that it was unreasonable to expect that of staff caring for vulnerable people. It is a reasonable requirement which, once again, we are matching with extra resources to ensure that care home providers can access the necessary training.
Most responsible care home providers, as I have suggested, welcome the introduction of new national standards, which aim to protect the vulnerable in our society. We are determined to take a commonsense approach to those standards, and have already done so. Long-term care, however, is not just about care homes. Increasingly, older people want the choice of staying at home. Sometimes the emphasis on the concerns of care home providers has stopped us focusing on the choices of older people. We are giving them independence through alternative, more flexible forms of provision, such as extra care housing, and more intensive home care packages to keep people in their own homes longer.
We must aim to provide more of those modern alternatives, balancing them with good, effective, high-quality residential accommodation where necessary. It is a matter of getting the balance right for local communities. Investment from the Government has given Kent a massive increase in intensive home care packages—there was a 37 per cent. increase in households receiving them between September 2000 and September 2001. There is therefore a choice of support for older people.
Another alternative for older people is intermediate care, a new service providing an essential bridge between home and hospital, which is why we have made a
512
substantial investment in it. Good progress is being made on meeting the NHS plan targets. By the end of this year, compared with the baseline of 1999 to 2000, we shall have an additional 2,400 intermediate care beds; 6,200 non-residential intermediate care places; and 126,000 more people will be in receipt of intermediate care services. The 2003–04 target of an extra 1,700 non-residential places has already been exceeded. The hon. Lady called for more funding, on which there has been progress, with additional capital investment to fund intermediate care. On 6 March, we announced the allocation of the first phase of £46 million-worth of funding for 80 projects, with an increase of more than 1,300 beds. Further bids have since been approved and additional funds are still to be allocated. In Kent, the number of people receiving intermediate care services increased from 4,975 in 1999–2000 to 10,758 in 2001–02, which represents an increase in excess of 5,000 people having the services that they need to keep them out of hospital in the first place and gain fuller independence on discharge.
I therefore agree with the right hon. Lady that we need to take a commonsense approach to care homes and that we need to invest. The Government are doing so in the face of opposition from Conservative Members. We must ensure that we provide the resources needed to pay fees for residential care, but we must also provide the alternatives that older people themselves say that they want. We are accomplishing those goals and are steering away from the scaremongering that we have heard too often from Opposition Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Ofsted
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session 2001–02, on the Work of OFSTED, HC 437, and the Government and OFSTED Responses thereto in the Second Special Report from the Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 688; Second Report from the Committee, Session 2001–02, on Standards and Quality in Education: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools for 2000–01, HC 699, and the Government and OFSTED Responses thereto in the Fourth Special Report from the Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 1003; and Fourth Report from the Committee, Session 2001–02, on the Appointment of a new HMCI, HC 830.]
2.30 pm
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a debate on not one but three reports on Ofsted. They are the products of a great deal of hard work by the Education and Skills Committee. I say that with extra feeling, as we have only just finished the final session of an inquiry into student finance, which I suspect will be the subject of debates in this Chamber and on the Floor of the House. The report will be published next Thursday. Today, however, we are discussing the fruition of another part of the production process of a busy Select Committee. It was a great privilege, last Thursday, to have a Supply day debate on the Committee's individual learning accounts report; now, in this much more intimate and comfortable Chamber, we are discussing the Committee's three reports on Ofsted.
The Select Committee takes its responsibilities for Ofsted very seriously. The responsibility that Ofsted and the chief inspector of schools have to the House of Commons and to Parliament has been a matter for debate for some time, but it has been clearly established over the past five years that the chief inspector, representing Ofsted, is responsible to Parliament through the Select Committee. Indeed, that has been accepted by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State. It is an important part of our parliamentary responsibilities. Having established that, we have to take our responsibilities ever more seriously, because Ofsted is a growing business.
I was checking—or rather, I should be truthful and say that my research assistant was checking—the number of people employed by Ofsted over the years. I was astonished at the numbers. In 1995–96 the Department for Education and Employment had 6,528 employees; on 1 February, the Department for Education and Skills had 5,425—nearly five and a half thousand civil servants. In 1995–96 Ofsted had 511 staff; but on 1 February, it had 1,494 full-time employees. That is a dramatic increase.
142WH
There has also been a dramatic increase in Ofsted's budget. In 1993–94 Ofsted spent £46 million; this year it plans to spend £197 million—a real-terms increase of £150 million, or 240 per cent. That does not mean that Ofsted has grown for the sake of it; it has been given a great deal more responsibility. Hon. Members will know that its remit now runs into early years education, teacher education, further education, prison education and education in the independent sector. We parliamentarians should appreciate the size of the organisation that we are charged with overseeing. It makes our job of scrutiny ever more important.
At present, we meet the chief inspector twice a year to discuss his annual report and his conduct of the job and Ofsted's development under his charge. The meetings are slightly different, but it is important to get that contrast.
I suspect that with the growth of Ofsted we will have to consider whether there is enough scrutiny. You will know better than most, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a pioneering change in our constitution will begin the week after next, when members of the Liaison Committee will have their first meeting with the Prime Minister. That will happen twice a year from now on. The Committee will ask the Prime Minister questions about his role and his conduct of his office for two and a half hours. That is a breakthrough and a welcome change in parliamentary responsibility, activity and scrutiny.
However, considering the growth of Ofsted, we should not be content with the current arrangements. Having established two meetings a year, we should examine innovative ways of establishing a better relationship. One of the best ways of doing that is dealt with in one of the reports—changing the manner of the appointment of the chief inspector. This is not a comment on David Bell, the newly appointed chief inspector; it is question of what the Committee believes is the right way to appoint a chief inspector.
We have said from the beginning that the process should be more open and transparent, and should be handled differently. In a previous report, we called for a process by which the Committee evaluated the candidates and had a clear role in choosing the new chief inspector. That process could be refined and some of us would even argue—I am not sure that I dare say this, and I am looking round at my colleagues to find out whether they agree—that the Chairman or a member of the Select Committee should be on the appointing committee, as a step towards a different system.
Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has chosen to focus on this issue so early in his introduction to the debate. The recent report by the Modernisation Committee about the future role of Select Committees, which now almost have a job description, extends their brief quite significantly. Does my hon. Friend think that in that report an opportunity was missed to include in their new role across-the-board responsibility for hearings on major public appointments relevant to each Committee?
Mr. Sheerman: I thank my colleague on the Select Committee for that intervention. I was coming to that, and he saved me from making a long reference to it.

143WH
There have been some missed opportunities, but most Members are aware that the Liaison Committee has been taking a strong leadership role in the regeneration and renaissance of Parliament through its powers of scrutiny and much else. For our Select Committee and its relationship with Ofsted and other major educational quangos, we believe that that kind of scrutiny is important right across the piece. That is why I started with the constitutional part of the Ofsted report and the question of getting the relationship right.
The main purpose of a Select Committee is the scrutiny of the Executive. We start with that, and if we get that wrong we do nothing well. That is why our Select Committee, as soon as a new Committee was formed with a new Chair after the election, set itself to re-establishing the importance of the scrutiny role and placing it at the heart of our existence. That is why we called in all six Ministers, starting with the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will smile a little at that, because it took us 10 months to get through the process, only for there to be ministerial changes. I am sure that the present Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who is with us today, is looking forward to being scrutinised shortly by the Select Committee. It is an interesting and vital process, and my hon. Friend is right about the importance of such matters.
Mr. Phil Willis: In naming me, the hon. Gentleman has given me an enthusiasm for the job. I shall compliment him later on the fact that Ofsted is being held to account more than in previous years.
One issue that particularly concerns me is how we judge the accuracy and veracity of inspectors' work. That issue does not appear in the report, although the present arrangements are dismissed in the evidence given by Professor Fitz-Gibbon of Durham university. Inspectors judge individual lessons, and base their judgment of the school on an amalgam of those lessons. It is important that there is independent research into their methodology and into assessments, accreditation and the accumulation of information in what is, after all, a judgmental process. Why did the Committee not feel that it was important to ask the chief inspector to carry out such research, as Professor Fitz-Gibbon and her colleagues suggested?
Mr. Sheerman: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made a rather good mini-speech in his intervention. I know where he is coming from, and I shall talk about his concern in a moment, once I have set it in the context of the next part of my speech. I shall not keep hon. Members long, because many of my colleagues want to speak in this short debate.
I want to establish the constitutional background to what we do, and to explain how big Ofsted is and what role it plays. I shall then explain why it is so important that we get our scrutiny right.
The Government have continued the growth of Ofsted, and it is an expensive item. As I said, it has nearly 1,500 employees, not including the many on
144WH
short-term contracts who inspect schools. It is much bigger than is suggested by the figures that we have given or by the budget in its entirety; it is an enormous operation.
What is the purpose of Ofsted if it does not work, and does not improve schools? It was introduced so that we could assess the quality of teaching, education and the teaching and learning experience in the classroom, but if it does not do that, and does not help to raise standards, why do we have it? That is the crucial question that we must all ask. If it does not drive up standards, we have every right to say that it is a poor use of taxpayers' money.
When Professor Fitz-Gibbon and many of her academic colleagues wrote to us suggesting that there should be a royal commission, it was refreshing, in a sense, because we like to have a good relationship with the academic community. Indeed, we spend a lot of time during inquiries hearing evidence from academic experts, and we have just taken evidence from a whole range of them in our inquiry into student financing and individual learning accounts. However, we were a little peeved by the request for a royal commission, because there is no need for one if we are doing our job well. That request therefore renewed the energy with which we come to our job, and we are ever more vigilant in the questions that we ask.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that we did not ask all the right questions when we last saw the chief inspector. Our questioning will change, although our track record on questioning the chief inspector and calling him to account is not bad. Nevertheless, we do not get everything right. Some people believe that we questioned a former chief inspector a little too hard and too vigorously, because he resigned the next day—although that was nothing to do with our inquiry or our questions, although we ask hard questions. We persist with our interrogation until we have the answers that we require.
From our investigation, we believe that there is a fair case for saying that the introduction of Ofsted and its growth, expansion and operation has been in the plus column of the accounts of the national education system. The process of evaluation and inspection has helped the Government to be more competent and focused in their knowledge of the quality of education, and has helped to provide the information that the Department for Education and Skills can then act on to drive up standards.
I make no apologies; it is our remit to scrutinise increasingly. If the empire becomes larger and larger and we cannot see a benefit from the process to the taxpayer, the consumer and, most of all, the student, it is our job to make a loud noise about that. We listened carefully to Professor Fitz-Gibbon and her colleagues. We will ask them to talk to the Committee so that we understand the arguments even better and our questions can be even sharper in future.
I come from the old management school that used to say that if something could not be measured, it could not be managed. I think that it still believes that. We all have to face the tremendous drive to know what is out there in our education system and to measure it, so that we know how children are doing. We must know the level of literacy and numeracy. If children cannot read and

145WH
write, they cannot fulfil their potential for all the other things that they could do in their lives. It is a barrier to making their lives complete. I make no excuse for supporting programmes under this and the previous Administration that were meant to find out what the educational situation in this country was, evaluate it, measure it and then have targets to drive standards up. Ofsted should be judged on whether that process is successful.
Ofsted will not get everything right. We must carefully watch its interesting transition from focus on one aspect of education to involvement in many more aspects. It is always dangerous when an organisation triples in size, budget and personpower, so this is a difficult time. We have to see whether the transition works. Whenever there is even the smallest mistake that involves an examination board and siren voices call for only one body, I am always resistant. In walks of life in which I have been involved, it is sometimes dangerous to have one national body that covers everything.
Mr. Willis: There is only one Ofsted.
Mr. Sheerman: That is an aside. I am aware that Ofsted is in a transitional period, and that the role of the Select Committee on Education and Skills is to monitor that carefully.
I do not want to speak for much longer, but it would be unfair if I did not mention the appointment. It was clear that some of our colleagues were irritated about the appointment process. That is not a criticism of the new chief inspector, but even if we put all the arguments about greater transparency and more involvement with the House of Commons and our Select Committee to one side, more experience on the panel that interviewed, assessed and chose the new chief inspector—someone from the private sector, for example—would have been an advantage. To us, the experience did not look broad or diverse enough.
That is not a criticism of David Bell, the new chief inspector, with whom we have had our first meeting. We wanted to meet him early in his career to build the relationship and hear about his aspirations. The interview that we had with him for this report is clearly different from the interview with Mike Tomlinson for the previous report. Mike Tomlinson had been in Ofsted for a long time, had a long track record as a deputy and fulfilled an interesting role. It is no secret that Chris Woodhead was a more combative, controversial and sparky character—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is an interesting use of the word "sparky". Mike Tomlinson was more competent and agreeable, and led Ofsted well.
As Chairman of the Select Committee, however, I valued the relationship that we had with Chris Woodhead. He did an enormous amount of work in establishing and developing Ofsted. The Select Committee had its run-ins with him, both under me and under the two previous Chairs, and we disagreed about some of the things that he said that did not seem to be supported by the evidence. The only consistent source of disagreement between the Select Committee under three different Chairs and Ofsted under Chris Woodhead's regime was when what he said was not based on
146WH
inspection or evidence, but on things that Ofsted had not worked on. In other respects, we had a creative relationship, and I pay tribute to that part of his work.
Jonathan Shaw: I should point out to my hon. Friend that the damage caused by the way in which the former chief inspector would shoot from the hip spread further than Ofsted alone. An Ofsted inspector told me that he was once driving to a school when he heard Chris Woodhead shooting from the hip on the radio. The head teacher from the school also heard the chief inspector's comments, which clouded the whole inspection.
Mr. Sheerman: My great friend and colleague is trying to distract me from giving a balanced evaluation of the former chief inspector. Everyone knows that he and I had disagreements, but I am trying to be fair about a former public servant. He had great strengths but he had weaknesses as well, to which we would refer when we met—we did not keep our objections secret. He ran a different kind of regime. When Mike Woodhead took over—
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, I am enjoying this.
Mike Woodhead—sorry, I mean Mike Tomlinson—softened the role of Ofsted. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it did no good to anyone that the staff of schools found Ofsted inspections the most frightening, worrying and stressful experience of their entire lives. There was something deeply wrong with that. Mike Tomlinson's regime introduced a different kind of charisma and a new approach. His inspections had a lighter touch. The Select Committee certainly thought that it was unnecessary to put the fear of the Almighty up a teaching body—a group of professionals—to get results.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Chairman of the Committee agree that the fear of the Almighty was not necessarily injected by her Majesty's chief inspector? In some cases, the inspection process inspired fear because head teachers, governors or local education authorities were so afraid that their school would fail.
Mr. Sheerman: Yes, there were institutional aspects. No one can take a totally relaxed view of an Ofsted inspection—there is a great deal of stress involved in any Ofsted inspection, even now. However, getting the balance right is important. The person at the head of the organisation can send a message about the balance, and make it clear that he wants a creative relationship between a group of professionals who are desperate to do their job well to provide good quality education and teaching in the classroom. In any organisation, that message from the top makes a great difference, and the transition to Mike Tomlinson changed that message.
Of course, David Bell is unproven, and we must watch carefully to see what happens. He says that he does not go in for the heroic style of leadership, and that is, in a sense, refreshing. However, it is important to get the balance right and not to put the fear of the Almighty into everyone in the belief that that is the way to get the

147WH
best out of them. I come from a school of management that regards scaring employees to death as an idea from the 19th century.
Most productive modern companies in the private sector do not scare their employees to get the best results. It is important to encourage them, to build their confidence and self-esteem, and to work as a team. Every successful company in the private sector and every organisation in the public sector works best when that sort of positive attitude prevails. I am looking to David Bell to create a constructive relationship and achieve a balanced approach to the job. Of course he will not be a pushover or a soft option. We expect the chief inspector to know what standards he wants to see in the educational establishments of our country—
2.56 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.11 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): We may resume now. I call Mr. Sheerman.
Mr. Sheerman: It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr. Olner, but I was about to conclude my remarks when we were so rudely interrupted by the Division.
The Committee was somewhat spoiled during our recent individual learning accounts report because we realised how good a relationship we could have with a Minister. I am not sure whether I should say this in this Chamber, but when we received the ministerial responses to the report, they were of such a high quality and so frank in exchanging serious views that it seemed that it was the then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (John Healey), rather than civil servants, who was writing the stuff. Now, whether we are reading the Timms or the Miliband version in response, we get the feeling that they were written by civil servants without much ministerial input. We would have preferred to be at the level that we attained during the discussions on individual learning accounts, so we were a little disappointed.
We took a long time to take evidence and made some intelligent comments. Those on the Opposition Benches might take me up on that idea, but in the first meeting with the new chief inspector we spoke about the appointment process, pupil behaviour and attendance, teacher recruitment and retention, teacher work load, supply teachers, specialist schools, local authority inspections and penalties for parents who do not sent their children to school. Indeed, we were prescient in some ways, because shortly after we asked the chief inspector whether the penalties for parents who did not co-operate in sending their children to schools were sufficient, we saw the remarkable case of the unfortunate woman who was imprisoned for that.
148WH
Although I am in favour of strong, appropriate pressure—I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough disagrees—and believe that severe penalties must be handed out to people who do not cooperate in sending their children to school, there are alternatives. I prefer the Australian system of depriving people of their liberty at weekends. It is better process, because it does not take the people away from their family during the week or stop them earning money. The range of penalties must be expanded. As a former shadow Minister for prisons and police, the last thing I want to see is people being sent to prison unnecessarily. It does not do any good—although I know that the courts are forced to do that in some cases.
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, I want to finish what I am saying.
I have one last comment, and I shall give myself one more minute to speak. Our Committee has had seminars to try to chart the way of adding value as a Committee. We do not want to produce reports that do not add value.
This week, we spent two hours with academics, civil servants, people from Ofsted and others discussing the crucial issue on which Ofsted reported yesterday. What happens to children when they go to secondary school at the age of 11, bright and full of potential? They seem to lose interest in education between 11 and 14. What is going wrong in the education system? Yesterday's report was valuable, and we shall take up that issue when we next see the chief inspector.
Our job is to evaluate the use of taxpayers' money. That is what the job of a scrutinising Committee should be. If Ofsted does not drive up standards, we, not a royal commission, should be first to tell the House and the public. Diversification and plurality, with specialist schools and foundation schools, are the fashion with the Government. If that diversity does not improve standards, we should be the first Committee to say that it is not working—but the jury is out on that.
People can rest assured that the Education and Skills Committee will continue its positive scrutinising relationship with Ofsted, and we look forward to many more positive engagements with it.
3.15 pm
Mr. Mark Simmonds: It is a great pleasure to participate in my first debate in connection with the Select Committee on Education and Skills. I had hoped to participate in last week's debate on individual learning accounts, but unfortunately the time scale was truncated, and I was not allowed to do so. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Committee Chairman, whose adroit footwork has enabled many reports to be produced with the full support of all members of the Committee, across political parties. That is a credit to him and his skills as Chairman.
Ofsted is a large subject, and the reports that we are debating cover many issues, but I shall concentrate on the relationship between Ofsted and schools. Ofsted has been a tremendous success in improving standards in schools. The size of Ofsted's role in improving standards

149WH
is debatable, and more analysis needs to be done, but the principle of external inspection is sound and provides quality assurance.
Whether Ofsted provides value for money is another debate. Let us consider successful schools in particular. Three or four inspectors may spend up to a week in a school telling the school what it already knows. Is that good value for money, particularly when public resources are in such demand in so many sectors?
Liz Blackman: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the role of the light-touch regime in that regard?
Mr. Simmonds: Yes, I do. I shall say more about that later, but my view is that the light touch needs to become even lighter. More emphasis should perhaps be placed on schools with weaknesses, to prevent some of them from going into special measures, and on schools that are in special measures, to enable them to come out of that situation faster.
I welcome the maturing of Ofsted that has taken place, particularly under Mr. Tomlinson, and the reduction of the burden on schools. The report summarised that by saying that Ofsted had become more responsive, more supportive, better informed and better co-ordinated. However, the evidence taken by the Committee from Mr. Tomlinson, and, more recently, Mr. Bell, was that they felt that the current relationship between Ofsted and schools was satisfactory or almost perfect. I detected a sense of incredulity when they were told that schools did not take the same view.
Let me describe the feedback that I am receiving from schools about the so-called lighter-touch regime that came into existence relatively recently. First, schools believe that they have a "them and us" relationship with Ofsted inspectors. It is not a partnership, and this creates an atmosphere of animosity which, although perhaps not as great as it has been, still exists.
Secondly, Ofsted inspectors have often been described as intransigent. They do not always listen or take on board points made by the teaching staff.
Ms Meg Munn: Is the hon. Gentleman not generalising? We have also heard evidence that other schools have found the process helpful and supportive. Indeed, there are probably as many different types of Ofsted inspector as there are types of member of the Select Committee.
Mr. Simmonds: I accept what the hon. Lady says. She is quite right to say that that I am generalising, but my point is that the Ofsted inspection process, as it exists today, is not perfect. Improvements could be made to the process, and I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to point out some of the current failings. I agree that the process is more positive than it has been. However, if the process had the same vigour as it started with all those years ago, we would not need this light-touch approach. One statistic that illustrates that point is that nine out of 10 primary schools that have gone through their second Ofsted inspection are significantly better than when they were first inspected. If there had been a loose, light-touch inspection in the first place, we would not be seeing such a high percentage in that category.
150WH
There is also the belief that Ofsted is stuck on concentrating too much on paperwork before, during and after the inspection process. Many schools and local education authorities have said to me that if the full implementation of the paperwork processes that Ofsted requires of schools were put into operation 100 per cent. of the time, it would detract from the core focus of teachers in schools, which is providing learning and educational facilities for their pupils. That is primarily a function of time.
Liz Blackman: May I jog the hon. Gentleman's memory? I understand that he pursued this line of questioning when Mike Tomlinson came before the Select Committee, and Mr. Tomlinson described in detail ways in which the paperwork was being considerably reduced, and returns could be made online. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is merit in that?
Mr. Simmonds: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has read the Select Committee's evidence. Mike Tomlinson referred to 34 areas in which reductions had been made in the bureaucracy demanded of schools that went through the Ofsted process. However, more can be done, and I think that it is right for us to look at ways in which further reductions can be made. I shall say more about that later, if I may.
The report forcefully made the point that the Asssociation of Teachers and Lecturers commended Ofsted for its continuing awareness of the unduly demanding nature of inspections. However, it says:
"more needs to be done to ensure that schools stop wasting time and effort in excessive pre-inspection paperwork."
I agree with that and look forward to Ofsted's analysis of bureaucracy, which it promised when it came before the Select Committee, and how it can be further reduced, in conjunction with the Minister and his colleagues at the Department. I hope that that will include an analysis of how effective the prescriptive literacy and numeracy hours have been, and the correlation between prescriptive hours and the raising of standards in those areas, because prescription takes away the freedom and innovation from which many schools, particularly primary schools, would benefit.
I wonder whether orders have come to the inspectors from above, either from the Department or the heads of Ofsted. Schools believe that Ofsted inspectors are now much more pleasant to teachers. Although that is a positive step, I suspect that it is not necessarily a function of the Ofsted process, but has happened because the Government do not want any more good teachers to leave the profession, given the present retention crisis.
It cannot be right for schools to spend days and weeks preparing for Ofsted inspections, which distracts them from what they are supposed to be doing and inevitably creates a false impression when the inspectors arrive at the school. There must be scope for successful schools to have a lighter-touch inspection regime than exists at present. I am extremely sympathetic to the argument that unannounced visits and inspections would add a useful tool to Ofsted's armoury, as the school would be seen as it really is, rather than the polished and prepared school that the school governors, teachers and pupils would like it to appear.

151WH
I welcome the Ofsted drive to allow more current teachers to be involved in the inspection process. Although that has proved complex as teachers are taken out of the classroom in other schools to take part in inspections, it allows professional development and the exchange of best practice between schools, which did not happen enough in years gone by. It also gets away from the "them and us" dynamic, which still exists, and creates a more positive way forward.
Although I welcome the experimentation in getting feedback from pupils in schools, I question whether they will tell the truth or say how they really feel rather than what they want the Ofsted inspectors to be told. I accept that local authorities should be brought into the loop to discuss a school's performance prior to its Ofsted inspection, although I have heard schools, not necessarily in my constituency, complaining that since the local education authorities are being inspected by Ofsted, they appear to be more interested in passing their own inspections than they are in giving a good and proper service to the schools for which they are supposed to be responsible. I accept that LEAs need to be brought further into the Ofsted inspection process before the inspection, as should other interested parties, as the report states—but there was no mention of bringing parents into the process. If there is one group of people who have an inherent interest in a school's performance—its dynamics and its educational processes for their children—it is the parents of children at the school.
Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware, that there are parents consultation meetings prior to school inspections.
Mr. Simmonds: I am aware of that and I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. However, more could be done with parents in a more formal way, perhaps on the first evening of the Ofsted process or when the inspectors are at the school.
I shall draw my remarks to a close by asking the Minister to encourage the Ofsted process, but to stop trying to micro-manage schools, because most teachers are well aware that the Ofsted process has benefited their schools. However, they—especially the more successful ones—would prefer a lighter touch, and they want to be allowed to teach. There is a direct correlation between the potential and the desire of central Government to micro-manage as many schools as possible and the reluctance of teachers to remain in the education system. It is one of the main, fundamental reasons why many teachers are being driven out of the profession. I plead with the Minister to stop micro-managing, and to support a lighter Ofsted regime.
3.28 pm
Ms Meg Munn: I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Hon. Members have talked about the benefits of school inspections and the importance of quality and raising standards, and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) gave us a good outline of the principle of external inspection.
152WH
I particularly welcome the improvements that Mike Tomlinson, the previous chief inspector, described in a letter to schools in September. He paid particular attention to the need to cut bureaucracy. There was a clear emphasis on the importance of not preparing material especially for an inspection. Now that we are some years down the road, we are right to expect schools to have policy statements already in place. Some years ago, I was a governor of a school awaiting its first inspection. As hon. Members will know, at least a year's notice is given, and there was much activity to produce many documents specifically for the inspection. The situation should be different now. Schools are used to the requirements, and it is a matter of Ofsted going in and seeing what is there, rather than there being excessive preparation.
Like the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, I welcome the involvement of practising teachers. However good Ofsted inspectors may be, many have been out of direct teaching for some time. They do not experience the immediate pressures that teachers face daily as they deal with a range of issues, and therefore have a different perspective. Including practising teachers wherever possible can add to the process a realism about the range of tasks that teachers must perform, the issues that they face and all the other requirements that members of the Government and some Opposition Members would like teachers to fulfil.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I welcome the importance attached to seeking the views of pupils. I believe that skilful Ofsted inspectors could talk to young people about their school and teachers and get sensible opinions. They may not get a full impression if they spend only a short amount of time with them, but if the discussions are conducted properly, they could make an essential contribution to the process.
Valerie Davey: I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. As she knows, the Select Committee took formal evidence from members of the Youth Parliament for the first time, which proved to be a valuable experience. I understand that Ofsted took evidence from young people only once. Does she endorse my view that such evidence should be more widely taken?
Ms Munn: I certainly do, and I agree that it should be part of the inspection. It is important that Ofsted inspectors not only listen to young people, but examine how well schools involve young people in all their processes. Evidence shows that schools do better if they have school councils and other processes for engaging young people in what goes on. More is achieved and behaviour is generally better.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Lady agree that an Ofsted inspector may be more successful in getting a representative view from pupils, rather than a self-selected one? I regret to say that those pupils who came before the Select Committee were articulate but unrepresentative, as more than half of them were from grammar schools, and more than half were doing politics A-level.
Ms Munn: They were clearly unrepresentative. As we know, politics remains a minority interest in most parts of the country.
Jonathan Shaw: Surely it is up to Ofsted inspectors how they consult children or young people in a school. It is not for the Government to prescribe the method. The discussion could be formal or informal. Any Ofsted inspector worth his salt would know whether the wrong children were being selected for such a consultation.
3.34 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.4 pm
On resuming—
Ms Munn: For those who can remember the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), the answer is yes, I entirely agree.
We are pressed for time, so I shall move on to other issues that the Select Committee considered. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I welcomed the change in tone when we met Mike Tomlinson. Ofsted should be challenging, but most teachers and schools want improvements in teaching and attainment, so the process should be supportive and challenging rather than confrontational.
Our hearing with the new chief inspector was positive and I particularly welcomed the opportunity to explore the gap between the best and worst performing schools. I referred during the hearing to Myrtle Springs, a school in my constituency, which was involved in special measures. The school found its recent Ofsted inspection helpful and supportive of the improvements that were already beginning to take place. The school was commended for its approach and its hard work.
The school is raising standards, but because of the area and range of children attending, we should recognise that it is unlikely to appear high up in the league tables. The school works well with children with learning difficulties, using the learning mentors introduced by the Government. One concern raised with me by the head teacher is that league tables often lead to the labelling of schools as either good or bad. Whatever we say about that, the children begin to feel it themselves, which takes us back into the cycle of issues about aspirations, expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies. It is a problem that we must tackle.
I asked David Bell how schools that were good at tackling problems such as social exclusion—including helping pupils who had been failing elsewhere to achieve positive results—should be reported. I shall refer briefly to his response, which was not necessarily what I was looking for:
"It is a very, very important policy issue and therefore OFSTED has an extremely important role in reporting. I just held my fire yesterday and perhaps you will forgive me if I hold my fire on this one because it is a very serious issue and I think it is one that I want to study within OFSTED."
I told him that I would ask the same question next time, and he said that he would prepare for it. I hope that the issue will stay on his agenda.
We have heard some positive reports about schools coming out of special measures. I have experienced the joy of writing to several head teachers in my
154WH
constituency to say well done—well done to head teachers, teachers, parents and children in building a partnership to lift schools out of special measures and to provide pupils with real hope of educational achievement.
Other schools facing serious weaknesses, however, do not secure the early intervention and help necessary to prevent them from going into special measures. Is Ofsted going into schools often enough? Is a combination of Ofsted reports and local education authority oversight of schools necessary? Some believe that LEAs should not have much of a role in schools, but I disagree because they can provide important external support. Some LEAs have not been doing that job, which is why I welcomed Ofsted inspections of them. But there is a question of how we can help those schools with serious weaknesses. I hope that the issue will be addressed by both the Department for Education and Skills and Ofsted.
Finally and briefly, I want to refer to early years. That did not appear in the chief inspector's report for 2001–02 because it is a new area that Ofsted has taken on. A number of us on the Education and Skills Committee, particularly those of us who come from a social work background, were concerned about what would happen when Ofsted took over the inspection and regulation of child minders. The previous regime looked at child care and the other issues that are important to children's early development in such a way that they did not get lost in what could become an over-riding education agenda. While obviously—
4.10 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.25 pm
On resuming—
Ms Munn: That suspension allowed me briefly to support Bradford's bid to be city of culture, which I am sure will please my colleagues from Yorkshire.
On early years, finally, the Select Committee raised the issues of physical chastisement by child minders and smoking. Those matters have often been discussed at length. I shall not do so today; I do not want to be interrupted again. I hope that in future reports, the Select Committee will pay more attention to issues relating to early years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): Order. Hon. Members have indicated that they wish to finish as near to 5.30 pm as possible. Unfortunately, there have been four Divisions in the House, and others are threatened. So that I can call as many hon. Members as possible, I ask the remaining speakers to be reasonably quick and sharp.
4.26 pm
Paul Holmes: I should declare two interests. First, as a member of the Education and Skills Committee, obviously I am delighted to be present to

155WH
discuss the report. Secondly, I was a teacher for 22 years, and more importantly, I was subject to two Ofsted inspections in five years. One was only just over 18 months ago, so it is very fresh in my memory.
In the light of that, I shall deal mainly with some of the concerns about Ofsted inspections and accountability that were discussed by the Committee with the then chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson. There has undoubtedly been an improvement in the approach of Ofsted since Mr. Woodhead moved on. There is a more positive approach, but it must be said that the Ofsted process is still judgmental, rather than developmental.
In Committee, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) asked Mr. Tomlinson about the stress, fear and trepidation that he had witnessed when inspections took place in a school where he was a governor. Mr. Tomlinson told the Select Committee that schools actually welcomed inspection and that
"returns from school had teachers expressing overwhelming satisfaction with all aspects of inspection."
I had to disagree entirely with that, based on my experience of two inspections, and on the experience of many colleagues and friends from other schools. Other members of the Committee also disagreed, on the basis of evidence gained from visiting schools in their constituencies. I can confidently say that I have never met a teacher who welcomed an Ofsted inspection, whether they, their department or their school had a glowing report or a bad one.
Why is that? We have heard several reasons from hon. Members. We have heard about "shooting from the hip", although thankfully that seems to have ended with the departure of Mr. Woodhead. Another reason is the work load involved in preparing for an inspection. The report and Mr. Tomlinson's evidence to the Committee dealt with ways in which Ofsted was trying to reduce the amount of preparation involved, although if a school is to be judged on the basis of a snapshot inspection, it will inevitably do a great deal of preparation in an attempt to get a favourable judgment.
Many teachers lack confidence in the inspectors. There is a view that those who can, teach; and those who cannot become Ofsted inspectors or possibly—I shall say it before any colleague suggests it—Members of Parliament. Furthermore, there is a feeling that inspectors come to a school with preconceived images and agendas, based simply on mounds of statistics. It is felt also that inspectors apply a universal yardstick to all schools, with little recognition of different levels of social deprivation, or of the fact that some schools have many more pupils with special needs or behavioural difficulties than other schools in more favoured or more selective situations.
There is a perceived lack of consistency. There is a widespread impression among teachers, which my experience backs up, that too much depends on the particular team of inspectors that visits a school or, within a team, which subject inspector a teacher happens to get. Teachers can have very different experiences, depending on the approach and the personality of an individual, instead of the approach being consistent.
156WH
Above all, as I mentioned at the start, Ofsted is perceived as judgmental, not developmental. I recall working with Her Majesty's inspectors in the 1980s. When they visited a school, they quickly and perceptively diagnosed a department's strengths and weaknesses in one day. They outlined the weaknesses but, unlike Ofsted, they said, "This is how we will help you to tackle them in the forthcoming weeks and months." Ofsted descends from on high, passes judgment and disappears until the next time.
How could the chief inspector say in his evidence to the Committee that all teachers welcome inspection? Yes, teachers can argue with inspectors during the week about the judgments that they pass on them as individuals in the classroom, on the department and on the school. However, partway through the week, teachers are reluctant to do that because the inspector has to return, watch more lessons, further examine the department and write his conclusions before the end of the week. There is therefore a natural reluctance to antagonise. Teachers can complain about the report that they read at the end of the week, but it is not the final version. The inspectors will go away and write that. Again, there is a fear of rocking the boat.
When teachers complain during or after an inspection, how responsive and accountable is Ofsted? The famous Summerhill school had to spend £140,000 on an expensive court case to force Ofsted to take into account evidence from pupils and thus save the school from closure. How many state schools have the ability and the funds to do that? Comber Grove primary in Southwark had a good Ofsted inspection in 1996 and a devastating inspection in 2000.
Mike Kent, the head teacher, wrote about his experiences in an article in The Times Educational Supplement in 2000. He said:
"By Friday, we were devastated. The team, it seemed to us, had read the documentation, noticed the previous year's SATs results were slightly down, and come in to prove we were falling apart. Older members of staff had suffered particularly. One was so distressed that by Friday she couldn't speak to me on the telephone. Younger teachers, never having experienced an Ofsted, were appalled that evaluations could be carried out in such a manner, and the governors were bewildered and angry. People who knew our school simply couldn't believe what we'd been through. At the end of the inspection, I told the registered inspector we would make a formal complaint. I was astonished by the number of letters and calls I received. Our experiences weren't unique. I replied to them all, asking one question in particular: did you complain? Just one school had. The others felt that as the nightmare was over for another four years the best plan was to forget it, pick up the pieces, and get on with the job.
The head who'd decided to complain warned me that I was in for a long haul, with little chance of success. I'd need to complain to the contractor, then, if still dissatisfied, to Ofsted, then to the complaints adjudicator, and finally to the ombudsman…I began to understand why Chris Woodhead had proudly stated that schools were happy with their inspections because only 3 per cent. had ever complained."
Fourteen months later, Mike Kent had battled through a complicated complaints process, which required him to ring Ofsted time and again to inquire what was happening to the complaints and when he would receive a reply. He had to nag Ofsted constantly. At the end of that 14-month battle, more than half his complaints were upheld. However, the damage had already been done.

157WH
Ofsted inspections continue to need reforming, especially if the chief inspector believes that teachers love to see his cohorts crossing the school's threshold. The inspectors appear to be learning from some mistakes, and there are welcome comments in the report. However, do they apply the same lessons to inspecting further education colleges?
The evidence that the Association of Colleges submitted to the Select Committee conveyed great anxiety about, for example, inspections that focus on A-level and equivalent provision and give far less weight to the wide range of other work undertaken in further education. The association was worried that Ofsted inspectors did not allow for the relatively different and often lower academic ability in the intake of FE colleges, and castigated some colleges for failing to produce good enough results when compared with some other national yardstick that did not apply to them.
The association was worried about the sheer weight of the clerical work load, the burden of inspection and preparation for it; the same old complaint as that made by schools. It also complained that Ministers used the first Ofsted inspection reports to attack colleges for failing. Those attacks were based on only half a dozen early inspection reports, when the next 60 or more painted a different picture. However, we should not blame Ofsted for Ministers shooting from the hip, with their technical educational jargon of bargepoles and toilets, or at least not now that Mr. Woodhead has moved on.
I hope that Ofsted will take note not only of the Select Committee report, but of what has been said during today's debate. Ofsted might be judged to have moved from the "failing" to the "improving" category, but there is still much room for improvement.
4.34 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I want to reiterate some of the points that have been made about the improving performance and changing perception of Ofsted in recent times, due to the efforts and skill of the previous chief inspector, who recently moved on to other responsibilities. That is evidenced by the new inspection guidelines, which he produced in March 2002 and which will be implemented in September. Those guidelines will bring about a significant change in the culture and practice of Ofsted inspections.
Having said that, I have great sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), who obviously speaks from the heart, as well as from his recent direct experience. We should give careful consideration to what he said, particularly about the fact that Ofsted has not traditionally been able to comment at much length about a school's context. He referred to the enormous difference between schools, in terms of their catchment areas and intake, including their proportion of statemented children and children on free school meals.
Another important factor, however, is a school's budget. Just as schools vary according to their intake, they vary according to their budget. I speak with particular feeling on this issue because the primary and secondary schools in my constituency are now, and have always been, among the worst funded in the country,
158WH
entirely because of the iniquitous education standard spending assessment, which we hope will show some improvement on 1 April 2003.
In any inspection or any judgment of the quality of an institution, the budget available to that institution must be a defining factor, yet, to date, Ofsted has not been able to comment on a school's budget.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chaytor: Happily, as long as the hon. Gentleman is quick.
Mr. Brady: I do not differ from the hon. Gentleman in his aspiration for a fairer funding assessment for education authorities, which is important. Does he accept, however, that there is no direct correlation between the funding of schools and their performance? Ofsted should perhaps take an interest in that and consider the achievements of some schools that have very little.
Mr. Chaytor: No, I do not accept that there is no direct correlation, although I accept that schools with a similar level of funding vary in performance. By and large, if we compare like with like, the best funded schools are also the high achievers.
I do not want to labour the point, but criterion No. 10 of the new inspections framework, which will commence in September, relates to other specified features of a school, thereby providing an opportunity for Ofsted, if it wished and if the Government endorsed it, to make specific reference to the way in which the funding of a school impacts on its performance. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who has so skilfully compiled the report. The Government's response was generally sound, with one exception: its response to the section on further education was only two lines and one word long. That is indicative of the fact that further education is the most marginalised sector of the education system. Whoever wrote the Government response—it is in the name of the new Minister for School Standards, but I do not attribute any blame to him—ought to have given a more considered response to that section of the report.
It is significant that Ofsted's response is more detailed and helpful than that of the Government. Perhaps the Select Committee report is unique in having a dual response. I pay tribute to those responsible for Ofsted's response, which I found especially constructive.
The Chairman mentioned the Select Committee's involvement in the appointment of the chief inspector. I want to endorse the importance of the role of Select Committees, and the need to extend it. We are all acutely aware of the fragility of our democracy and the fact that our Parliament is less effective on many issues than it ought to be. It does not assert itself as frequently as it ought to, and our constitution does not give it the powers of Parliaments under other constitutions.

159WH
If we review the role of Select Committee, as we have recently, it would be valuable to give them a role in the appointment process of the heads arid chief executives of major Government agencies. That would invigorate our democracy and increase transparency and accountability. I ask all hon. Members present to consider that further. If in the near future we come to another report from the Modernisation Committee about the extension of the role of Select Committees, the time for that idea may eventually come.
I want to focus on Ofsted and evidence. In theory and largely in practice, the beauty and value of the inspection system is its ability to collate evidence. I want to add a question mark as to how that evidence is used, and to dwell on the selectivity of some of it. An example is provided by a section from the chief inspector's report on the performance of small sixth forms, although one could use other examples from it. Some hon. Members will know that I take a great deal of interest in that subject.
The striking feature of small sixth forms compared with larger ones—the criterion or threshold that the chief inspector's report chooses is 100 pupils—is the direct relationship between the size and the A-level point score. The chief inspector makes some extremely critical comments about the performance of small sixth forms. I simply point out that the evidence is concrete, and that it is not the first time that it has been documented. It was documented over many years, long before Ofsted existed. How are we acting on it? I do not see an enormous drive to build on the evidence provided.
Similarly, the inspector's report has a section on prison education. Members of the Committee might admit that we did not pick up on the subject. We discussed it, but we did not pick up on it specifically when preparing our report. The evidence on the subject is also pretty damning, yet what we doing about it? That was an oversight on the Committee's part; we should have given it more attention. Also, the Department should now build on the evidence and raise the profile of prison education.
In contrast, other matters on which evidence has been collected have been acted on. The classic example would be evidence on specialist schools, which was highlighted in the White Paper on schools last autumn, albeit selectively as it suggested that all specialist schools performed at a higher level than non-specialist schools, although the evidence did not quite say that. We now have a programme that is extensively promoting specialist schools.
Similarly, some areas that do not appear in the report seem to merit serious investigation. I draw attention to Question 12 on the Order Paper for today's Education and Skills Question Time; my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked about the performance of grammar schools in Kent. Performance in selective areas is enormously important to many hon. Members and to many thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parents, but it does not appear as evidence in the Ofsted report.
The main issue that I want to flag up is Ofsted's essential role in collecting evidence. We have to be uniform in our approach; we cannot require Ofsted to
160WH
collect evidence on some things and not others. When the evidence is documented and is indisputable, we have to translate it into policy uniformly and coherently. We cannot be selective about what evidence we choose to translate into policy.
Many head teachers, teachers and parents are concerned about what happens once a critical Ofsted report has been completed. A universally glowing report is less of an issue, but if criticisms have been made, the school is left to pick up the pieces, and many teachers and head teachers feel isolated when dealing with the problems. They say, "Oh well, Ofsted inspectors came in, they told us what was wrong and they went away. We did not see them again. We were left to deal with it by ourselves." That, however, is the system. Ofsted has no role in continuing the process of school improvements once it has completed its inspection.
I question whether that is entirely satisfactory and whether Ofsted should continue to be involved if it has made a critical inspection. It comes back to the point about how we deal with critical evidence. I am not entirely sure whether we have the mechanisms in place to use that evidence to improve the school as quickly as might otherwise have been the case.
My final point builds on the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesterfield about the challenge to Ofsted by Summerhill. A document that I think was given to all members of the Select Committee—I am not familiar with the details—flags up another important issue. We are moving to a system with more diverse schools, particularly in secondary education; we are actively promoting diversity between institutions; under the Education Bill, we are giving greater autonomy to certain categories of school to develop their ethos, to opt out of the national curriculum and to vary pay and conditions. Has Ofsted kept pace with that? How will Ofsted deal with that diversity?
Summerhill is an extremely diverse school, but it presented a challenge for Ofsted because the off-the-shelf inspection package clearly did not work. I hope that the Minister and the newly appointed chief inspector will take on board the fact a bog-standard inspection method cannot deal with a diverse framework of schools.
4.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I apologise to the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes) for missing their speeches. I had an engagement that I could not miss.
It should be remembered that Ofsted is one of the great educational achievements of the Conservative party. I am pleased to recall that it was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I also acknowledge the action of my noble Friend Lord Patten in appointing Chris Woodhead, who was certainly the best-known chief Inspector of schools. The origins of Ofsted are lost in the mists of time, but it does us no harm to remember that it is another of the achievements of the Conservative years I hat the current Government have taken on board.
Ofsted's role in inspecting LEAs has not had much coverage in the parts of the debate to which I have listened. I happen to work for the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation, which proposed in a report in 1997

161WH
that Ofsted should inspect LEAs. I do not know whether that had any effect on the incoming Labour Government, but it was the right way for them to go. Such inspections recognise the important role that LEAs play in supporting and, sometimes, in failing and undermining schools. I am glad that the Government have built on those Ofsted inspections. I am also pleased to have taken part in the process of out-sourcing the management of failing LEAs and building up new, more effective LEAs in several parts of the country. I hope that that will contribute significantly to the improvement of education in those areas, and that the Committee will find time to investigate failed LEAs and how they have been turned round. A range of solutions has been attempted, and some have been more successful than others. It would do no harm for us to inquire into them. I see the Minister nodding in agreement.
I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), and commend the vigorous start that Ofsted made. It was quick off the mark, sharp and quick in reporting on schools. It was a bit rough and ready, and there was too much bureaucracy and paperwork, but it was necessary to make that vigorous start if the whole range of schools across the country was to be inspected in the first four years.
I congratulate Ofsted in particular on the structure that it chose for inspecting schools. It did not employ all its inspectors itself, so it was free to employ effective inspection teams from LEAs or the private sector. That was a masterly approach to inspection, because people did not get bogged down in Ofsted's culture, as I fear they sometimes did in the culture of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools. That meant that inspection teams that did not perform effectively in the judgment of Her Majesty's chief inspector could be sidelined with no great cost to the taxpayer.
I want briefly to consider three aspects of the report and, in particular, the Government's response to the second report. First, however, I should deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Bury, North. A great diversity of schools demands more than a bog-standard inspection process, and it is important that a school sets out its philosophy, objectives and performance indicators so that Ofsted can judge it on the basis of its success in meeting its own objectives. We must assume, or at least hope, that parents who choose Summerhill school for their children know broadly what to expect. They do not expect a traditional education, so Ofsted should not inspect the school on the basis of whether it delivers one. Such an inspection process would respond to schools' autonomy and to the demands of parents and children, which would be wholly appropriate.
I want to remark on three elements of the report, the first of which relates to LEA inspections. I understand that the Government are undertaking an independent evaluation of the new organisational models in LEAs. Will that include whether they are out-sourced, in-house or partnerships, however defined? Will there be a vigorous and detailed evaluation so as to research and
162WH
publish the evidence of the success of the Government's policy, which is implemented through a number of different mechanisms?
Secondly, I should like to refer briefly to teacher recruitment and retention, on which the Government display a little complacency in their response. They repeat that their
"recruitment and retention incentives strike the right balance".
Clearly they do not, because there are not enough teachers, particularly in certain shortage subjects and in certain parts of the south-east of England. I am glad that the Government are contemplating putting more resources into areas where the cost of living is high, but I ask the Minister also to consider areas such as my constituency, where recruitment difficulties arise for entirely different reasons.
The head teacher of a primary school is quite likely to have a spouse who is in the same or a similar public sector profession. If someone is unlucky enough to live in Southampton and is the head teacher of a primary school, their spouse can look for a job anywhere from Brighton to Woking, from Oxford to Axminster. If they live on the Isle of Wight, the area in which their spouse can look, for a job is much reduced, so there are far fewer women in work on the Isle of Wight than in almost any other part of the country. That is a significant recruitment problem, not only in education, but for the medical profession and the private sector professions.
Mr. Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman said that there are fewer women in work on the Isle of Wight than almost anywhere else in the country. Is there not therefore a significant pool of labour from which to recruit into the public services on the Isle of Wight?
Mr. Turner: There is a significant pool of labour that can be recruited to the less skilled end of public service employment. However, my primary schools find it hard to recruit head teachers, my hospital finds it hard to recruit doctors and my local authority finds it hard to recruit the more senior professionals because there is no job for the wife or husband to go to within easy travelling distance. I hope that the Minister will address that matter.
Finally, there is the issue of pupil behaviour and attendance. The real problem is whether the head and governors of a school can take effective action to deal with pupils who do not or will not attend, or who will not behave when they do attend. I appreciate what the Government are trying to do to roll back the difficulties caused by the fact that for many years people in authority, particularly authority over children, have been undermined. However, that does not require a range of micro-management activities. Members, the Government and as many people as possible should express their confidence in those in authority, even when they occasionally get it wrong. The range of appeal systems does not express that confidence. Indeed, it expresses the opposite. It encourages parents to appeal against an exclusion, to complain and to believe that they and their children have rights to the exclusion of the rights of others.
4.58 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.13 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Turner: I think that all my points have been made.
5.14 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am grateful for being called, and shall be rapid and try to keep to my allotted two minutes. I was going to praise the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), but I managed to miss his erudite comments and, as he is not here now, I do not have to praise him. Therefore, I shall move even more quickly.
I shall refer briefly to value for money, and to the appendix to the memorandum from Professor Carol Fitz-Gibbon. I do not necessarily agree that there should be a royal commission. However, we should consider value for money, especially with regard to those being inspected. The point is worthy of mention—if other hon. Members referred to it earlier and I missed it, I apologise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) referred to the inclusion of further education in the Ofsted regime. The vast majority of colleges are now inspected under that regime. Al though that fact does not get much of a headline, it is worthy of note. It is early days, so it is difficult to gain an understanding of the importance and the impact of that, but we can comment on what the Committee said and also on the evidence, especially from the Association of Colleges. The jury is still out, but there must be some recognition of matters that cause concern, on which the Minister may wish to comment, although not necessarily today.
We must ask who is doing the inspecting and whether they have the appropriate depth of knowledge of further education. We recognise the need to see how FE works and to examine its learning strategies, but because the FE strand goes well beyond the 16-to-19 range, it must be considered sensitively. What is happening outside the modus operandi of the inspection must be included, otherwise an unreal impression will be gained of what a college is about.
It is fair to say that dialogue is needed between the Department and the AOC, and I understand that that is to take place. There is recent evidence that colleges are improving, and they are to be congratulated. If we do not get the process right, we know the damage that it will do, as it did to schools. We do not want to go through that process again with FE, in which people feel that the inspection is not a fair reflection of the work that they do and what the college is really capable of.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): I thank hon. M embers for being brief, which has given us half an hour for the three main winding-up speeches.
5.16 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I shall take my customary brief 10 minutes.
Mr. Bill Olner (in the Chair): I see there are no lawyers present.
Mr. Willis: I shall ignore that remark, Mr. Olner.
It is good to have a debate on a Select Committee report about which there is no real contention. People accept that it is a good report, and I compliment the Committee and its Chairman, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), in his absence—please do not tell him—on the way in which the report was prepared. I put on record my party's thanks to Mike Tomlinson, who did a remarkable job in turning Ofsted round. We wish David Bell well as he commences his work.
There were some interesting contributions from hon. Members, but I shall not go through them one by one as time does not allow that. However, I pick out the comments of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on Ofsted's inspection of further education. I think we have got it wrong; there is a basic flaw in the way in which the Learning and Skills Act 2000 set up the post-16 inspection. I urge the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Minister to reconsider that issue. It is important to examine what Ofsted and the Adult Learning Inspectorate are doing and to get inspection tight.
FE continues to be marginalised in the comments that come out of the mouths of Ministers. That is to be regretted, and ultimately we will suffer as a result. The FE sector has done a remarkable job, especially since incorporation, and we should celebrate it.
There has been much talk about the royal commission and research. I agree with the Select Committee Chairman, who said that a royal commission is not necessarily needed. When it reviews its work next year, the Select Committee and the Government must ask how Ofsted knows that its conclusions are correct. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to occasions when lives have been devastated and schools blighted as a result of Ofsted's work. If that is the case, we must know that its conclusions are right.
I have one question for the Minister, which he can either pick up later or put into his thought bank. Government policy and Ofsted are closely linked: in effect, Ofsted inspects the Government's policy. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) commented on that. Few hon. Members would disagree with the view that the Government have done a good job in focusing on literacy and numeracy in primary schools, and my party would be the first to say that. However, are standards improving in primary schools because of the Government's strategies or because children, with their teachers' aid, are getting better at passing the tests? When I visit schools around the country—which I am sure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) does, too—regrettably I see children being endlessly prepared for their SATs. That may well bring improvement in the outcomes of SATs, but does it improve the education system? That question must be answered.

165WH
Like several hon. Members, I want to talk about moving on from where we are now to where we want to be. I regretted the way in which Ofsted was introduced and felt bitterly about it as a head teacher, but my school's inspection in 1997 was one of the most fruitful experiences that my staff and I went through. I have put that on record many times. That was partly because of the registered inspector, Champac Shan, who was absolutely brilliant in informing, advising, bringing people together and listening to their complaints.
That inspector later left Ofsted because he was not allowed to work as a registered inspector in the way that he wanted. He was probably what I would describe as too developmental and should have been more judgmental, but we should move towards being more developmental. Most schools have got the message—if they have not, something has gone badly wrong—and we now need a different approach. That point was made earlier by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), and there were a few guffaws around the Chamber, which was a pity because he has a point.
Whether we want a lighter touch is not my point, and I want to leave the Minister with one thought. In the models for improving practice and achieving best practice in the private sector—not the one-size-fits-all practice, the virtues of which the hon. Member for Huddersfield was extolling—the idea of total quality management is very exciting. The Minister should examine what is happening in Londonderry, where two schools have adopted the process of total quality management. They are continually looking for small incremental improvements rather than quantum leaps, which is what Ofsted wanted in the early days. When a system is put in place that enables the organisation to improve bit by bit, the sum of those parts gives an immense feeling of satisfaction. I commend that to the Minister.
The hon. Member for Bury, North was right to comment on the changes that are occurring. We support some of the principles behind the Education Bill, which is due back from the Lords soon. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and I supported the principle of innovation and autonomy, but if we want real innovation and autonomy, we cannot have one-size-fits-all inspection or examination systems. Whether the Conservatives want to get rid of AS-levels or we want to get rid of GCSEs is not the point. The point is that schools must be encouraged to develop their own curriculum and ways of working that make them exciting institutions. I want schools in Altrincham and Sale to adopt the international baccalaureate—or perhaps a north-west baccalaureate. I want schools to begin their AS-level work with pupils at the age of 15 rather than 16. Those changes are all possible, but not under the current regime, because Ofsted must report in a certain framework.
My last point is on special educational needs. I regret to inform the hon. Member for Huddersfield that, as far as Ofsted is concerned, special educational needs are a tag-on in schools and in further education. I compliment the Government: they have done a great deal to raise the profile of special education, as did the previous Government. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001—the new code of practice which we fought hard to get through and which the Government supported—and the amendments that were tabled have
166WH
enabled us to make progress in leaps and bounds. However, we have a one-size-fits-all inspection system that does not recognise what is happening in the world of special needs. We have developed inclusion in most schools, and that has been a roaring success. Of course, sometimes it has not worked. Large groups of youngsters with hearing and sight impairments and severe learning difficulties enrich the school, but also skew it. Ofsted still reports on such schools irrespective of whether they have such kids. The Government and the Select Committee must be more rigorous in deciding what they want Ofsted to do. Ofsted is a good developmental tool, but it needs to move on.
5.26 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: Even in a commendably brief contribution, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) managed to raise the prospect of separate examinations for Altrinham and Sale, and even a northwest baccalaureate, which may be what the AS-level will become. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), must shortly leave for another engagement, and was kind enough to apologise. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee on their report, and on the hon. Gentleman's genuine commitment and determination to continue scrutinising the activities of the Government and Ofsted. I hope that he will forgive me if I note that the two Chairmen who preceded him were demoted from that position to the Government Front Bench. I hope that he will take it in good part if I say that I hope that the same will not happen to him. It is essential that the Select Committee and its Chairman focus on the scrutiny of the Department for Education and Skills, and that no other goals cloud their judgment.
In his introduction, the hon. Member for Huddersfield talked about the extent to which Ofsted has grown and developed in its work, and how much more important it is that Parliament scrutinises its work, not least from the perspective of looking after public money. As he rightly said, that is our core function. He also talked about the potential role of the Select Committee and the appointment of the chief inspector of schools. He made a compelling point when he asked why we should have Ofsted if it did not drive up standards. He was probably far from alone in the Chamber in finding in favour of Ofsted in that regard. Members on both sides have been clear that Ofsted has been a positive force overall, although there are different shades of opinion on how that work has been done at different times.
I was also pleased that the hon. Member for Huddersfield praised Chris Woodhead for his work while he was at Ofsted. As several hon. Members said, it is important to find the right balance between toughness and rigour on the one hand, and encouragement and the developmental role on the other. I am tempted to observe that perhaps Chris Woodhead was ahead of the current Secretary of State with her bargepole and Alastair Campbell with his bog standard schools in seeking to give encouragement and urge a more developmental approach.

167WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) spoke about the importance of light-touch inspection. That is absolutely right. The situation of a school that is known to be good and doing its job properly is very different from that of a school that needs more intervention and assistance to improve standards. He also spoke about the importance of the rigorous start that Ofsted had made, and that point was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness praised the introduction of unannounced inspections. Again, that is positive. Much of the criticism that one hears in schools about the inspection process is about the work that goes into preparing for the inspection, rather than the inspection itself.
I was fortunate on Monday evening to be presenting prizes at Wellington school in my constituency. That local high school is a technology college and is doing fabulous things. The school recently underwent an Ofsted inspection, and the head said that when he heard that it was about to be inspected, he called the staff together and told them that they should look forward to it. He was right, at least about looking forward to the inspection's outcome, because the work of the school was found to be excellent. That is how schools should address inspection. A good school that focuses on raising standards and improving the education of all its pupils has nothing to fear from an Ofsted inspection, and frequently much to gain.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), in a very long speech—that was not entirely her fault—spoke about league tables and the inspection of child care, which are important issues. We must acknowledge that when considering league tables and the difficulties that might arise for schools that become known for specialising in children with special educational needs or in particular types of education. We must seriously consider publishing alongside existing league tables value-added information, which could address some of those concerns. Problems have arisen with the inspection of child care. In the introductory stages, there appear in some places to be significant delays in registration, and there are problems with the bureaucracy involved in processing paperwork. That must be addressed.
In the short time available, I cannot comment on all the speeches and interventions that have been made, but I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), partly because I disagree with almost everything that he says. We must thrash out the interesting question of how schools use money and where value for money is being delivered. There is strong evidence that there is no direct correlation between the amount of money spent and the attainment of schools. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record of his response to my intervention, he will see that he was not far from agreeing with me when he said that there was a huge divergence in performance between schools to which similar resources were devoted.
It is important that we focus on how we can derive the best value for money in the delivery of education, and how we can spread best practice and ensure that all schools do the best that they can with the available
168WH
resources. At the same time, I agreed with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of a fairer distribution of resources throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight spoke about the great Conservative achievement of the introduction of Ofsted. In the consensual spirit of the debate, I am glad that he did so in the way that he did, because he drew attention to the areas of agreement between the Opposition and the Government. We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the important role of Ofsted in inspecting schools and helping to raise standards. We also welcome their acceptance of our belief in increased specialism in schools, and in allowing a degree of selection in schools for that purpose. I think that Ministers' opinions in that respect differ somewhat from those of the hon. Member for Bury, North. However, I shall leave it to the Minister to deal with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight spoke compellingly of the realities of inspecting a diverse range of schools. The Government are taking measures in the Education Bill to allow a greater diversity of schools across the country. We welcome that, but it will be a challenge to ensure that the right form of inspection takes place.
I should like to say something about this week's report from Ofsted and the Government's reaction to it. Ofsted's criticism of the performance of schools and of teachers at key stage three contradicts its earlier findings that at key stage three the measure of good teaching amounted to 75 per cent. but only 72 per cent. at key stage two. It seems slightly contradictory to suggest that the weakness comes in key stage three and that all problems are resolved at an earlier stage.
Ofsted must be rigorous, independent of the Government and prepared to speak out in support of standards, even when that is unpopular. I wish the Select Committee and its Chairman well in their future work in helping to hold Ofsted to account, and I am sure that it will fulfil that important function to the best of its ability.
5.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We have had an excellent, if somewhat interrupted, debate. I thank everyone who has taken part, and also one or two colleagues who have not taken part out of respect for the time constraints. I undertook to give the Committee the apologies of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who could not be here for the winding-up speeches as he had to fulfil a prior engagement.
On behalf of the Department for Education and Skills, I congratulate the Select Committee on securing this important debate on Ofsted and on the work that it has done. The Select Committee's reports are a very valuable input into the continuing work of ensuring that inspection is of a high quality and makes a significant contribution to the vital work of improving quality and raising standards at local and national level. As a number of colleagues have said, Ofsted is a slightly unusual organisation. It is an inspectorate, enjoying independence in matters of professional judgment, as

169WH
well as a non-ministerial Government Department. That is why the Select Committee is so important as a mechanism for ensuring Ofsted's accountability to Parliament.
I apologise to hon. Members if I do not respond to all the specific points raised during the debate, but I shall try to address some of them. The role that the Select Committee plays in the appointment of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has been discussed before. I take the point that my hon. Friend made about the composition of the selection panel. As we have a new chief inspector, David Bell, it is not a matter of priority to address the procedures for this appointment. However, the Government take seriously the points that the Select Committee has made, and we will consider them carefully at the appropriate time. My hon. Friend was right to place this in the context of a broader debate about the modernisation of Parliament and the strengthening of Parliament as an institution. It would be helpful if comments from this Select Committee were fed into other Select Committees, including the Modernisation Committee. Although there is no commitment to change, there is certainly an openness and readiness to reconsider this matter in the months and years ahead.
I am aware from the debate and the reports that the Select Committee endorses the widely held belief in the value of external inspection. Inspection is now accepted as a valuable part of education, as is Ofsted, even by Members who criticised some of its practices, particularly the early practice. Much has happened in the 18 months since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who was then the Minister of State, addressed the previous debate on Ofsted in Westminster Hall. She began by paying a warm tribute to the many people in schools throughout the country whose efforts have contributed to the very good results achieved in most schools. We have seen further improvements, and they are borne out in the reports that we are debating today.
It has been widely accepted by hon. Members that it was right to give priority to the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools. Although we must be careful about over-testing and the burden of tests and examinations, I have no doubt from reading the reports, reviewing the evidence and visiting schools that we have seen a real improvement in literacy and numeracy standards among our primary school children. We should all pay tribute to the teachers and others who have ensured that that has happened.
There is also much to celebrate in our secondary schools. Last year they achieved the national target of 50 per cent. of pupils reaching school-leaving age gaining five good GSCEs. That is a real advance, which was achieved a year earlier than the Government's target. There are improvements in the position of our young people compared with those in other countries in tests in science, literacy and maths. A great deal more still needs to be done. Standards are rising but they are not as good across the board as they should be. The gap between the best and the worst performing schools remains too wide.
The reports from Ofsted make it clear that standards rise when schools are well led and when there is good teaching. Ofsted has told us that the standard of
170WH
leadership and teaching in our schools has continued to improve. Indeed, the quality of teaching is now at an all-time high. Not only has the long tail of unsatisfactory teaching shrunk year after year, which few believed possible, but the proportion of good and very good teaching has risen.
Ofsted has a central role in our strategy for raising standards. Its role has been enhanced, which has meant a period of organisational change as a result of two significant extensions to its remit. Those are the addition of 16-to 19 education in colleges, where Ofsted works in partnership with the Adult Learning Inspectorate, and the regulation of child care. It is timely to pay tribute, as hon. Members have done, to the work of Mike Tomlinson, who stepped into the role of chief inspector at short notice in December 2000, and to welcome in his place David Bell, whose five-year appointment began on 1 May.
We have seen considerable improvements in the school inspection system over recent years, which are borne out in the debate and in the reports. Of course there is always scope for further improvement, for more flexibility and for learning lessons as we go along. We have had some important contributions to the debate about how inspection can be improved. Inspection should be challenging, but it should also be the positive, constructive experience that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) described from his school visit earlier this week. We also want Ofsted's approach to be more responsive to schools' individual circumstances, to make more use of the findings of schools' self-evaluation, to take more account of the views of parents, pupils and other stakeholders and to be better co-ordinated with other inspection and monitoring. We want to involve schools more in what we are doing in a genuine sense of partnership.
This year, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, has also seen the start of the second cycle of inspections of LEAs, which Ofsted is conducting with the assistance of the Audit Commission. New arrangements for inspecting local authority education services are being developed in the context of the comprehensive performance assessment. Those will build on the proportionate inspection process already implemented by Ofsted since the beginning of this year, and will deliver even more streamlined arrangements. It is important that these new processes are a success.
In the remaining two minutes, I should like to respond to one or two of the specific points that have been raised. The new role with FE is important, and it is vital to get it right. I regret that only two lines about FE appear in our response to the report, because it must be at the heart of our strategy for widening participation in education, particularly after the age of 16. FE is also vital for the 14-to-19 curriculum and for tackling some of the behavioural problems to which hon. Members referred.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked about recruitment and retention in his constituency. I shall ask his local authority to write to the Department about that matter, and I shall chase it up for him.

171WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked about prison education. We have seen some improvement in prisons and other offender institutions, but it is only a start and much more needs to be done. My hon. Friend's neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), has taken on that responsibility, which he takes seriously. We all want to see further advances made.
Recruitment and retention is a challenge across the country, especially in high-cost areas. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued the London challenge. We are developing a strategy for
172WH
schools in London and, together with my right hon. Friend, I take responsibility for it. We recognise that some of the problems London faces with recruitment and retention are shared in other high-cost areas. We must take that into account as we debate the funding of local education authorities.
I apologise for not being able, in my 10 minutes, to refer to all the issues raised in the debate. However, we have had a positive and constructive discussion, and I look forward to future debates about Ofsted and the Select Committee's work in ensuring that both Ofsted and the Department are accountable.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Six o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the ORR with regard to enforcement orders following breaches of the network licence; and if he will make a statement. [66605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Regulator has made no such representations. The Regulator has identified a number of areas where Railtrack is currently not complying with the requirements of Condition 7 of its Network Licence. These are detailed in his statement published on 27 June 2002 on the proposed acquisition of Railtrack PLC by Network Rail Limited. The statement explains what regulatory action is being taken in respect of each area of non-compliance and sets out the Regulator's expected approach to the regulation of Network Rail.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much(a) Metronet and (b) its sponsors are due to be paid in (i) development costs, (ii) risk capital costs, (iii) financial and legal advice costs and (iv) bank and loan insurance costs by London Underground upon signing of contracts; what independent assessment (A) has been and (B) will be made of the validity of Metronet's financial claims; whether Tube Lines and its sponsors will be entitled to further payments beyond money it is due to receive in success fees; and if he will make a statement. [64684]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 June 20021 London Underground will make payments to the infrastructure companies in line with the service they deliver. Both the preferred bidders, Metronet and Tube Lines Group, have developed their bids on the basis that over the lifetime of the contracts they will recover the costs they incur in enhancing and maintaining the Tube, plus associated finance costs, including a return on their direct financial investment—the level of this return will depend on the level of service delivered. Their bids also allow for their recovering the sums they have invested in developing their bids. This is perfectly normal commercial practice. Such sums include costs incurred directly by the bidders, costs associated with raising finance and fees paid to their financial, legal and other advisers.

  These costs will be verified by London Underground before they can be recovered by the bidders. The Government would risk undermining London Underground's commercial position if they were to prejudge the results of this verification by estimating the level of such costs that might ultimately be recovered.

  Green Minister
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who his Department's green Minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for his Department's activities; and if he will make a statement. [65990]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 26 June 2002,Official Report, column 882W. I am the Department for Transport's Green Minister and was appointed to ENV(G) on 24 June 2002.

  Following the General Election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV and it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. Therefore I cannot relate progress or outcomes by my Department to anything that has been discussed.

  Track Renewals
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research(a) has been conducted and (b) is planned (i) by and (ii) for his Department and the Strategic Rail Authority on the impact on track renewals of (A) increased train weights and (B) increased volume of rail traffic on the network; and if he will make a statement. [66308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for the railway industry primarily Railtrack with the train operating companies, freight operating companies and the rolling stock companies. The industry created in May 2001 the Wheel Rail Interface Steering Authority (WRISA) to provide a cross industry forum to advise on matters such as this.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information has been collated,(a) by and (b) for (i) his Department and (ii) the Highways Agency regarding roadworks taking place over the next 12 months; what the cost is of each contract; and if he will make a statement. [66212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not collate information on local authority schemes.

  Work on the motorway and trunk road network is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. Small scale works are delivered by the Agency's managing agents and term maintenance contractors. Larger works are delivered through individual contracts but because these are still being planned in detail, the Agency cannot say how many individual contracts there will be nor what the value of those contracts will be.

  But overall, in the financial year 2002–03 the Agency plans to spend some £740 million on maintaining the motorway and trunk road network. This compares to £692 million last year, which included the resurfacing of 1793 lane kilometres of carriageway and remedial works on 487 bridges. A further £242 million will be spent this year on schemes to make better use of the existing

  459W
  network. This compares to £190 million last year, which included completion of 164 safety local network management schemes.

  In addition, the Agency will spend some £700 million in 2002–03 on delivering the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements.

  NATS
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what services NATS provides to aircraft outside controlled airspace. [65739]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Outside controlled airspace there is no requirement on NATS to provide a control service, but certain services may be available including:

  1. Flight Information Services providing aeronautical information relevant to the safe conduct of the flight, including meteorological information and the status of navigation aids provided by NATS;

  2. Radar Information Services providing pilots with information on the position of other aircraft;

  3. Radar Advisory Services providing information on actions to avoid potential conflicts; and

  4. NATS also supports emergency related services operated by the Ministry of Defence and participates in the Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the right of NATS to refuse to provide IFR to an aircraft outside controlled airspace while charging for that service. [65740]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under the terms of its licence from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), NATS is not required to provide the full range of air navigation services from all units, and issues such as capacity, radar performance and weather may influence the ability of controllers to provide a service.

  10-Year Plan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the priority projects in the 10 year plan which he estimates will be completed by 2010. [65738]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10 Year Plan makes clear that decisions on individual projects will flow from the plans and programmes of a range of delivery agencies, subject to the normal decision-making and appraisal processes.

  Roads (At-Work Accidents)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will request the Health and Safety Commission to include among its targets contained in the Revitalising Health and Safety strategy a requirement to reduce the number of at work accidents each year on the roads. [66668]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government and the Health and Safety Commission set out long term strategic targets for health and safety in the Revitalising Health and Safety Statement of June 2000, after extensive consultation. The targets are deliberately broad based covering all occupational health risks, other than work related traffic accidents. These are included within the Governments 460W
  Road Safety Strategy which aims to reduce all deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 40 per cent. by 2010. There are no plans to revise the Revitalising targets at the current time.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the trend of(a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries in traffic accidents in towns and cities over the last five years. [65637]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The provisional results for 2001 indicate that there were 1,409 deaths on roads in Britain with a speed limit of 40mph or less, which generally indicates they are in built-up areas. This was five less than in 2000 but more than in 1998 and 1999, and 61 (4.1 per cent.) less than in 1997. The number of serious injuries on such roads has reduced each year since 1997. The 22,742 serious injuries in 2001 was 14 per cent. less than in 1997.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has carried out with regard to the potential costs and benefits of the use of 20 mph zones in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [66626]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The financial cost of a 20mph zone is dependent on the size of the zone and the type of traffic calming measures implemented to achieve the desired speed reduction.

  A TRL report, "Review of traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones" (TRL Report 215), published in 1996, found that the average annual accident frequency fell by around 60 per cent. Child pedestrian and child cyclist accidents fell by around 70 per cent. and 48 per cent. respectively. This gives an overall reduction of 67 per cent. for all child accidents.

  In addition, a well designed 20mph zone can be instrumental in improving the quality of life for local people by protecting them from inappropriate speed.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what control the Government have over the sale of the CTRL to LCR; and if he will make a statement. [66501]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Government have no controls with which they could require the sale of Railtrack's interests in CTRL to London and Continental Railways (LCR) and Network Rail. They do have various controls over LCR's financing arrangements some of which are relevant to the sale.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of section 1 of the CTRL is complete; on what date it is(a) due to be and (b) expected to be (i) completed and (ii) open; and what its expected final cost is. [66500]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Section 1 is currently 87 per cent. complete. It is expected to be completed in September 2003, and should be ready and able to run Eurostar services in October 2003, which is within schedule.

  It is expected to be completed within its £1.9 billion budget.
  461W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated value is of the Channel tunnel rail link owned by Railtrack. [666001

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]London and Continental Railways (LCR) and Network Rail have made a combined offer of £375 million for Railtrack's interests in the Channel tunnel rail link. This is the estimated value which has emerged from negotiations between the parties.

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the funding necessary to operate the railway network as a going concern; and if he will provide a breakdown. [64366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the Statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, on 27 June 2002 Official Report, column 971, about Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he was notified by the Office of Fair Trading that the Network Rail proposal will not be referred to the Competition Commission. [66536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Office of Fair Trading has yet to put its recommendation to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as to whether or not the Network Rail proposal should be referred to the Competition Commission.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what mechanism the board Network Rail will be held accountable to the members of Network Rail. [66541]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail will be run on a commercial basis and members will have rights similar to shareholders. These include approving the appointment of directors and holding them to account, ensuring high standards of corporate governance, receiving regular reports on company performance and attending general meetings.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what date the bridging loans for Network Rail will(a) commence and (b) are due for repayment. [66551]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 13 of the Statutory Contingent Liability minute laid before Parliament on 27 June 2002.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will the budgeted level of funding available to Network Rail from the Government to cover future liabilities and unexpected expenditures.[66599]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State on 27 June 2002, Official Report, columns 971–73.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the proposed modifications to the notes in connection with the Network Rail proposal; and if he will make a statement on the note holders passing a resolution to authorise the modification of the terms and conditions of the notes. [66538]
  462W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the proposed modifications to the bonds in connection with the Network Rail proposal; and if he will make a statement on each class of bondholder passing a resolution to authorise the modification of the terms and conditions of the bonds. [66537]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]These are matters for Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (I) if he will list the banks involved in the bridging finance for Network Rail; [66546]

  (2) if he will publish the terms of the loans associated with the bridging finance for Network Rail. [66547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The banks providing bridging finance for Network Rail are listed in the annex to the draft comfort letter entitled "Network Rail Bridging Finance", which was presented to the House on 27 June with a minute detailing non-statutory contingent liabilities in support of Network Rail Ltd. Details of the bridge financing are a matter for Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the organisation structure of Network Rail. [66548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the status of railway safety will be under the Network Rail structure. [66640]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Railway Safety would be acquired by Network Rail from Railtrack Group PLC. It is Network Rail's intention to hold Railway Safety as a separate subsidiary pending its replacement by the new rail industry safety body. The Rail Regulator is now consulting on the establishment of such a body.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will be publishing a revised version of(a) the SRA plan and (b) the 10-year plan to take into account the change from Railtrack to Network Rail. [66550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Our Directions and Guidance to the SRA require it to publish an updated Strategic Plan in January 2003. We are intending to publish a progress report on the 10-year plan in due course.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the new(a) statutory powers and (b) other powers that he has over the management of the rail network under the Newtrack Rail arrangements. [66595]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have no new statutory or other powers over the management of the rail network as a result of Network Rail's proposals.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he authorised the change in control of Railtrack; and if he will publish the authorisation. [66604]
  463W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail has not yet asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to authorise the change of control.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances have been given that the existing employment rights, including pension rights, of employees of Railtrack plc will be safeguarded by the sale of Railtrack plc to Network Rail. [66498]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Network Rail has stated publicly that the existing terms and conditions, including pension rights, of Railtrack PLC employees will be safeguarded.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish information required by Railtrack Group in order to enable it to identify whether adjusting post balance sheet events have occurred that would require amendments to the figures reported on 27 June by Railtrack Group. [66533]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]This is a matter for Railtrack Group and its auditors, taking account of the sale and purchase agreements entered into by Railtrack Group with Network Rail and with London and Continental Railways (LCR).

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Railtrack Group is required to purchase section one of the CTRL at its net cost. [66530]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]Railtrack Group is obliged to purchase section one of the CTRL at the actual out-turn construction cost including financing costs and net of Government grants received.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the SRA's expenditure for the last year, including their provisions for liabilities and charges and (b) the SRA's budget for 2002–03, including budgeted provisions for liabilities and charges. [66597]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The expenditure for 2001–02 will be set out in its annual report which will be laid before the House in due course. The Government's 2002–03 spending plans for railways are summarised in the 2002 annual report for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Halcrow
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fee was paid to Halcrow for the SWARMMS report. [66755]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total cost of the London to South West and South Wales Multi-Modal Study (SWARMMS) is £1.812 million (excluding VAT). This figure includes the cost of producing the final report.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government have met their target to have a rural transport partnership in every rural county in England. [66823]
  464W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A rural transport partnership has now been established by the Countryside Agency in every predominantly rural county and unitary authority in England.

  Risk Assessments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have(a) to ensure that UK companies comply with the terms of the European framework directive 89/391 and (b) to remove the proviso, as far as is reasonably practicable in respect of risk assessments from the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. [66683]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The Government will continue to take a range of measures to ensure compliance with the framework directive, including guidance on the legislation implementing the directive, and enforcement of the legislation in proportion to risks to people's health and safety.

  The term
  'so far as is reasonably practicable'
  is key to the risk control system embodied in UK health and safety legislation. The Government have no plans to remove it.

  Car Use
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to encourage workers to make less use of their cars to travel to work. [66866]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In February 2001 we awarded 111 bursaries to 84 local authorities at a cost of £9 million over three years, to fund travel plan co-ordinators to work with schools and businesses on the development of local measures to reduce reliance on the car. We have also set up a programme of free site-specific advice from a panel of consultants to assist schools, businesses and other organisations in developing their travel plans. We also commission guides, seminars and other forms of advice and support. In addition local authorities have powers under the Transport Act 2000 to introduce a levy on work place parking, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

  Public Transport Costs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average cost of(a) community transport and (b) public bus services was in (i) 1991, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 2000. broken down by region. [66786]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on community transport schemes is not held centrally.

  On public local bus services the average cost to the passenger, in terms of pence per journey in each of the years, in each Government Office Region, is summarised.

  Pence per passenger journey1

  Government region

  2000–01

  1997–98

  1994–95

  1991–92

  London

  50

  50

  50

  46

  East

  93

  90

  87

  88

  South East

  88

  84

  84

  85

  South West

  93

  80

  80

  73

  East Midlands

  75

  72

  71

  62

  North East

  70

  62

  61

  51

  465W

  Pence per passenger journey1

  Government region

  2000–01

  1997–98

  1994–95

  1991–92

  North West

  73

  70

  66

  60

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  70

  72

  59

  55

  West Midlands

  59

  56

  57

  53

  1 At 2000–01 prices

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the development and reconversion of regions is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [56770]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 May 2002]I have been asked to reply.

  The mandate for this Committee is set out in Article 48 of Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds. The Committee acts as a Management Committee and deals with issues arising from the implementation of the Structural Funds and particularly the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under 12/60/1999 and related Regulations. The Committee is also mandated to act as a consultative committee to establish and revise the list of areas eligible under Objective 2, discuss the Community Support Frameworks and Single Programming Documents for Objectives 1 and 2, and discuss issues arising from the allocation of technical assistance to the programmes.

  The Committee has met nine times over the last 12 months. My Department, which has co-ordinating responsibility for the Structural Funds in the UK, sends one representative to the Committee. Other Departments with responsibility for the ERDF, and the Devolved Administrations, are also invited. On average the UK's representation is three officials. It is not possible to calculate the cost to public funds of the Committee without incurring disproportionate cost.

  The Committee is currently discussing a range of issues linked to implementation of the Structural Funds, particularly simplification of administration while retaining accountability and transparency.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the Committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (COM(2001)783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology Committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its web site.

  Housing Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints about housing benefits were received by the local government ombudsman in 2001–02, broken down by area. [64122]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Housing benefit complaints received by the local government ombudsman in 2001–02 broken down by Government regions were;

  North West—252

  North East—27

  Yorkshire and Humber—263

  East Midlands—96

  London—1,802

  East of England—84

  West Midlands—268

  South East—105

  South West—99

  Total—2,996.

  The distribution of these cases between offices of the local government ombudsman was as follows:

  London—1.097

  Coventry—1,050

  York—849.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Campaigners for Fair Trade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received from Campaigners for Fair Trade since 19 June; and if she will make a statement. [64559]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The creation of a free and fair trading system is at the heart of the Government's international trade policy. My Department has received 242 representations on fair trade since 19 June.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is on the inclusion of water in the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [64718]

  Ms Hewitt
  In principle, my Department believes that no service sector should be excluded from the General Agreement on Trade in Services a priori. This includes water collection, purification and distribution services. Water as a natural resource is not a service and is not covered by the GATS.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the guarantee put up by the ECGD for investment in the power generating sector(a) was used fully, (b) was recovered by the ECGD, (c) is still owed to the ECGD and (d) is counted as foreign debt; and which countries have had that debt in each year since 1992–93. [63096]
  467W
  Ms Hewitt
  The following table lists for financial years 1992–93 onwards; the countries where ECGD has supported projects recorded in the civil power and civil energy sectors, the original value of the guarantee(s), the amount of those guarantee(s) still at risk, and claims outstanding in respect of those projects. Amounts at risk are not owing to ECGD but represent amounts which have not yet fallen due for payment.

  £ million

  Country

  Guarantee amount

  Residual amount at risk 31 March 2002

  Claims outstanding 31 March 2002

  1992–93

  China

  34.7

  7.8

  —

  Greece

  67.3

  0

  —

  Hong Kong

  895.5

  281

  —

  India

  101.6

  30.8

  —

  Indonesia

  2.3

  0

  —

  South Africa

  7.7

  0

  —

  Turkey

  2.5

  0

  —

  1993–94

  Bangladesh

  3

  0

  —

  Canada

  3

  0

  —

  China

  38.9

  12.9

  —

  Dubai

  8

  0

  —

  Germany

  11.7

  0

  —

  Hong Kong

  314.2

  0

  —

  India

  87.4

  23.6

  —

  Indonesia

  92

  33.7

  12.4

  Lesotho

  7.8

  3.8

  —

  Morocco

  31.6

  5.3

  —

  Oman

  69.5

  0

  —

  Pakistan

  6

  0

  —

  Singapore

  181.8

  35.2

  —

  United States

  11.6

  0

  —

  1994–95

  Argentina

  7

  0

  —

  Canada

  5.1

  0

  —

  China

  15.3

  1.6

  —

  Ghana

  2.9

  0

  —

  Hong Kong

  23.4

  0

  —

  India

  142.4

  58.5

  —

  Indonesia

  83.3

  60.5

  —

  Lebanon

  52.7

  21.1

  —

  Oman

  29.6

  11.4

  —

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  0.7

  0

  —

  Singapore

  29.6

  7.9

  —

  South Africa

  0

  0

  —

  Thailand

  17.1

  11.7

  —

  Turkey

  3.6

  0

  —

  1995–96

  China

  196.4

  0

  —

  India

  63.4

  30.2

  —

  Indonesia

  112.6

  26.7

  5.8

  Japan

  4.4

  0

  —

  Lebanon

  7.2

  0

  —

  Lesotho

  7.2

  0

  —

  Philippines

  444.6

  376.5

  —

  1996–97

  China

  143.7

  2.4

  —

  Hong Kong

  2.4

  0

  —

  India

  78.7

  0.8

  —

  Lesotho

  1.4

  0

  —

  Oman

  40.3

  0

  —

  Pakistan

  0.3

  0

  —

  Qatar

  199.2

  184.2

  —

  Romania

  0.5

  0

  —

  Turkey

  48.9

  45.3

  —

  1997–98

  Brazil

  71.8

  35.9

  —

  India

  0

  0

  —

  Indonesia

  60.2

  40.1

  3.4

  Lebanon

  17

  3.7

  —

  Oman

  521.6

  0

  —

  Romania

  0.1

  0

  —

  468W

  £ million

  Country

  Guarantee amount

  Residual amount at risk 31 March 2002

  Claims outstanding 31 March 2002

  Russian Federation

  43.2

  31.3

  —

  South Africa

  57.5

  4.7

  —

  Thailand

  6.4

  1

  —

  Zimbabwe

  8.5

  5.7

  1.5

  1998–99

  Anguilla

  1

  0.3

  —

  Brazil

  65

  27.3

  —

  China

  421.3

  412.7

  —

  Columbia

  34.2

  26

  —

  Cyprus

  7.4

  1.3

  —

  India

  22.9

  20.6

  —

  Malaysia

  0

  18.6

  —

  Mexico

  14.7

  8.1

  —

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  8.7

  5.4

  —

  Turkey

  25

  15

  —

  United Arab Emirates

  7.7

  0

  —

  Venezuela

  52.3

  50.3

  —

  1999–2000

  Hong Kong

  12.4

  11.3

  —

  India

  96.6

  41.5

  —

  Malaysia

  773.1

  718.7

  —

  Mexico

  101.5

  62.7

  —

  Philippines

  83.3

  76.7

  —

  Taiwan

  136.7

  136.7

  —

  Vietnam

  23.8

  23.8

  —

  2000–01

  Bangladesh

  7.9

  5.7

  —

  China

  1.4

  1.4

  —

  Dominican Republic

  24.5

  24.5

  —

  Mexico

  8.9

  7.3

  —

  Taiwan

  17.6

  17.6

  —

  Thailand

  3.6

  3.6

  —

  Turkey

  67.3

  63.7

  —

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what work is being carried out by(a) the Government and (b) external organisations on behalf of the Government concerning the Export Credits Guarantee Department that quantifies the value of contracts entered into by the ECGD on (i) an option pricing approach and (ii) a pricing model using the approach commonly used to price credit derivatives. [66552]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: With a view to following best practice, ECGD reviews regularly its approach to measuring, modelling and pricing risk, with advice from external organisations where appropriate, but has no plans to engage in work corresponding to the areas specified in the question.

  Arms Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level is of debt owed by developing countries to the Export Credits Guarantee Department as a result of UK defence-related sales. [62037]

  Ms Hewitt
  For business underwritten by ECGD since 1991, the following amounts are outstanding in respect of ECGD claims payments in cases involving exports of defence equipment. Information on claims on business underwritten before 1991 is not held on a sectoral basis. Amounts outstanding on Algeria and Indonesia have been rescheduled through the Paris Club.
  469W

  £ million

  Market

  Claims Outstanding (as at 31 March 2002)

  Algeria

  0.1

  Indonesia

  488

  Zimbabwe

  0.9

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations have been made to her Department regarding the increases of national debt in(a) India and (b) Pakistan due to the importation of weapons from the United Kingdom in (i) each year since 1999 and (ii) January to June 2002. [65431]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation has received representations regarding the export of arms and other items controlled for strategic reasons to India and Pakistan from a number of different sources, including Members of Parliament and the general public. It is not possible to say whether any of these concerned increases in national debt in India and Pakistan, as the information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she takes to assess conformity with the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports during the evaluation of arms export licence applications. [65432]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government announced the consolidation of the UK national export licensing criteria with those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 199–203W. We assess all applications on a case-by-case basis against these consolidated criteria. In doing so, we take account of reliable evidence, including, for example, reporting from diplomatic posts, relevant reports by international bodies, intelligence and information from open sources and non-governmental organisations. In addition, the EU Code of Conduct requires member states to inform partners of licence refusals under the EU Code through the circulation of denial notifications. The code requires member states to consult partners before approving a licence for a transaction refused by those partners. This helps further to ensure conformity within the EU when assessing export licence applications.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 684W, on arms exports, which countries received export credit guarantee coverage for arms sales in each of the last five years; and how much export credit guarantee coverage each country received. [66556]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The table shows for financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01, the markets where ECGD has provided support for the export of defence equipment and the maximum liability of the guarantees issued for each market.
  470W

  Year/market

  ECCD maximum liability (£ million)

  1996–97

  Australia

  0.9

  Bahrain

  1.4

  Indonesia

  148.2

  Korea, Republic of

  13.6

  Lithuania

  1.5

  Qatar

  5.5

  Saudi Arabia

  225

  Turkey

  2

  1997–98

  Egypt

  8.8

  Germany

  1.3

  Greece

  18.7

  Indonesia

  18.6

  Italy

  2.7

  Korea, Republic of

  62.4

  Kuwait

  55.7

  Lithuania

  2.9

  Oman

  0.9

  Qatar

  193.2

  Saudi Arabia

  225

  Singapore

  18.6

  Thailand

  27.3

  Turkey

  35.6

  United Arab Emirates

  9.8

  United States

  58.3

  1998–99

  Brazil

  29.3

  Brunei Darussalam

  580.3

  India

  14.3

  Indonesia

  9.7

  Italy

  1.5

  Korea, Republic of

  19.7

  Malaysia

  16.2

  Oman

  21.1

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000

  Sweden

  4

  United States

  6.9

  1999–2000

  Chile

  2

  Greece

  5.4

  Kuwait

  29.7

  Malaysia

  123.2

  Oman

  226.4

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000

  Turkey

  214.9

  2000–01

  Greece

  55.3

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000

  South Africa

  1,624.7

  Trade Partners UK
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role Trade Partners UK has in connection with defence equipment exhibitions in the UK and overseas; and if she will make a statement. [66554]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Government support for defence related exports remain the responsibility of the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO). Trade Partners UK activities support DESO where appropriate in overseas markets. Support for defence equipment exhibitions overseas is available through Trade Partners UK's Support for Exports and Seminars Abroad (SESA) and Inward Missions schemes.

  Defence Equipment (Export Credits)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outstanding amounts of ECGD guarantees were in respect of defence equipment, broken down by country, for financial year 2001–02. [62711]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]The table lists amounts outstanding as at 31 March 2002 in respect of ECGD guarantees for exports of defence-related equipment. These figures, which are net of sums already repaid, are made up of future maturities (amounts yet to fall due for payment) and claims outstanding. Claims outstanding are in respect of business underwritten from 1991 onwards as ECGD does not hold claims information on cases supported before this date on a sectoral basis.

  £ million

  Market

  ECGD amount outstanding

  Algeria

  0.1

  Brazil

  27

  Brunei Darussalam

  204

  Chile

  17.1

  Egypt

  10.4

  Greece

  62.3

  India

  8.3

  Indonesia

  694.4

  Italy

  4.2

  Korea, Republic of

  21.4

  Kuwait

  7

  Lithuania

  0.7

  Malaysia

  104.9

  Oman

  315

  Qatar

  36.2

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000

  South Africa

  860.6

  Spain

  23

  Sweden

  4.1

  Thailand

  2.9

  Turkey

  237.7

  United States

  38

  Zimbabwe

  0.9

  Engineering
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to tackle the gender inequality in salaries for(a) full time and (b) part time employees in the engineering sector. [63662]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are already taking a number of steps to further reduce the pay gap between men and women which currently stands at 18 per cent., for full-time workers, down from the figure of 20 per cent. in 1997.

  As well as the introduction of the national minimum wage and the provisions in the Employment Bill, the Fair Pay Champions and Castle Awards are helping to spread good practice on equal pay. All Government Departments are committed to carrying out a pay review by March 2003 and we are also taking forward recommendations from the Kingsmill Report.

  80 per cent. of Britain's 6 million part-time workers are women. The Part-Time Workers Regulations, introduced in July 2000, ensure that part-timers are no longer treated as second class citizens. The regulations establish a minimum standard of fairness for part-timers so that they
  472W
  can no longer be treated less favourably than the full-timers they work alongside. The regulations cover conditions such as pay, pensions, training and holidays.

  The Equal Opportunities Commission is developing practical tools for employers wishing to investigate their pay systems such as an Equal Pay Review model; a Code of Practice, Guidance Notes and an Opportunity Now/Equal Pay Forum.

  I have no separate proposals to tackle gender inequality in salaries for professionals in the engineering sector where figures in the year 2000 showed that the gender pay gap was also 18 per cent.

  Industrial Support
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the methodology her Department uses to allocate industrial support resources, including staff and direct financial investment, takes into account the growth potential of industrial sectors. [63805]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following the DTI review, we are strengthening our analytical capability to ensure our resources are targeted on those parts of the economy which will contribute most to driving up UK productivity and competitiveness and where our support will make the greatest difference. In deciding resource allocations a range of factors is considered, including growth indicators.

  Amraf Training Plc
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent action she has taken in respect of Amraf Training plc. [65496]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  A winding-up order was made against Amraf Training plc on 30 May 2002 following the company going into administration. The administrators were subsequently appointed to be the joint liquidators.

  The Official Receiver at Southend-on-Sea is investigating the causes of the company's failure, but the investigations are at an early stage. Matters of concern may be addressed to her at: 4th Floor, Central House, 8 Clifftown Road, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1AB.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments were made to Amraf Training plc in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 for the provision of training courses. [65494]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have identified no payments made by the Department of Trade and Industry to Amraf Training plc.

  False Accounting
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to ensure that examples of false accounting in the USA are not repeated in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [66775]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK has well-developed and internationally respected arrangements for setting and enforcing accounting and auditing standards, both of which are vital to the preparation of company accounts
  473W
  which show a 'true and fair' view. There were substantial changes for the better to both accounting and auditing standards during the 1990s.

  It would be unwise, however, to conclude that serious concerns over particular company accounts could not arise in the UK, or that more regulation can prevent all possibilities of false accounting.

  There are a number of relevant actions in hand, which build on the existing position. A group, which I chair together with my hon. Friend, the Financial Secretary, was formed in February to co-ordinate the response of key regulators to the issues for accounting, auditing and aspects of corporate governance raised initially in the aftermath of Enron. The group will produce an interim report by the end of July.

  In addition, the Government will publish shortly their response to the company law review, which made a number of relevant recommendations to improve company reporting. The Government have also set up a review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors under Derek Higgs, which is expected to report around the end of the year.

  It is also important, as we move with our EU partners to adopt international accounting standards for 2005, that none of the strength of existing UK requirements is lost. The Government therefore welcome the leading role which the UK Accounting Standards Board is playing in the development of international standards; and the determination of the International Board under Sir David Tweedie to ensure that there are rigorous international standards in place by 2005.

  Investment (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken to attract businesses to Coventry since 1997. [661601

  Ms Hewitt
  Over the last five years more than 270 companies have invested in Coventry for the first time, creating over 11,400 jobs. Coventry is home to more than 130 overseas-owned companies which have taken advantage of the many opportunities offered by the City.

  Growth in value-added R&D activity has seen major investment and modernisation from companies such as Yachiyo, Denso, Edscha, Eu-Matic, Mission Foods, Peugeot, Jaguar and others which have all benefited from the wide employment opportunities in the area, and received support from local, regional and national Government schemes. Eu-Matic's investment was the first inward investment announced under the new Labour Government in 1997 and their 132,000 sq ft, purpose-built factory on seven acres at Coventry Business Park was completed in January 1999. This £17 million investment was supported by a Regional Selective Assistance grant of £2.5 million.

  Other investments have seen a new HQ for AAH Pharmaceuticals, new investment from a Mexican company, Mission Foods, EPMB, and a major expansion at Peugeot. Jaguar and Denso are among many other examples.
  474W
  Much of the city is eligible for Objective 2 funding. Other European funding via "Rechar" programmes have benefited Kersley Colliery and the "Retex" (textile industry) programme has added to major reinvestment by the public sector in regenerating large parts of the area.

  Brownfield site regeneration has been an area of major success in the city with former major employment sites now housing new inward investors and investment from the city's university at the Technopark and the Coventry business park. Growth in the city's and sub-region's ICT sector has seen over 40,000 people now employed in 1,300 companies in this sector, helping diversify the area away from traditional manufacturing.

  The creation of a science park, and a Technocentre housing centres for incubator units, innovation, and many small start-up companies, have all been supported by public sector partnerships working with others. Other examples of such developments include Binley development. Nearly 50 acres have been developed for commercial use in the city, including the private sector-led Prologis park.

  DTI's Small Business Service has ensured that in the last year nearly 2,000 local businesses have received advice and support. Also, almost 2,000 people have benefited from training to raise the local skills threshold. Additionally, some £1.5 million worth of funding from the Skills Development Fund has been allocated to Coventry for projects such as a purpose-built centre for the delivery of engineering training.

  Advantage West Midlands, the west midlands regional development agency, is supporting Coventry and its sub-region's desire to promote the area as a High Technology Corridor. Substantial investment from the Rover task force resource will be used for HTC projects e.g. through the establishment of an ICT Skills Taskforce and an associated skills training scheme.

  Part of the city falls within Advantage West Midlands' Coventry-Nuneaton Regeneration Zone, which aims to connect areas of need to opportunities, working with many local partners in the community, voluntary and education sectors. This will receive considerable funding from Government.

  Community investment has been supported by approximately £12 million via the Government's Neighbourhood Renewal Programme, including developments at Hillfields and Wood End, and some £55 million under the New Deal for Communities. £37 million has been provided via the Single Regeneration Budget Programme in the same period.

  Coventry has benefited from substantial other funding from a number of Government schemes, including Sure Start and the Children's Fund, along with over £50 million from the national lottery.

  Employment is at its highest since the mid 1980s, with 142,000 employed in the city compared with 118,000 in 1992. While there have been some shifts in employment between sectors (telecoms and aerospace have suffered recent downturns), the changing nature of Coventry's economy has meant that unemployment has remained at 3.7 per cent. for several years, only slightly above the regional average of 3.5 per cent. The strong sub-regional partnership between agencies operating across the area,

  475W
  such as Jobcentre Plus, the Chamber, LSC, city council, Advantage West Midlands and Regional Supply Office, has ensured that when downsizing situations arise, the partnership is able to deploy the necessary tools to assist companies in a number of practical ways. This has been reinforced with Government funding via the Rapid Response Fund and other training and development initiatives.

  More than 20,000 students are expected to graduate from the two universities this year assisting business and individuals gain qualifications and training across many sectors.

  Through these significant interventions the Government have worked hard to achieve some important improvements in the regional economy, and to support the strong lead which local partners have shown to promote the industrial growth and diversification of Coventry and its sub-region since 1997.

  UK Atomic Energy Authority
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her statement of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 992W, on the UK Atomic Energy Authority, when the White Paper on arrangements for managing public sector civil nuclear liabilities will be published. [67725]

  Mr. Wilson
  The White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action" is being published today. Copies are available in the Library and the Vote Office.

  The White Paper sets out plans for radical changes to current arrangements for the clean up of the public sector civil nuclear legacy including the creation of a new body—the Liabilities Management Authority—responsible to Government and with a specific remit to ensure that clean up is carried out safely, securely, cost effectively and in ways which protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations. It makes clear the Government's determination to drive clean up forward systematically and progressively using the best available skills to get the job done and, through competition, to promote the development of the supply chain and skills base required to sustain the clean up programme over the long term. It also underlines our commitment to ensuring that management arrangements are open, transparent and command public confidence. Implementing legislation will be brought forward at the first available opportunity.

  In the interim, a Liabilities Management Unit (LMU) has been established in the DTI to drive forward the clean up work and to prepare the ground for the LMA. Membership of the LMU is drawn from the private and public sectors. The appointment of Bechtel as partner contractor adds international experience to the LMU, reflecting the Government's intention to ensure that the best skills are brought to bear on legacy clean up.

  In line with the commitment to openness and transparency, the Government have consulted widely with stakeholders in the preparation of the White Paper and would welcome views on the proposed new arrangements and the way in which they should be implemented. Views should be submitted to the Department by 18 October. Contact details are provided in the White Paper.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice her Department acted upon when deciding on paragraph 75 of the draft Enterprise Bill in relation to the three month limit for the appointment of an administrator. [66688]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  During consultation on the White Paper: "Productivity and Enterprise: Insolvency: A second chance", concerns were expressed that lack of a fixed timetable in administration resulted in uncertainty for creditors and costly delays. These concerns were mainly expressed by practitioners who specialise in smaller cases because the costs of running a lengthy administration can be a significant barrier to entry into administration.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64658]

  Ms Hewitt
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with the information for the year ended 31 July 2002. This will enable comparison with the information given in my reply of 8 February 2002 to, his earlier question on this subject.

  Castle Award
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if her Department has applied for a Castle Award for equal pay. [65224]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not applied for a Castle Award this year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) overseas visits by Ministers in her Department and (b) visits to Ministers in the UK by overseas Government Ministers and officials have taken place in each of the last three years in which UK arms sales have been discussed. [65263]

  Ms Hewitt
  Department of Trade and Industry Ministers regularly meet with their overseas counterparts and with other senior officials to discuss a range of issues surrounding UK commerce and exports. Inevitably these have occasionally touched upon defence export opportunities. Details of such discussions are not however held centrally.

  Broadband
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has(a) committed to and (b) spent on broadband access in rural areas in each of the last four years. [61173]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]Promoting broadband access in rural areas is a legitimate use of Government funds in pursuit of economic development objectives as long as it is in line with the guidelines for each fund. It is possible that some expenditure has been made from a variety of funding
  477W
  streams including European Structural Funds, Regional Selective Assistance and the Regional Development Agencies' Strategic Programme.

  The Department has made available a £30 million fund to help the Regional Development Agencies and devolved Administrations develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks. In the first year of this fund (Financial Year 2001–02) the Department transferred £3 million of this fund to the recipients. Many projects funded from this will contribute in whole or in part to rural broadband access.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether broadband will be available in rural areas. [64276]

  Mr. Timms
  Through ADSL, cable and wireless technologies, broadband is available to around 66 per cent. of the population, including in some rural areas, and we expect this proportion to increase. Satellite technology can make broadband available almost anywhere. Our strategy, set out in the December 2001 UK Online Annual Report, includes a number of actions to help make the broadband market more extensive and competitive, including measures to stimulate broadband supply.

  In addition, I announced last week that from the autumn there will be:
  a new network of dedicated regional broadband advisers co-ordinated by the DTI, with the aim of increasing both availability and take-up of broadband in the regions;
  a new team of procurement experts in the Office of Government Commerce (OGC), providing hands-on support and advice to enable smarter public sector buying of broadband; and,
  new framework agreements between the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and suppliers. This will enable public sector organisations to buy broadband quickly and efficiently, without having to negotiate terms and conditions for each purchase while ensuring value for money.

  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department has to extend the availability of broadband internet provision to rural Wales; and if she will make a statement. [65061]

  Mr. Timms
  On 26 June I announced a new broadband team and network of dedicated broadband advisers to help boost roll-out and take-up of broadband across the UK, including in Wales.

  The Government have also made available the £30 million UK Broadband fund to help the English Regional Development Agencies and the devolved Administrations develop innovative schemes to extend broadband access. The Welsh Assembly Government will receive £2.67 million and will be using the money to:
  Link up all educational facilities, libraries and adult learning centres with broadband services to allow the public to access broadband services; and
  Support a project that will pilot the use of broadband wireless technology at the soon to be deregulated 2.4 GHz frequency in North West Wales.

  In addition, the Welsh Assembly Government is developing its own broadband strategy, based upon the findings of their Ubiquitous Broadband Infrastructure Study, and continues to support a number of initiatives across Wales that are designed to bring affordable broadband access within the reach of many more people.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to ensure that a full range of postal services is maintained. [66636]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Government laid down the universal postal service obligation in primary legislation in the Postal Services Act 2000. The legislation says that the obligation consists of a service provided at an affordable price determined by a public tariff uniform throughout the UK and includes the delivery each working day to the home or premises of every individual in the UK and a collection each working day from access points. Under the Act it is the primary duty of the Postal Services Commission (known as Postcomm) to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers is best calculated to ensure the provision of a universal postal service and it currently requires Consignia, in the licence, to provide the universal postal service.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance the Government have given to Consignia since 1997. [66637]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Government have shown a strong commitment to maintaining postal services through a variety of schemes which have been predominantly designed to support the Post Office network and to explore possible new income streams.

  The Government contributed £480 million to the capital cost of the Horizon project which computerised the whole network. We have also made available a £2 million fund to support volunteer and community initiatives to maintain or reopen post office facilities in the rural areas where traditional service would otherwise close. Figures for the end of May showed that applications to the value of £500,000 had been assessed and approved and to that date, payments of £231,000 had been made. Government provided £25 million for the "Your Guide" pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland which trialled the concept of post offices as one stop shops for government information and services.

  Following the announcement in January agreeing in principle to a compensation package for the urban network restructuring programme, the Government will make available up to £210 million for the compensation and investment package for urban offices, subject to state aid and parliamentary approval.

  In line with the Government's commitment to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices, proposals for the rural network are being developed in the context of advice on transitional financial assistance from the Postal Services Commission.

  In terms of supporting the mail business, the Government have not provided financial assistance for specific projects but, as announced to the House on 13 June, the need for the company to restructure has led to the Government agreeing the basis of a financing package which will allow the restructuring to go ahead. The £1.8 billion of investments on the Balance Sheet will be held by the group holding company as reserves. It will be available to back the investment required in the mails

  479W
  business, to implement the renewal programme and to support the nationwide network of post offices, subject, where necessary, to the relevant state aid clearances.

  Law Society
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support she is providing to the Law Society to facilitate the prompt reform of those solicitors practice rules identified as anti-competitive by the Director General of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [66478]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Reform of the solicitors practice rules and removal of anti-competitive restrictions therein are matters for the Law Society to take forward. Where there are restrictions in legislation relating to the regulation of solicitors they fall to Government to consider. As has already been announced, the Government are planning to consult before the summer break on those issues which fall to them arising from the DGFT's report.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with the Law Society in the past 12 months on employed solicitors advising the public, fee-sharing and referral fees; and if she will make a statement. [66477]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials from both the Lord Chancellor's Department and from the Department of Trade and Industry have separately held meetings with the Law Society. The DTI has discussed competition issues generally. The LCD has discussed progress relating to those matters highlighted in the Director General of Fair Trading's report "Competition in Professions". The issue of employed solicitors advising the public is one of the matters to be considered in the Government's consultation paper planned for release before the summer break.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Grammar Schools (Kent)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills based on benchmark tables as defined in the autumn package, 2001, how many of Kent and Medway's grammar schools fall in the bottom quartile of performance expectations of schools; and how many would be expected to fall in that bottom quartile if they performed to the average level of grammar school performance. [64407]

  Mr. Miliband
  The benchmark tables allow comparisons between schools in a number of ways. On the basis of the percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-C, none of the Kent and Medway grammar schools falls in the lower quartile for all schools. I am also aware of the research commissioned by my hon. Friend from Professor Jesson of the University of York, which argues that 17 of Kent and Medway's grammar schools fall in the bottom quartile of performance, seven more than Professor Jesson believes should be expected.

  Further Education (Funding)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement about future resources for the further education sector. [64408]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  By next year funding for FE will have risen by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997. The Learning and Skills Council's funding rates for programmes delivered by FE sector colleges are increasing by 2.5 per cent. in cash terms for the 2002–03 academic year, above the current rate of inflation. We are looking to the current spending review to deliver the resources needed to meet the Government's ambitions for further education in 2003–04 and beyond.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her Department's estimate is of the performance-related pay shortfall from the original budgeted announcement for further education staff in the colleges in Leeds. [45370]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department does not publish data on the numbers of lecturers in individual colleges who are receiving particular payments under the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI). This is because the distribution of TPI payments to teachers within individual colleges is properly a matter for the management of those colleges and their staff. However, distribution of TPI funds from the Learning and Skills Council to colleges is being monitored, and TPI is being evaluated at a national level. I am able to make the following information available.

  For sixth form colleges, the size of TPI payments to individual teachers is prescribed as part of the initiative; the formula is the same as that applying to school teachers. The original announcement stated the Government expected that about two-thirds of teachers in sixth form colleges would qualify for payments of £2,000.

  For general further education (FE) colleges, the size of payments to individual teachers is not prescribed as part of the initiative. In the original announcement the Government expected that over two thirds of teachers in general FE colleges would qualify for payments of up to £2,000, with 10 per cent. receiving career structure and initiative payments of up to £4,000. However, the announcement made it clear that colleges would have the flexibility to determine the precise levels of payments.

  This is the first year of TPI and we are currently evaluating its impact on colleges. The Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum estimates that, nationally, 84 per cent. of sixth form college teachers have already received payments of £2,000 in 2001–02. For general FE colleges, although no comparable figures are available, indications nationally are that progress has been much more gradual. The first case study evaluation report is due from the Association of Colleges in April.
  481W
  In Leeds, seven general FE and one sixth form college, have been allocated a total of £1,007,749 TPI support in 2001–02 as follows:

  Leeds College of Art and Design—£83,422

  Leeds College of Music—£49,498

  Joseph Priestley College—£72,539

  Leeds College of Building—£67,693

  Leeds College of Technology—£102,195

  Thomas Danby College—£162,238

  Park lane College—£339,611

  Notre Dame Sixth Form College—£130,553.

  In 2002–03 allocations to each college will increase by between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. Further increases to the TPI budget are planned for 2003–04. These increases will enable colleges to extend TPI payments to teachers who meet the criteria for the first time. The increases should also enable general FE colleges to review the size of payments offered to individual staff and to consolidate these payments where they have not already done so.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many post-16 students went on to further education in(a) Burnley and (b) Lancashire in 2001. [65544]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on the percentage of students staying on in full-time education are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs as reliable estimates cannot be made.

  The percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education in Lancashire LEA, which includes the constituency of Burnley, in 1999–2000, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out in the table:

  Lancashire LEA, 1999–2000

  Percentage

  Age

  Full-time education

  Part-time education

  16

  66

  8

  17

  56

  10

  Participation rates by LEA are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England".

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to improve recruitment and retention of further education lecturers. [64418]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We are investing more than £300 million in the Teaching Pay Initiative (TPI). TPI is an important initiative designed to help modernise further education (FE) pay arrangements and to recruit, reward and retain teachers and lecturers as part of the drive to improve teaching and learning.

  Alongside TPI, we are piloting Training Bursaries for students training to be FE teachers. From the autumn of 2002, we will also introduce Golden Hello payments and, subject to the approval of Parliament, a scheme to pay off, over time, the student loans of new teachers in FE shortage subject areas.

  Neighbourhood Nurseries
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the provision of neighbourhood nurseries under the neighbourhood nursery initiative. [64410]

  Margaret Hodge
  The neighbourhood nurseries programme is making real progress. The first neighbourhood nurseries have now opened, and the pace of development is encouraging some 32,000 places are currently under development. 36 per cent. of these first nurseries are linked to Sure Start and 32 per cent. are on school sites.

  School and Business Links
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to support links between schools and business. [64411]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We welcome links between schools and business, which help raise pupils' achievement, motivation and attendance, and prepare them for adult and working life.

  We have allocated £25 million this year to fund a range of activities, through local Learning and Skills Councils contracting with Education/Business Links Consortia. These include professional development placements for teachers, work experience and mentoring for young people, and enterprise activities.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the development of the Excellence in Cities programme. [64413]

  Mr. Miliband
  Excellence in Cities covers 58 local authority areas and their secondary schools. It also includes Excellence Clusters and selected primary schools. With new ways of working based on effective partnerships the programme is already making an impact. Overall standards are rising faster in EiC schools than elsewhere. We are determined to secure and extend these gains by helping all EiC partnerships to perform at the level of the best.

  Autistic Children
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on provision for schooling of children with autism. [64414]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Children with autism, along with others with special educational needs, should receive the schooling their learning difficulties call for. The SEN Code of Practice gives statutory guidance to schools and local education authorities in identifying needs and making suitable provision. Forthcoming guidance from the Department's Autism Working Group will help providers plan and make good quality provision for children with the condition.

  Collegiate Academy (Birmingham)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of Birmingham LEA's proposals for a collegiate academy. [64415]
  483W
  Mr. Miliband
  We judged the Birmingham proposal to be an interesting model of collaborative practice between secondary schools, well worth supporting. The intention of the collegiate academies is to raise standards and broaden curriculum choices for students through the schools working together in a very structured way. If they prove successful, they could provide a useful model for other clusters of schools to adopt in order to maximise the benefits of school diversity.

  This is a pathfinder project, so by its nature is untested. The Department has commissioned research to evaluate the pathfinder project over the next three years. Their first report is expected in October this year. In addition the Birmingham LEA will evaluate the collegiate academies in partnership with Warwick University.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to improve the regulation of after-school clubs. [64416]

  Margaret Hodge
  Last year we transferred responsibility for the registration and inspection of under 8s child care, including after-school clubs, from local authorities to the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). At the same time we introduced National Standards and there is a specific set of criteria covering out of school care. A national scheme will bring improvements to the regulation of after-school clubs, not least a more consistent approach across England. Earlier this year we consulted on proposals for a scheme for certifying child care providers' suitability to look after older children, and we will be looking carefully at the results of that consultation as these proposals are taken forward.

  Adult Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she is taking to increase basic literacy and numeracy skills for adults. [64417]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government are fully committed to improving the literacy, language and numeracy skills of adults. The Prime Minister launched Skills for Life, the national strategy for improving adult literacy and numeracy in England in March 2001. Since then, we have introduced a new national teaching and learning infrastructure of standards, curricula, teacher training and national tests in literacy and numeracy nationally to help increase standards and learner achievement. There have been three bursts of national promotion activity to increase demand for basic skills provision. These have led to over 100,000 calls to the national information hotline. Demand is also being stimulated among employers with a toolkit of advice and materials to ensure low skilled employees have opportunities to improve their skills. We have completed a series of pilots to test innovative pedagogical approaches and financial incentives for learners and employers. A new national research and development centre, led by the London University's Institute of Education, has begun investigating best practice in the UK and internationally. Our target is that 750,000 adults improve their literacy and numeracy by 2004. Between April 2001 and January 2002, more than 124,000 adults were helped to gain literacy and numeracy qualifications.

  Child Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to improve the provision of child care places for the under-fives. [64419]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills has responsibility for the development of child care places in England through the National Childcare Strategy. The Strategy is carried forward at a local level by Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) that have been established in every local education authority area in England and are tasked with providing and supporting good quality, affordable child care in their respective areas.

  More than 175,000 new pre-school child care places' have been created since 1997 and EYDCPs have plans to create approx. 140,000 new pre-school places over the next two years.

  Many of these places will be created through the Neighbourhood Nurseries programme, a key component of the Government's wider Neighbourhood Childcare Initiative. Launched in January 2001, the initiative aims to create 45,000 new nursery places for children from birth to school age and 25,000 childminding places in the most disadvantaged areas of England.

  Since September 1998 all four-year-olds have had access to a free part time early education place for the three terms before they become of compulsory school age.

  In addition, we have also increased the number of three-year-olds accessing a free early education place from 34 per cent. in January 1997 to more than 66 per cent. in March 2002. From September 2004 all three-year-olds will have access to a free early education place.
  1Pre-school child care places include day care places lasting for three and a half hours or more per day and places with childminders.

  School Discipline
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made on the impact of disciplinary problems on standards in schools. [64420]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In his annual report for 2000–01 Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reported that standards of behaviour were unsatisfactory in one secondary school in 12 and one primary school in 50. He added that unsatisfactory behaviour in some secondary schools had undermined efforts to raise standards, and that such behaviour and negative attitudes towards work were significant problems in half of the secondary schools making poor progress in raising attainment.

  We have provided extensive support to schools to tackle disruptive behaviour and help improve standards, including funding for over 1,050 Learning Support Units, guidance on discipline and exclusion policies, and guidance on developing effective anti-bullying strategies. In addition, the £66 million made available through this year's Budget will fund a programme of focused support for schools in the 34 LEAs facing the toughest challenges of behaviour and criminality.

  We will also extend the availability of Parenting Orders, so that these can cover parents of pupils excluded for violence or persistent serious disruption.

  Truancy
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the long-term social and economic costs of truancy, particularly in communities of high deprivation. [64422]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are fully aware of the consequences of truancy, especially of its links with educational underachievement, unemployment, homelessness and in particular crime.

  We are continuing to tackle this issue through a number of initiatives. These include nationally co-ordinated truancy sweeps and the investment of £66 million in the Behaviour Improvement Programme which is being funded in those local education authorities identified as having high truancy and high crime rates.

  It is important that parents and local communities are encouraged to see the importance of regular attendance and share responsibility for preventing truancy.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she proposes to reduce the level of truanting taking place with parental consent. [64425]

  Percentage of half days missed due to (a) authorised and (b) unauthorised absence in secondary schools in England

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) Authorised absences

  (i) Foundation

  7.3

  7.2

  7.3

  7.0

  7.5

  (ii) Voluntary aided

  7.9

  7.7

  7.3

  7.1

  7.4

  (iii) Voluntary controlled

  7.4

  7.3

  7.4

  7.1

  7.5

  (iv) Community

  8.5

  8.3

  8.2

  8.0

  8.4

  (v) Specialist

  —

  —

  7.4

  7.3

  7.7

  (vi) City technology colleges

  6.1

  6.1

  5.8

  5.9

  6.2

  (vii) Grammar schools

  4.8

  4.9

  5.1

  4.8

  5.1

  (b) Unauthorised absences

  (i) Foundation

  0.5

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  (ii) Voluntary aided

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  (iii) Voluntary controlled

  0.9

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  (iv) Community

  1.3

  1.4

  1.3

  1.3

  1.3

  (v) Specialist

  —

  —

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  (vi) City technology colleges

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  (vii) Grammar schools

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Note:

  Information for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the change in(a) school truancy and (b) school exclusions between 1998 and 2002; and if she will make a statement. [66284]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested for schools in England is as follows:

  (a) School truancy

  1997–95

  2000–01

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  0.7

  0.7

  (b) Permanent exclusions from school

  1997–98

  2000–011

  Primary schools2

  1,539

  1,460

  Secondary schools2

  10,187

  7,410

  Special schools3

  572

  340

  Total

  12,298

  9,210

  486W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have introduced a higher penalty for those parents who know that their child is not attending school and taken no reasonable steps to secure their attendance. We are examining ways in which the Government can support the prosecution process by sharing information and guidance.

  Magistrates can now impose Parenting Orders as a means of underlining parents' responsibility for their children's behaviour and providing parents with structured help and support.

  We have also introduced truancy sweeps which can help to identify parents who are not taking their child's attendance seriously. These send the strong message to parents and the wider community that children should be in school.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children of secondary age were absent from school due to(a) authorised and (b) unauthorised absence in each of the years 1996–97 to 2001–02 in (i) foundation, (ii) voluntary aided, (iii) voluntary controlled, (iv) community, (v) specialist, (vi) city technology college and (vii) grammar schools. [65400]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  1 Provisional estimate

  2 Maintained

  3 Maintained and non-maintained

  The truancy and exclusion data are collected by academic year therefore the latest figures available are for 2000–01.

  Schools Education
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on funding for schools education. [64423]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since 1997–98 recurrent funding per pupil has risen by an average £670 (24 per cent.) in real terms: by 2003–04 it will have increased by over £760 in real terms.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of funding for schools education. [64426]
  487W
  Mr. Miliband
  We will be consulting on proposals for a new system of school and LEA funding over the summer, starting by mid-July. We aim to create a simpler, more transparent and fairer formula that reflects fairly, on the basis of up-to-date evidence, the needs of authorities in different parts of the country.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she next expects to meet governors of state primary schools to discuss the burden of paperwork. [64424]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ministers meet school governor representatives from time to time to discuss a range of issues. The Secretary of State does not have any meetings currently arranged with governors of state primary schools specifically to discuss paperwork.

  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many reception places are available at each primary school in Merton, broken down by parliamentary constituency; and how many applications there have been in each case for the school year 2002–03. [R] [66777]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on places available by year group and the number of applications to schools is not collected centrally.

  Student Support
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to consult with universities over the new system of student support. [64427]

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she intends to publish a consultation document outlining options for a new system of student support; and if she will make a statement. [64428]

  Margaret Hodge
  The review of higher education student funding is still under way. We will make an announcement when the review is complete, at which time there will be opportunity for the universities and others to comment.

  School Buildings
  Conn Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated for new school buildings and renovations in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [64429]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Government support for capital investment in schools in England for 2002–03 is over £3 billion. We allocate most of this funding to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by needs related formulae, so that they can prioritise investment in line with locally agreed Asset Management Plans. We do not collect information on the spread of capital investment between new buildings and renovation.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what Government funding has been given to each London education authority to improve and upgrade school buildings in each of the last three years. [65049]
  488W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The table sets out the amount of funding we have allocated to each London education authority to support capital expenditure in the last three years. This funding was provided for the improvement, renovation or replacement of school buildings.

  Capital allocation

  £000

  LEA

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Inner London

  Camden

  5,754

  4,937

  21,737

  City of London

  67

  155

  133

  Hackney

  6,412

  8,472

  7,816

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,677

  3,608

  4,133

  Haringey

  8,330

  10,700

  14,944

  Islington

  6,885

  3,870

  8,885

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,506

  2,968

  2,099

  Lambeth

  6,970

  9,401

  6,420

  Lewisham

  8,387

  8,239

  66,549

  Newham

  12,678

  38,464

  13,915

  Southwark

  7,841

  6,499

  11,811

  Tower Hamlets

  6,602

  7,904

  10,211

  Wandsworth

  7,469

  6,843

  12,261

  Westminster

  4,088

  3,572

  5,256

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  5,026

  5,794

  39,816

  Barnet

  10,149

  6,126

  13,157

  Bexley

  8,439

  7,344

  48,900

  Brent

  16,705

  8,206

  39,563

  Bromley

  7,970

  6,825

  6,695

  Croydon

  10,575

  6,250

  23,965

  Ealing

  9,402

  9,265

  46,323

  Enfield

  8,166

  7,474

  19,778

  Greenwich

  6,485

  11,319

  11,743

  Harrow

  5,534

  4,038

  18,130

  Havering

  6,729

  6,133

  8,171

  Hillingdon

  10,000

  8,103

  23,710

  Hounslow

  6,435

  4,295

  6,308

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  5,076

  4,621

  5,579

  Merton

  4,554

  32,702

  14,014

  Redbridge

  10,913

  26,521

  8,482

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  4,092

  18,821

  3,244

  Sutton

  8,945

  6,684

  7,938

  Waltham Forest

  7,368

  8,517

  63,789

  Total capital allocation

  240,229

  304,661

  595,475

  Notes:

  1. Allocations comprise of capital grant and credit approvals, including Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits for school buildings.

  2. The total allocation for 2000–01 includes £9 million of PFI credits.

  3. The total for 2000–01 also includes £610.8 million announced for New Deal for Schools 4, which was available for use in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  4. The total allocation for 2001–02 includes £84.2 million of PFI credits.

  5. The total allocation for 2002–03 includes £298.1 million of PFI credits.

  6. All allocations include funding allocated direct to schools within each LEA.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the moneys owed to course providers following the closure of the individual learning account scheme. [64409]
  489W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Following the closure of the individual learning account (ILA) programme on 23 November 2001, at the end of June £16.8 million of claims from 267 registered learning providers has been withheld pending the results of investigations.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what payments(a) have been claimed, (b) have been paid, (c) are outstanding and (d) are in dispute with ILA providers in each month since August 2001. [602311

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]The amounts claimed, paid and withheld at the end of each month from August 2001 to 28 June 2002 are set out in the following table. The amounts in the withheld column relate to those claims from registered individual learning account (ILA) providers which are subject to validation checks and/or investigation. The claims withheld are those which are in dispute.

  At the time of closure on 23 November a total of £19.4 million relating to learning episodes confirmed on the ILA centre system was awaiting payment and therefore outstanding. Following validation checks payments for eligible learning relating to this amount were subsequently made in December and January.

  ILA programme rules allowed bookings to be made six months in advance of the learning episode, so booked learning could be confirmed up to and including 22 May 2002. A paper-based claims and payment system was introduced in January 2002 to allow providers to confirm and claim for delivery of this advanced booked learning. Claims, payments and amounts withheld are reflected in the table. In addition an estimated sum of £5.6 million remains unclaimed relating to advance booked learning by providers who cannot be invited to claim until all investigations are complete.

  £

  Month

  (a) Amount claimed

  (b) Amount paid

  (c) Amount withheld/in dispute

  August 2001

  24,672,600

  126,216,174

  1,580,245

  September 2001

  26,401,842

  25,818,692

  583,150

  October 2001

  39,173,099

  139,251,249

  0

  November 2001

  51,334,141

  31,789,658

  113,100

  December 2001

  0

  3,495,594

  11,280,502

  January 2002

  0

  12,241,238

  2,422,450

  February 2002

  559,290

  1507,636

  107,854

  March 2002

  3,299,073

  11,937,840

  1,365,652

  April 2002

  2,078,824

  11,555,490

  540,489

  May 2002

  1,048,282

  1928,924

  199,303

  June 2002

  380,898

  1382,371

  68,672

  1 These payments include amounts released from earlier claims which had been previously withheld.

  School Fire Safety
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it a requirement that all new schools and extensions should be fitted with fire sprinkler systems. [64304]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since April 2001, all new construction work at schools has been subject to approval under the Building Regulations. The Building Regulations 490W
  do not require the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new school accommodation and the Department does not intend to seek such a change.

  With regard to fire safety, projects will not be approved unless they are designed in accordance with the 2000 edition of Approved Document B (Fire Safety), which accompanies the regulations. The Department's guide `Fire Safety' includes information on sprinklers. It states that, though expensive to install, sprinklers can be worthwhile in areas where the risk of arson is high. In these circumstances their use can help minimise the loss of valuable course work and teaching materials, and prevent major disruption to the life of a school.

  Teacher Vacancies (Portsmouth, South)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies, unfilled with permanent staff, in secondary schools there are in the Portsmouth, South constituency; how many there were in 1997; and if she will make a statement. [66467]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of vacancies for full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in Hampshire were:

  Vacancy numbers

  January 1997

  January 2001

  Former Hampshire

  33

  n/a

  Hampshire

  n/a

  85

  Portsmouth

  n/a

  36

  Southampton

  n/a

  27

  This is the most recent available information.

  Hampshire local authority was affected by the local government reorganisation (LGR) on 1 April 1997, when it became three authorities; Portsmouth, Southampton and Hampshire. Figures for 1997 are for the Hampshire local authority prior to LGR.

  Information on teacher vacancies by constituency is not held centrally.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) failing schools and (b) schools under special measures have (i) applied to and (ii) become specialist schools since the specialist schools scheme came into operation. [65504]

  Mr. Miliband
  Under section 13(9) of the School Inspections Act 1996, special measures are required to be taken in relation to a school if the school is judged to be"failing or likely to fail to provide pupils with an acceptable standard of education".
  The number of schools judged to be (a) failing and consequently (b) under special measures at the time of their applications to become specialist schools is four. All of these applications were unsuccessful.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools applied for specialist school status in the latest round; how many of these applications were accepted and in which specialisms; if she will list the successful schools; and if she will make a statement. [66276]
  491W
  Mr. Miliband
  282 schools applied for designation in one of the eight specialisms in March 2002. I have today announced 160 new designations taking the total number of specialist schools operational from September 2002 to 992. From September there will be specialist schools in

  160 specialist schools designed July 2002—listed by LEA by school name

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Ashmole School

  Barnet, LB of

  Science

  Copthall School

  Barnet, LB of

  Business and Enterprise

  Finchley Catholic High School

  Barnet, LB of

  Business and Enterprise

  Kirk Balk School

  Barnsley

  Technology

  Wootton Upper School

  Bedforshire

  Arts

  Bexley Grammar School

  Bexley, LB of

  Language

  Archbishop Ilsley R. C. School/Technical College

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Bournville School and Sixth Form Centre

  Birmingham

  Business and Enterprise

  Castle Vale School

  Birmingham

  Arts

  Our Lady and St. John RC High School

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Arts

  Garth Hill School (The)

  Bracknell Forest

  Technology

  Preston Manor High

  Brent, LB of

  Science

  Coopers School

  Bromley, LB of

  Technology

  Dr. Challoner's Grammar School

  Buckinghamshire

  Science

  Brighouse High School

  Calderdale

  Business and Enterprise

  Bassingbourn Village College

  Cambridgeshire

  Technology

  Catholic High School (The)

  Cheshire

  Science

  Malbank School and Sixth Form Centre

  Cheshire

  Arts

  Virgo Fidelis Senior Convent School

  Croydon, LB of

  Maths and Computing

  St. Benedict's Catholic High School

  Cumbria

  Engineering

  Thorncliffe School

  Cumbria

  Sports

  Eckington School

  Derbyshire

  Engineering

  Heanor Gate School

  Derbyshire

  Science

  Braunton School and Community College

  Devon

  Maths and Computing

  King's School (The)

  Devon

  Sports

  Kingsbridge Community College

  Devon

  Science

  Rossington High School

  Doncaster

  Sports

  Thomas Hardye School (The)

  Dorset

  Science

  Earls High School (The)

  Dudley

  Arts

  Holly Hall School (The)

  Dudley

  Maths and Computing

  Windsor High School

  Dudley

  Sports

  Shotton Hall School

  Durham

  Arts

  Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls (The)

  Ealing, LB of

  Science

  Headlands School

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Science

  Bishop Bell CofE School (The)

  East Sussex

  Maths and Computing

  Chailey School

  East Sussex

  Language

  Lea Valley High School

  Enfield, LB of

  Sports

  Colchester County High School for Girls

  Essex

  Science

  Gilberd School (The)

  Essex

  Maths and Computing

  King Edmund School (The)

  Essex

  Business and Enterprise

  King John School

  Essex

  Maths and Computing

  Rainsford High School

  Essex

  Arts

  Thurstable School

  Essex

  Sports

  Trinity Catholic High School

  Essex

  Science

  West Hatch High School

  Essex

  Business and Enterprise

  Hackney Free and Parochial CE School

  Hackney, LB of

  Sports

  Brookfield Community School

  Hampshire

  Language

  Henry Beaufort School (The)

  Hampshire

  Technology

  Hurst Community School

  Hampshire

  Science

  Park Community School

  Hampshire

  Arts

  Perins Community School

  Hampshire

  Sports

  Vyne Community School (The)

  Hampshire

  Arts

  Wavell School (The)

  Hampshire

  Technology

  Hatch End High School

  Harrow, LB of

  Arts

  Nower Hill High School

  Harrow, LB of

  Arts

  Gaynes School

  Havering, LB of

  Language

  John Kyrle High School (The)

  Herefordshire

  Technology

  Broxbourne School (The)

  Hertfordshire

  Business and Enterprise

  Watford Grammar School for Girls

  Hertfordshire

  Arts

  Uxbridge High School

  Hillingdon, LB of

  Technology

  Sion Manning RC Girls School

  Kensington and Chelsea, RB of

  Arts

  Astor School

  Kent

  Arts

  Pickering High School

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  Sports

  Coombe Girls' Schools

  Kingston upon Thames, RB of

  Language

  Tiffin Girls School (The)

  Kingston upon Thames, RB of

  Maths and Computing

  492W
  97 per cent. of local education authorities in England responsible for the education of over 1 million young people. Today's announcement puts us well on course to reach our target of at least 1,500 specialist schools by 2005. The successful specialist school applicants announced today are as listed in the table.
  493W

  160 specialist schools designed July 2002—listed by LEA by school name

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Almondbury High School

  Kirklees

  Language

  Broughton High School

  Lancashire

  Business and Enterprise

  Garstang High School

  Lancashire

  Technology

  Ivy Bank High School

  Lancashire

  Business and Enterprise

  Horsforth School

  Leeds

  Science

  Priesthorpe School

  Leeds

  Sports

  Roundhay School

  Leeds

  Technology

  Brookvale High School (Joint)

  Leicestershire

  Language

  Groby Community College (Joint)

  Leicestershire

  Language

  Branston Community College

  Lincolnshire

  Business and Enterprise

  Gartree Community School (The)

  Lincolnshire

  Technology

  Shorefields School

  Liverpool

  Technology

  Stopsley High School and Community College

  Luton

  Sports

  Whalley Range High School

  Manchester

  Business and Enterprise

  Sir Joseph Williamson's Mathematical School

  Medway

  Maths and Computing

  Upbury Manor School

  Medway

  Arts

  Raynes Park High School

  Merton, LB of

  Technology

  St. David's Roman Catholic Comprehensive School

  Middlesbrough

  Technology

  Walton High

  Milton Keynes

  Business and Enterprise

  Caister High School

  Norfolk

  Arts

  Litcham High School

  Norfolk

  Science

  Toll Bar School

  North East Lincolnshire

  Business and Enterprise

  High Ridge School

  North Lincolnshire

  Sports

  St. Bede's Catholic School

  North Lincolnshire

  Maths and Computing

  Churchill Community College

  North Tyneside

  Sports

  Scalby School

  North Yorkshire

  Technology

  Whitby Community College

  North Yorkshire

  Technology

  Moulton School

  Northamptonshire

  Science

  Cramlington Community High School

  Northumberland

  Science

  All Saints RC School

  Nottinghamshire

  Arts

  Brunts School (The)

  Nottinghamshire

  Arts

  Carlton Le Willows School

  Nottinghamshire

  Technology

  South Wolds School

  Nottinghamshire

  Language

  Blue Coat School (The)

  Oldham

  Science

  Matthew Arnold School

  Oxfordshire

  Science

  Devonport High School

  Plymouth, City of

  Engineering

  Chadwell Heath Foundation School

  Redbridge

  Arts

  Wickersley School

  Rotherham

  Sports

  Heathfield Foundation School (The)

  Sandwell

  Technology

  Christ The king Catholic High School

  Sefton

  Technology

  Rhyn Park School

  Shropshire

  Arts

  Thomas Adams School (The)

  Shropshire

  Arts

  William Brookes School

  Shropshire

  Arts

  Langley School

  Solihull

  Arts

  Huish Episcopi School

  Somerset

  Science

  Preston School

  Somerset

  Business and Enterprise

  West Somerset Community College (The)

  Somerset

  Technology

  Westfield Community School

  Somerset

  Science

  Prittlewell School (The)

  Southend on Sea

  Technology

  St. Michael's School

  Southwark, LB of

  Business and Enterprise

  Sutton Community High School

  St. Helens

  Sports

  Blackfriars Special School

  Staffordshire

  Technology

  Blake Community High School

  Staffordshire

  Technology

  Blessed William Howard Catholic High School

  Staffordshire

  Arts

  Chase Terace High School

  Staffordshire

  Technology

  Kingsmead School

  Staffordshire

  Technology

  Madeley High School

  Staffordshire

  Technology

  St. Margaret Ward Catholic High School

  Stoke on Trent

  Arts

  Farlingaye High School

  Suffolk

  Maths and Computing

  Mildenhall Upper School

  Suffolk

  Technology

  Sudbury Upper School

  Suffolk

  Arts

  Farringdon Community School

  Sunderland

  Sports

  Hetton School

  Sunderland

  Technology

  Howard of Effingham School

  Surrey

  Science

  Rodborough School

  Surrey

  Technology

  Woolmer Hill School

  Surrey

  Technology

  Glenthorne High School

  Sutton, LB of

  Arts

  Wilson's School

  Sutton, LB of

  Maths and Computing

  Astley High School

  Tameside

  Sports

  Paignton Community College

  Torbay

  Sports

  Swanlea School

  Tower Hamlets, LB of

  Business and Enterprise

  Altrincham Grammar School for Girls

  Trafford

  Language

  Green Lane High School

  Trafford

  Arts

  494W 495W

  160 specialist schools designed July 2002—listed by LEA by school name

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  Horbury School

  Wakefield

  Language

  Brownhills Community School

  Walsall

  Technology

  Shelfield Community School

  Walsall

  Sports

  Birchwood Community High School

  Warrington

  Business and Enterprise

  Aylesford School

  Warwickshire

  Language

  Harris High School

  Warwickshire

  Sports

  Myton School

  Warwickshire

  Science

  Stratford-upon-Avon Grammar School

  Warwickshire

  Language

  John O'Gaunt School

  West Berkshire

  Technology

  St. Bartholomew's School

  West Berkshire

  Business and Enterprise

  Grey Coat Hospital (The)

  Westminster

  Language

  Cransfield Community High School

  Wigan

  Language

  Mornington High School

  Wigan

  Arts

  Sheldon School

  Wiltshire

  Science

  Newlands Girls School

  Windsor and Maidenhead, RB of

  Technology

  St. Anselm's College

  Wirral

  Technology

  Upton Hall School FCJ

  Wirral

  Technology

  Woodchurch High School

  Wirral

  Engineering

  Maiden Erlegh School

  Wokingham

  Arts

  Prince Henry's High School

  Worcestershire

  Language

  Archbishop Holgate's School

  York, city of

  Science

  Fulford School

  York, city of

  Maths and Computing

  Pupil Rolls
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many secondary schools in England have pupil rolls(a) below 600, (b) between 601 and 1,000, (c) between 1,001 and 1,500 and (d) over 1,500; [65526]

  (2) how many primary schools in England have pupil rolls (a) below 200, (b) between 201 and 400, (c) between 401 and 600 and (d) above 600. [65527]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools: number of schools by size of school1—England—As at January 2002 (provisional)

  Size of school1

  Number of schools

  Primary

  Up to 200

  8,070

  201 to 400

  8,258

  400 to 600

  1,485

  601 and over

  145

  Secondary

  Up to 600

  596

  601 to 1,000

  1,397

  1,001 to 1,500

  1,221

  1,501 and over

  239

  1 Based on the number of full time pupils

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  MLD and SLD Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places there are in schools for(a) MLD and (b) SLD pupils in England and Wales; and what information she has collated on the demand for places in (i) MLD and (ii) SLD schools in England and Wales. [65675]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information is not collected on the available places for children with particular categories of special educational needs in England. The majority of 496W
  children with special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools which respond to the unique needs of each of their pupils. Special schools will also commonly include a diverse range of pupils within a broad spectrum of need.

  Since the Education Act 1981, schools have not been required to return information about pupils' special educational needs categorised by disability or learning difficulty. We are now looking into the feasibility of collecting this information.

  The responsibility for planning of school places, including for pupils with special educational needs, rest with local education authorities. Information about the demand for placed in MLD and SLD schools is not therefore collated centrally.

  In Wales, such matters are for the Welsh Assembly. However we understand that the position is the same.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many members of her Department have been employed in its Regulatory Impact Unit in the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [65966]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  From 1997 to 2002, the Department has employed the following numbers of staff in its Regulatory Impact Unit:1997–98: Approximately half the time of a full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary)
  1998–99: Approximately half the time of a full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary)
  1999–2000: Approximately half the time of a full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary) up to 31 December 1999, and, one full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary) from 1 January 2002
  2000–01: One full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary)
  2001–02: One full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary)
  From 2002: One full-time member of staff (with line management support when necessary).
  497W
  It is the job of the departmental Regulatory Impact Unit to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in the Department. The unit works closely with the officials responsible for developing policies in the Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. It focuses on those regulations that impact on business, charities, and the voluntary sector.

  Careers Advice
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice is made available at school to pupils who do not wish to continue into further education and want to enter work. [66157]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  School pupils receive advice on their post-16 choices from three main sources:a curriculum-led programme of careers education during school years nine, 10 and 11;
  Impartial advice on learning and career choices from a Connexions Personal Adviser or Careers Adviser;
  Careers information products such as the "It's Your Choice" workbook for students in year 10 or 11 and the "Working In" series of booklets that provide information on working in particular occupations.

  Careers education enables young people to develop the skills needed to understand and evaluate the post-16 options open to them. This is supported by impartial advice and guidance from a Connexions Personal Adviser or Careers Adviser. The Connexions Service is being established to provide integrated advice, guidance and support to 13 to 19-year-olds on a range of issues, including advice on learning and careers. It is currently live in 28 out of 47 local Learning and Skills Council areas in England. The Careers Service provides advice in those areas not yet covered by Connexions.

  While the primary focus of connexions Personal Advisers and Careers Advisers is to encourage young people to stay in education or learning, they also provide advice on vocational and work related options for post-16 learning, including Modern Apprenticeships. Their help includes a job matching service to help young people find and retain a suitable job. They work with both young people and employers to ensure that, wherever possible, young people start a job with training and that employers are aware of their responsibilities under the Right to Time Off for Study or Training regulations.

  Teachers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were teaching in English schools in each year from 1979–80 to 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [66269]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of full-time equivalent' teachers in regular service' in the maintained schools sector in England in January of each year since 1980' are in the table:

  1Part-time teachers have been converted to an estimate of their full-time equivalence and added to full-time numbers.

  2Excludes occasional teachers.

  3Teachers in Sixth Form Colleges were included in the survey prior to 1993; these have been removed by estimation to provide this consistent time series excluding Sixth Form Colleges.
  498W

  Number

  1980

  444,000

  1981

  435,000

  1982

  425,500

  1983

  419,100

  1984

  414,900

  1985

  409,000

  1986

  404,600

  1987

  404,900

  1988

  402,400

  1989

  397,100

  1990

  397,600

  1991

  394,800

  1992

  394,000

  1993

  395,900

  1994

  397,000

  1995

  399,600

  1996

  399,800

  1997

  399,200

  1998

  397,700

  1999

  401,200

  2000

  404,600

  2001

  410,200

  20021

  419,600

  1 Data for January 2002 are provisional

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to specify a minimum level of non-contact time for teachers who are teaching the core subjects of maths and English; and if she will make a statement. [66274]

  Mr. Miliband
  Consultation on the recommendations in the School Teachers' Review Body's report on teacher work loads came to an end yesterday. The Department's consultation letter of 8 May said that my right hon. Friend would consult again on practical measures as appropriate in the light of this initial consultation. For the time being the Department is evaluating the initial consultation responses. Further consultation is likely to take place in the early autumn.

  Nurture Groups
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to provide funding for a nurture group for each English primary school; and if she will make a statement. [66271]

  Mr. Miliband
  Funding of £174 million has been available during 2001–02 for schools and LEAs to deal with problems of poor behaviour. Many schools have used this funding to develop early intervention work, including nurture groups, for vulnerable children.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to give schools greater flexibility over allocating moneys received from central Government. [66272]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government have already simplified the operation of the Standards Fund, by far the largest specific grant for education. Since April 2001 schools have had more freedom to move funds between the different Standards Fund activities; separate auditing of the Standards Fund is no longer required; and the spending period for the Standards Fund was extended from 12 months to 17 months to give schools even more flexibility in planning expenditure. The Government also
  499W
  committed to make more transparent the local government funding system, as set out in the local government White Paper.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase the level of the standard spending assessment per pupil in Somerset to the average such figure for England; and if she will make a statement. [66273]

  Mr. Miliband
  We intend to commence consultation on detailed options for a new education funding system shortly, which will run over the summer. We will take decisions in time for the local government finance settlement and implement the new system in 2003–04. At this stage it is not possible to say how individual authorities will be affected by the new system.

  Value-added League Tables
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether value-added league tables are available for all schools; and if she will make a statement. [66283]

  Mr. Miliband
  This year, we intend to publish value-added measures in the secondary school performance tables of progress made from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and from Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ for all secondary schools. We are also conducting a pilot programme for measures of progress made from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 for primary schools, with full publication planned for 2003. We aim to pilot a measure of value-added between Key Stage 2 and GCSE/GNVQ in 2003, and between GCSE/GNVQ and A/AS level in 2004, prior to full publication the following year.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education action zones exist; where they are; and if she will make a statement. [66285]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are 73 Statutory Education Action Zones. The table indicates where they are located:

  Education action zone

  Local education authority

  Ashington

  Northumberland

  Aston and Nechells

  Birmingham

  Barnsley

  Barnsley

  Barrow

  Cumbria

  Bedford

  Bedfordshire

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Breightmet and Tonge

  Bolton

  Bridgwater

  Somerset

  Bristol

  Bristol

  Camborne Pool Redruth

  Cornwall

  Clacton and Harwich

  Essex

  Corby

  Northamptonshire

  Coventry

  Coventry

  Derby North East

  Derby

  Dingle Granby Toxteth

  Liverpool

  Downham and Bellingham

  Lewisham

  Dudley

  Dudley

  Easington and Seaham

  Durham

  East Basildon

  Essex

  East Brighton

  Brighton and Hove

  East Cleveland

  Redcar and Cleveland

  East Manchester

  Manchester

  Ellesmere Port

  Cheshire

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  500W

  Education action zone

  Local education authority

  Great Yarmouth

  Norfolk

  Greenwich

  Greenwich

  Grimsby

  North East Lincolnshire

  Hackney

  Hackney

  Halifax

  Calderdale

  Hastings and St. Leonards

  East Sussex

  Herefordshire

  Herefordshire

  Hull

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kent-Somerset Virtual

  Kent and Somerset

  Kitts Green/Shard End

  Birmingham

  Lambeth

  Lambeth

  Leicester

  City of Leicester

  Leigh

  Wigan

  Leigh Park

  Hampshire

  Middlesbrough

  Middlesbrough

  NE Derbyshire Coalfields

  Derbyshire

  NE Sheffield

  Sheffield

  New Addington

  Croydon

  Newcastle

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Newham

  Newham

  North Gillingham

  Medway Towns

  North Islington

  Islington

  North Southwark

  Southwark

  North Stockton

  Stockton

  Nottingham

  Nottingham

  NW Shropshire

  Shropshire

  Oxford Hamilton

  Oxford

  Peterlee

  Durham

  Plymouth

  Plymouth

  Preston

  Lancashire

  Rainbow (Stoke)

  Stoke

  Salford and Trafford

  Salford and Trafford

  SE England Virtual

  Bromley and Essex

  SE Sheffield

  Sheffield

  Slough

  Slough

  South Bradford

  Bradford

  South Tyneside

  South Tyneside

  Southend

  Southend

  Speke Garston

  Liverpool

  Sunderland

  Sunderland

  Telford and Wrekin

  Telford and Wrekin

  Thetford

  Norfolk

  Wakefield

  Wakefield

  Wednesbury

  Sandwell

  Westminster

  Westminster

  Weston

  North Somerset

  Withernsea and Southern Holderness

  East Riding

  Wolverhampton

  Wolverhampton

  Wythenshawe

  Manchester

  There are also 102 EiC Action Zones which form part of the Excellence in Cities initiative, and are located in EiC areas.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what mechanisms she has to guarantee fair admissions in the secondary school system as restructured according to her plans. [66364]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Bill will place a duty on LEAs to co-ordinate the admissions process for their area. Every admission authority in that area will have a duty to comply with the agreed co-ordination scheme for their area. The scheme will set out a common timetable for local admissions, and ensure that all parents state their preferred schools on a single form and are made a single offer of a school place on the same day. This will be fairer than the current system—where some parents may hold multiple offers of places, while others have none. All maintained schools and academies will be part of these local schemes. Admission forums will be responsible for
  501W
  monitoring the admissions process in their area, to check that it operates in the best interests of children and parents.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils left school or formal education at the age of 16 years as a proportion of the total cohort in each local authority area, in each year from 1990–91 and 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [66277]

  Non-participation of 16-year-olds in full-time education by LEA, England, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  North East

  Cleveland

  47

  42

  39

  38

  37

  38

  37

  38

  37

  33

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  37

  34

  33

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  41

  42

  32

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  41

  39

  36

  Stockton-on-Tees

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  35

  33

  31

  Durham

  50

  45

  43

  42

  43

  40

  41

  41

  41

  38

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  41

  39

  Darlington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  41

  35

  Northumberland

  48

  39

  41

  36

  37

  31

  32

  33

  34

  32

  Gateshead

  57

  49

  44

  46

  48

  40

  41

  42

  38

  39

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  42

  33

  31

  30

  33

  32

  30

  35

  33

  33

  North Tyneside

  38

  32

  29

  28

  33

  32

  33

  33

  36

  32

  South Tyneside

  55

  51

  46

  48

  45

  46

  45

  48

  47

  43

  Sunderland

  52

  48

  45

  45

  44

  44

  48

  47

  47

  44

  North West

  Cheshire

  39

  35

  30

  27

  29

  29

  30

  28

  30

  26

  Cheshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  23

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  40

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  28

  Cumbria

  49

  41

  39

  33

  31

  32

  32

  32

  31

  30

  Bolton

  45

  43

  38

  34

  34

  28

  32

  32

  33

  26

  Bury

  31

  29

  24

  28

  31

  25

  26

  29

  31

  28

  Manchester

  43

  33

  33

  31

  36

  35

  40

  40

  37

  38

  Oldham

  54

  51

  41

  35

  37

  36

  37

  37

  34

  31

  Rochdale

  54

  51

  49

  45

  50

  45

  45

  43

  44

  40

  Salford

  51

  52

  49

  44

  49

  52

  50

  51

  54

  52

  Stockport

  36

  28

  25

  29

  30

  32

  31

  34

  33

  32

  Tameside

  52

  46

  46

  41

  46

  40

  37

  42

  44

  38

  Trafford

  44

  48

  42

  36

  39

  36

  37

  35

  33

  35

  Wigan

  42

  37

  33

  42

  43

  42

  42

  41

  42

  37

  Lancashire

  45

  42

  37

  34

  40

  35

  36

  35

  35

  34

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  34

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  34

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  36

  Knowsley

  59

  56

  51

  59

  49

  49

  46

  49

  50

  48

  Liverpool

  43

  42

  35

  33

  38

  38

  41

  37

  37

  36

  St. Helens

  34

  39

  30

  33

  32

  27

  25

  27

  28

  27

  Sefton

  31

  27

  24

  22

  22

  24

  23

  26

  22

  20

  Wirral

  37

  33

  28

  31

  31

  30

  32

  29

  33

  30

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Humberside

  47

  44

  39

  35

  38

  34

  37

  37

  35

  34

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  48

  44

  43

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  30

  29

  28

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37

  39

  37

  35

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  32

  31

  29

  North Yorkshire pre April 1996

  37

  31

  28

  23

  24

  23

  25

  23

  27

  26

  North Yorkshire post April 1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  25

  28

  27

  York

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  19

  24

  24

  Barnsley

  56

  52

  46

  46

  48

  48

  48

  48

  47

  45

  Doncaster

  48

  45

  41

  38

  40

  43

  43

  42

  41

  36

  Rotherham

  41

  35

  38

  34

  33

  33

  34

  34

  34

  27

  Sheffield

  51

  43

  41

  37

  42

  43

  44

  44

  46

  43

  Bradford

  47

  41

  41

  40

  40

  38

  38

  39

  41

  37

  Calderdale

  37

  35

  35

  26

  30

  34

  31

  33

  30

  31

  502W
  Mr. Miliband
  The proportions of 16-year-olds who were not in full-time education in each year 1990–91 to 1999–2000, by local education authority, are given in the following table. Some of these will of course be involved in part-time education or work based learning.

  The participation rates by LEA are taken from an annual statistical bulletin, 'Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England'. The year 1999–2000 is the latest for which figures are available.
  503W

  Non-participation of 16-year-olds in full-time education by LEA, England, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Kirklees

  41

  36

  32

  34

  37

  34

  32

  33

  33

  34

  Leeds

  44

  37

  37

  33

  34

  35

  34

  36

  37

  35

  Wakefield

  47

  41

  35

  34

  35

  34

  36

  30

  36

  31

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  42

  38

  34

  34

  38

  36

  36

  38

  40

  32

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  39

  32

  Derby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  42

  34

  Leicestershire

  39

  35

  30

  28

  32

  30

  28

  27

  26

  24

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  28

  26

  Leicester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  26

  25

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  10

  6

  Lincolnshire

  42

  36

  33

  29

  34

  34

  35

  33

  34

  30

  Northamptonshire

  39

  30

  27

  25

  28

  29

  29

  31

  30

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  48

  41

  37

  36

  38

  37

  37

  38

  36

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  34

  33

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  34

  West Midlands

  Hereford and Worcester

  37

  32

  28

  26

  25

  26

  25

  27

  25

  24

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  33

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  22

  Shropshire

  41

  34

  29

  25

  27

  30

  29

  29

  28

  27

  Shropshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  25

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  32

  Staffordshire

  45

  39

  37

  34

  35

  36

  35

  37

  35

  33

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  32

  30

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  48

  42

  Warwickshire

  36

  29

  29

  26

  29

  28

  30

  30

  30

  28

  Birmingham

  43

  38

  34

  30

  34

  32

  33

  32

  33

  31

  Coventry

  44

  34

  30

  27

  32

  33

  33

  35

  32

  34

  Dudley

  49

  46

  40

  39

  39

  40

  41

  43

  38

  39

  Sandwell

  57

  52

  48

  44

  40

  45

  49

  46

  46

  43

  Solihull

  36

  26

  24

  12

  16

  19

  23

  26

  20

  21

  Walsall

  48

  42

  35

  35

  40

  41

  43

  39

  36

  33

  Wolverhampton

  48

  40

  37

  32

  32

  36

  36

  39

  35

  35

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  35

  26

  25

  22

  25

  25

  25

  26

  24

  24

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  20

  22

  Luton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  32

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  40

  30

  24

  24

  28

  26

  23

  29

  29

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  25

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  26

  Essex

  41

  34

  30

  27

  28

  28

  28

  30

  29

  29

  Essex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  29

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  25

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  39

  Hertfordshire

  26

  18

  14

  11

  15

  14

  14

  15

  13

  13

  Norfolk

  43

  35

  32

  27

  33

  31

  33

  31

  32

  31

  Suffolk

  45

  37

  33

  27

  30

  29

  29

  31

  29

  30

  London

  Inner London

  45

  31

  30

  27

  31

  32

  32

  30

  30

  30

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  59

  44

  39

  39

  34

  37

  30

  41

  40

  39

  Barnet

  27

  14

  12

  16

  17

  18

  19

  16

  22

  17

  Bexley

  39

  30

  27

  26

  30

  27

  27

  30

  29

  29

  Brent

  44

  36

  38

  28

  31

  28

  28

  24

  27

  25

  Bromley

  34

  26

  25

  18

  20

  18

  20

  16

  14

  12

  Croydon

  36

  24

  17

  15

  17

  18

  24

  23

  25

  23

  Ealing

  35

  25

  24

  28

  26

  32

  34

  26

  31

  30

  Enfield

  36

  30

  23

  18

  22

  16

  16

  18

  15

  15

  Greenwich

  45

  33

  33

  28

  32

  31

  37

  35

  38

  37

  Harrow

  20

  18

  16

  21

  27

  29

  30

  33

  31

  31

  Havering

  44

  32

  28

  21

  24

  26

  29

  27

  29

  28

  Hillingdon

  39

  27

  23

  24

  23

  20

  20

  22

  20

  20

  Hounslow

  37

  27

  18

  17

  12

  15

  17

  17

  12

  10

  Kingston upon Thames

  27

  19

  17

  10

  10

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Merton

  37

  31

  24

  21

  23

  23

  24

  20

  30

  32

  Redbridge

  33

  20

  18

  14

  17

  15

  14

  12

  6

  7

  504W 505W

  Non-participation of 16-year-olds in full-time education by LEA, England, 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  LEA

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Richmond upon Thames

  33

  19

  20

  16

  10

  10

  13

  27

  30

  30

  Sutton

  31

  18

  17

  14

  12

  16

  7

  7

  11

  8

  Waltham Forest

  42

  32

  29

  27

  24

  23

  20

  22

  28

  26

  South East

  Berkshire

  32

  21

  20

  16

  20

  24

  24

  24

  25

  24

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  25

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  19

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  20

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  33

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  22

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  34

  29

  27

  27

  28

  29

  30

  29

  29

  28

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  25

  23

  Milton Keynes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  42

  40

  40

  East Sussex

  37

  25

  21

  19

  22

  24

  25

  25

  27

  25

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  26

  24

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  28

  25

  Hampshire

  40

  31

  27

  25

  28

  26

  28

  29

  30

  29

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  30

  28

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  27

  30

  Southampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  32

  28

  Isle of Wight

  29

  29

  22

  24

  21

  21

  19

  23

  20

  17

  Kent

  38

  27

  23

  20

  23

  24

  24

  24

  23

  23

  Kent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  24

  Medway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  20

  Oxfordshire

  38

  26

  21

  21

  24

  24

  25

  25

  29

  28

  Surrey

  29

  22

  19

  19

  20

  21

  22

  21

  22

  21

  West Sussex

  30

  23

  20

  16

  20

  22

  23

  23

  23

  23

  South West

  Avon

  39

  29

  22

  28

  26

  25

  24

  26

  28

  26

  Bath and NE Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  13

  10

  9

  City of Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  33

  38

  33

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  26

  27

  29

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  26

  27

  25

  Cornwall (inc. Isles of Scilly)

  32

  28

  22

  21

  22

  24

  23

  25

  24

  22

  Devon

  39

  30

  28

  25

  26

  28

  28

  28

  30

  28

  Devon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  29

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  27

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  25

  Dorset

  37

  26

  23

  18

  23

  24

  22

  23

  23

  23

  Dorset

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  26

  25

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  18

  21

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  18

  19

  Gloucestershire

  39

  28

  23

  25

  24

  22

  26

  26

  23

  25

  Somerset

  36

  27

  25

  24

  24

  26

  24

  29

  27

  26

  Wiltshire

  43

  32

  29

  27

  30

  28

  28

  31

  29

  29

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  27

  27

  Swindon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  35

  32

  England total

  41

  33

  30

  28

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  29

  Note:

  The figures given in the table are for non-participation in full-time education. Those students in both full-time education and Government support training are included in full-time education figures.

  Source:

  DIES Statistical Bulletins 8/96 and 14/01.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was spent by the relevant pension fund on paying pensions to retired(a) teachers and (b) university staff in 2001–02; if she will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in (i) five years' time, (ii) 10 years' time, (iii) 20 years' time and (iv) 30 years' time; if she will estimate in each case the
  506W
  proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (A) unfunded pension schemes and (B) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if she will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [66561]

  Mr. Miliband
  The projected expenditure on pension benefits in respect of members of the teachers' pension scheme for the years in question is shown in the table. The
  507W
  teachers' pension scheme, which covers schools, further education establishments and the "post 1992" university sector, is an unfunded scheme.

  Teachers' pension scheme (England and Wales)

  £ billion

  Year ending 31 March

  Projected outgo1

  2002

  24.0

  2007

  4.3

  2012

  4.6

  2022

  5.0

  2032

  5.0

  1 Constant earnings terms, real earnings growth 1.5 per cent. a year.

  2 Based on "Actual outgo" for 2001–02 of £3.96 billion.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Academic staff in the "pre 1992" universities are generally members of the universities superannuation scheme. This is a fully funded private sector scheme. Non-academic staff in all universities can be members of one of a number of private sector funded schemes or the funded local government pension scheme depending on the pension arrangements made by individual universities.

  Offenders referred by the Law Officers to the CA

  Number of references withdrawn

  Leave Granted by the Court of Appeal

  Number of referrals Court of Appeal held to be ULS

  Sentences increased by the Court of Appeal

  Sentences unchanged by the Court of Appeal

  1989

  9

  2

  7

  —

  7

  1

  1990

  25

  5

  19

  —

  17

  2

  1991

  26

  3

  22

  —

  18

  4

  1992

  37

  4

  32

  —

  29

  3

  1993

  30

  2

  28

  —

  24

  4

  1994

  50

  2

  46

  —

  39

  7

  1995

  77

  4

  73

  —

  68

  5

  1996

  68

  2

  64

  —

  49

  15

  1997

  70

  1

  66

  58

  47

  19

  1998

  95

  10

  80

  74

  69

  10

  1999

  89

  6

  80

  72

  59

  21

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Private Members' Clubs
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated which assesses discriminatory treatment experienced by women at private members' clubs open to both men and women. [66876]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no formal assessment of discriminatory treatment experienced by women members of mixed sex private clubs.

  We have consulted interested parties. For example, the Club and Institute Union (CIU), which represents over 2 million club members and to which the vast majority of "working men's clubs" belong, reports that of their 2680 clubs, some 60 per cent. still deny their female members full rights.

  Child Benefit Reductions
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made of the effect on women's

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Sentence-review
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 635W, if she will provide equivalent figures for each year between the coming into effect of the legislation and April 2001. [55080]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following table shows the number of offenders whose sentences were referred by the Law Officers to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences from 1989 to 1999 and the decisions of the Court of Appeal. Records maintained by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers for this period do not distinguish between cases referred to the Law Officers by the CPS, members of public or hon. Members. Nor do the records show how many were not eligible for referral because they were received by the Law Officers out of time.

  The records for 2000 onwards are more detailed. They are being reviewed and I shall, by the end of July, write to the hon. Member and place an answer in the House of Commons Library.

  incomes of reducing child benefit for parents whose children truant. [57955]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are considering a number of measures to combat truancy. We are therefore looking at ways of ensuring parents meet their responsibilities in bringing up their children.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Beer Sales
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee how much beer was sold to the House in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [65238]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  During the 12-month period from April 2000 until March 2001, the House of Commons Refreshment Department purchased 61,096 pints of draught beers and lagers and a total of 18,831 bottles of beers and lagers. During the 12 months from April 2001 until March 2002, the Department purchased 53,568 pints of draught beers and lagers and 15,228 bottles.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions Simplification
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Pickering report on pensions simplification will be published. [68396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Alan Pickering's report will be published on Thursday 11 July and placed in the Library. Copies for hon. Members will be available in the Vote Office and the report will be published on the Department's Internet site at www.dwp.gov.uk.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2002,Official Report, column 1213W, on the Child Support Agency, if he will place copies of the OGC Gateway reviews in the Library. [53078]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Todd, dated 3 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You ask if, pursuant to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions answer of the 19th April, Official Report column 1213w on the Child Support Agency, if he will place copies of the two OGC Gateway reviews in the Library.
  I do not think that it is appropriate to do so. The strength of the OGC Gateway review process is that it is speedy and generates robust, unvarnished opinion and advice. This is invaluable and I would not wish to see an awareness that a report may become public, to constrain the reviewers willingness to provide advice in this way.
  This concern is recognised in the code of practice on access to government information. This exempts from disclosure, inter alia "information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including: internal opinion, advice, recommendation, consultation and deliberation". Against that background I am sorry but I am unable to reply positively to your request.

  Benefits Decision Reviews
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what circumstances a Minister will decide to review a decision taken by decision makers on benefits; and if he will make a statement. [55581]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]Decisions on applications to change decisions are made on behalf of the Secretary of State by decision makers who are suitably trained and experienced. The Department has put in place a structured and transparent system for dealing with such applications. Claimants can lodge an appeal to an independent tribunal if they disagree with the decision of the decision maker.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) the north-west,
  510W
  (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley have claimed the minimum income guarantee, and in each case how many claims have been awarded in the last 12 months. [65548]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the table:

  Area

  Number of MIG claims

  Burnley parliamentary constituency

  3,000

  Lancashire

  35,400

  North-west GOR

  244,300

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Enquiry, February 2002

  Income Support Computer Software
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in receipt of(a) pension,(b) income support and (c) both have had their payment delayed as a result of the income support computer software being unable to calculate payment due to increases in retirement pension; if such problems in making payments had been anticipated; if similar failures in processing payments are expected at the beginning of the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [58032]

  Mr. McCartney
  We are not aware of any delay in payments of(a) retirement pension, (b) income support or (c) both as a result of the income support computer software being unable to calculate payment due to increases in retirement pension.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which the Benefits Agency issues guidance to its offices on working with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to ensure that the issuing of national insurance numbers, NASS 35 documents and asylum decision letters are co-ordinated; [61958]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the mechanism by which the Benefits Agency has informed its offices of the provision allowing access to documentation directly from NASS if an asylum seeker wishing to have access to mainstream benefits has not received his or her NASS 35 document through the post. [61959]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Procedural bulletins issued routinely to all staff provide guidance on the handling and processing of claims from successful asylum seekers. The transition for asylum seekers moving from National Asylum Support Service support to benefits is, like any claim to benefit, subject to the relevant evidence requirements being satisfied. In some cases this can lead to delays although every effort is made to keep that delay to a minimum.

  A procedural bulletin was issued to all income support and jobseeker's allowance processing staff in December 2001, informing them of new procedures designed to minimise delays in assessing claims to benefit from successful asylum seekers. Where an asylum seeker has reported that they have not received their NASS 35 form, staff are instructed to send a fax to NASS requesting that another one is issued within 48 hours. The NASS 35

  511W
  provides details of the level of support the person has received from the National Asylum Support Service and the date when the support ceased. This information is necessary so that full rate benefit can be paid. The new procedure was introduced in consultation with the National Asylum Support Service.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to his predecessor dated 7 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Winifred Lang. [66207]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 28 June 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the letter to him dated 7 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Abdul Kader. [61691]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 3 July.

  Young Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received concerning the impact on young disabled people of the change from severe disablement allowance to incapacity benefit; and what action he is taking to mitigate this, with particular reference to(a) the low income scheme for health charges and (b) non-dependent deductions from housing benefit. [65797]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have reformed severe disablement allowance (SDA) in order to provide more support to young people disabled early in life who have never had the opportunity to work. Existing SDA recipients under the age of 20 on 6 April 2001 were automatically transferred to long-term incapacity benefit (IB) in April 2002, making them up to £28.10 per week better off. We estimate that around 175,000 young people will benefit from the change over time.

  We have received some representations from hon. Members and a small number of letters from the public about the change.

  Depending on their circumstances, young disabled people receiving IB can qualify for help with NHS charges (for example, prescriptions, dental treatment, sight tests, money-off vouchers for glasses, wigs, fabric supports and help with the cost of travel to hospital for NHS treatment) on the grounds of low income. We recognise that some will no longer have automatic entitlement to this help but many in this group will already be considerably better off as a result of the changes we have introduced and it would be unfair to treat these people differently to other IB recipients.

  Non-dependant deductions are made where a housing benefit recipient has another adult living in the household who could reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards the rent. The level of deduction depends upon the income and other circumstances of the non-dependant adult.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Listed Places of Worship
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what money was taken from the English Heritage budget in 2001 to fund the listed places of worship grant scheme. [64609]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage redirected £2 million in grant in aid in the financial year 2001–02, from the existing Joint Places of Worship (JPOW) Scheme. For 2001–02 only, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) agreed to allocate an additional £5 million to the JPOW scheme. English Heritage and the HLF have jointly agreed a revised repair grant scheme for places of worship in England for 2002–03 which is currently expected to make grants totalling £21 million available for this financial year.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many members of her Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [65962]

  Dr. Howells
  Departmental responsibility for regulatory impact issues has been located in various central units over the past five years. The number of posts in the relevant unit has been as follows:

  1997–98: five full-time posts

  1998–99: five full-time posts

  1999–2000: six full-time posts

  2000–01: four and a half full-time posts

  2001–02: six and a half full-time posts.

  Subtitling
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what recent discussions her Department has had with the film industry over subtitled films for deaf people. [65529]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has discussed disability issues, including the provision of subtitled films for deaf people, with the Film Council and the Cinema Exhibitors Association. The Film Council has provision for sub-titled films in its new specialised distribution and exhibition strategy and the Cinema Exhibitors Association is also working towards more subtitled films for the deaf with the provision of new equipment. The Department has also liaised with the audiovisual industry, for example via the Broadcasters Disability Network and the British Video Association, as well as with organisations representing those with hearing difficulties in order to promote the availability of sub-titled material throughout the audiovisual sector.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she plans to ensure that the quality standards for television subtitling are maintained once the regulatory requirements for television subtitling are extended to digital cable and satellite in future communications legislation. [66252]

  Dr. Howells
  The draft Communications Bill gives OFCOM a requirement to produce, publish and from time to time review, a Code relating to provision of television
  513W
  services for the deaf and visually impaired and the means by which such services should be promoted. The Code will include guidance on the technical standards to be attained for subtitling, as the current Code produced by the Independent Television Commission does. The Code applies to the services listed in subsection (9) of Section 203 of the draft Communication Bill.

  Green Minister
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who her Department's green minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers' Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for her Department's activities; and if she will make a statement. [65987]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blackstone is the Minister with responsibility for green issues at the DCMS. This Parliament the Green Ministers Committee has been reconstituted as the Cabinet Sub-Committee of Green Ministers, ENV(G), under the Chairmanship of the Minister for the Environment. It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

  Overseas Tourist Offices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many tourist offices the UK has overseas; where they are located; and what plans she has to extend the UK tourist offices overseas. [66084]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority is responsible for marketing Britain overseas as a tourist destination. It has 30 offices overseas located in Austria, Germany (Frankfurt, Berlin), Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, India, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, USA (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles), Canada, Brazil and Argentina. We have no plans to extend these offices but the BTA keeps this matter under review.

  Regional Television
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from ITC on ITC's new Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions. [66448]

  Dr. Howells
  The Independent Television Commission kept the Department informed of progress as they negotiated the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions with the ITV companies.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is in respect of promoting and encouraging regional television; and what further plans she has in this respect. [66447]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's policy is to retain and strengthen the regional dimension to public service broadcasting to ensure that it continues to meet the needs of different communities and cultural interests. The draft Communications Bill contains detailed provisions designed to achieve this.
  514W
  Under the Bill, Channel 3 companies will have targets for programmes produced in the regions for the regions, programmes made regionally for national audiences and investment in programme production in the regions. They will also have targets for the provision of high quality regional programmes, including news, a sufficient proportion of which will have to be shown at or around peak time. OFCOM will be required to publish a review of the regional obligations in each Channel 3 licence whenever ownership changes hands and to change licence conditions to meet any concerns arising.

  Channel 4 will have targets for programme production and investment in the regions. Obligations in this area will also be applied to the BBC, through the Agreement with the Secretary of State.

  Television Licence
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners over 75 years old in(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c) Burnley receive free television licences. [65546]

  Dr. Howells
  TV Licensing, which administers the free television licence scheme for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 368,000 people aged 75 or over in the North West Government Office Region, 97,000 in Lancashire and 6,400 in the Burnley constituency.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many prosecutions undertaken by Television Licensing in each of the last five years resulted in a custodial sentence; and what was the length of the sentence in each case. [65460]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]Custodial sentences are not available for television licence evasion, the maximum penalty being a fine. However, custodial sentences can be imposed for non-payment of such a fine. The number of people in England and Wales received into prison for non-payment of fines for TV Licence evasion, by sentence length and year, in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Sentence Lengths

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Up to and including three months

  235

  167

  180

  37

  28

  GT 3 LE six months

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  GT 12 LE 18 months

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  GT 18 months LE three years

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  236

  170

  180

  38

  28

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in her Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [65958]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department did not retain details of energy levels until 2000–01. Energy costs since 1997–98, and levels from 2000–01 are as follows.
  515W

  Year

  kilowatt hours

  £000

  1997–98

  311

  1998–99

  107

  1999–2000

  133

  2000–01

  3.9

  146

  2001–02

  12.6

  112

  1 Reflects release of a building

  The Department has not bought from renewable sources in the past but is planning buy a proportion of energy from such sources when contracts are re-let later in the year.

  Figures for the Royal Parks Agency are:

  Year

  kilowatt hours

  £000

  1997

  7.9

  311

  1998

  7.9

  305

  1999

  6.5

  313

  2000

  7.6

  247

  2001

  7.3

  211

  Note:

  None of the energy consumed in the above periods by the Royal Parks Agency was procured from renewable sources.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the BBC about their bid for a multiplex licence. [65459]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions with the BBC about their bid. This is a matter for the ITC.

  The Dome
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the names and amounts paid by(a) sponsors and (h) contributors to the Dome who did not make confidentiality a condition of their donation; and (i) how much money and (ii) how many donations remain subject to confidentiality. [65570]

  Dr. Howells
  Official sponsors of the Millennium Experience were: Boots (supported by L'Oreal and Roche), BskyB, BT, City of London (a consortium of Corporation of London, Barclays, CGU, NatWest, Prudential), Ford, Manpower, Marks and Spencer, McDonalds and Tesco.

  Official partners were: BAA, BAE, British Airways, Camelot and Marconi.

  Official suppliers were: 3Com, Coca-Cola, Compaq, Daily Mail, Kodak, Mars, Thames Water, Typhoo and Walls.

  Sponsorship for the Faith zone came from the Laing Family Trusts, the Hinduja Foundation and other Christian trusts including the Jerusalem Trust.

  Other contributors, in various ways, were: De Beers, Halifax, London borough of Greenwich, Reuters and Woolwich.

  The total amount of sponsorship obtained by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was £120 million cash and value in kind, not including direct funding by BT and Ford of the costs of their zones or extra funding for marketing and promotion spent by a
  516W
  number of sponsors over and above the requirements of their contracts. Actual payments of cash and value in kind following negotiations are subject to various confidentiality requirements of the contracts and agreements between the NMEC and contributors.

DEFENCE

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for 1997–98 and for each subsequent financial year, including the current year to date, the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on (i) food and (ii) alcohol, indicating how much was spent on guests, and how much in respect of (a) Ministers and (B) staff, broken down to show how much was provided directly by his Department and how much reclaimed. [34446]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Part-time Employees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of the staff of his Department are part-time employees. [47154]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 April 20021 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 49W, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie).

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of his Department have been employed in its Regulatory Impact Unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65964]

  Mr. Ingram
  As a non-regulatory Department, the Ministry of Defence does not have a dedicated Regulatory Impact Unit. Five years ago the MOD's focal point was a civilian in the MOD Procurement Executive (now Defence Procurement Agency). From early 1999 issues relating to regulatory impact have been addressed by two civilian members of staff, as part of their wider remit to assess the potential impacts of EU legislation on the Ministry of Defence.

  Services (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. G erald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign nationals are serving in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy, and (c) Royal Air Force; which countries they were recruited from; and how many were in each service in 1995. [55447]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of foreign nationals serving in the Army in 2002 and 1995 by country is shown on the following table.

  There is no nationality marker held on the Personnel Record of Service for the Naval Service although information on ethnicity and religion is held.
  517W
  The RAF holds some information on 'not British' personnel, however, data are not accurate enough to provide a reliable estimate.

  Nationality (NOW)

  1 April 1995

  1 April 2002

  Aden

  —

  —

  African Country

  —

  —

  America

  1

  6

  Antigua (Leeward Is.)

  —

  2

  Australia

  78

  72

  Bahama Islands

  —

  1

  Bangladesh

  1

  2

  Barbados

  8

  6

  Barbuda (Leeward Is.)

  1

  —

  Belgium

  1

  —

  Belize

  —

  3

  Britain/Singapore

  2

  3

  British Commonwealth/Foreign Rest.

  1

  2

  Brunei

  1

  —

  Cameroon Republic

  —

  1

  Canada

  60

  66

  Cyprus

  4

  2

  Denmark

  2

  —

  Dominica (Windward Isl.)

  1

  1

  Dominican Republic

  —

  2

  Egypt

  3

  1

  Falkland Islands

  2

  1

  Fiji

  3

  1,053

  France

  —

  —

  Gambia

  —

  16

  Germany

  8

  4

  Ghana

  5

  99

  Gibraltar

  —

  1

  Grenada (Windward Is.)

  —

  14

  Guyana

  3

  3

  Hong Kong

  6

  5

  India

  13

  18

  Jamaica

  34

  240

  Kenya

  3

  24

  Lebanon

  —

  —

  Malawi

  1

  6

  Malaysia

  3

  3

  Malta GC

  10

  6

  Mauritius

  2

  5

  Montserrat (Leeward Is.)

  2

  2

  Namibia (Fmlay SW African)

  —

  1

  Nepal

  4

  10

  Netherlands

  —

  1

  New Zealand

  58

  46

  New Zealand Islands

  —

  15

  Nigeria

  1

  17

  Norway

  1

  1

  Pacific Islands

  —

  1

  Pakistan

  2

  7

  Papua

  —

  1

  Republic of Ireland

  203

  204

  Rhodesia

  5

  5

  Seychelles

  —

  1

  Sierra Leone

  2

  6

  Singapore

  —

  1

  South Africa

  9

  226

  Sri Lanka

  2

  4

  St. Helena

  1

  22

  St. Kitts Island

  2

  1

  St. Lucia Island

  —

  17

  St. Vincent Island

  1

  168

  Sweden

  2

  1

  Switzerland

  1

  1

  Tanzania

  1

  —

  Tongan Islands

  —

  3

  Trinidad and Tobago

  10

  30

  Uganda

  2

  3

  West Indies—British

  9

  3

  Zambia

  —

  3

  Zimbabwe

  26

  190

  Stateless

  —

  1

  Grand total

  601

  2,659

  Gurkhas

  4,325

  3,795

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision made on 22 May by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal to oblige the Government to accept the diagnosis of Gulf War Syndrome in the case of a former member of the UK armed forces. [60332]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]The Pensions Appeal Tribunal's decision in the recent case involving "Gulf War Syndrome" is specific to that case. It does not set a legal precedent for other war pension claims. The Tribunal found that the Ministry of Defence had failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that "Gulf War Syndrome" was not attributable to service. However the overwhelming consensus of medical and scientific opinion is that the symptoms reported by some Gulf veterans do not constitute a discrete disorder. It would be wrong to interpret from the Tribunal's finding that "Gulf War Syndrome" does exist.

  The fact that there is, at present, no proper basis for recognising "Gulf War Syndrome" as an appropriate diagnostic label does not prevent a Gulf Veteran getting a war pension. A war pension can be paid for any disablement provided that a causal link to service is accepted.

  Chinook
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the level of airworthiness of the RAF Chinook HC2 fleet at the time of the fatal accident on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. [64563]

  Mr. Ingram
  In November 1993, the Chinook Mk 2 fleet had been given an interim Controller Aircraft (CA) release, permitting the aircraft to be operated at a maximum all-up weight of 18,000 kg. This would have enabled the aircraft to be safely operated on one engine. On 1 March 1994 this weight limit was increased to 22,700 kg when using under-slung-loads. The fleet was given these flight clearances as the Ministry of Defence had no doubts about its safe operation.

  Hawk T1
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the time required to convert the Hawk T1 trainer into a weapons delivery system; [65426]

  (2) what representations his Department has received regarding the capacity of the Hawk T1 to deliver (a) air-to-surface munitions and (b) nuclear air-to-surface munitions; and if he will make a statement. [65428]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Hawk aircraft has been an exceptionally successful export in both its training and operational roles. The Ministry of Defence does not have available records of representations made on these issues over the years. No Hawk aircraft have been converted to deliver nuclear air-to-surface munitions.

  RNAS Yeovilton
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the training
  519W
  and experience of helicopter pilots at RNAS Yeovilton is up to date. [65199]

  Mr. Ingram
  A multi-level system exists to ensure that all helicopter aircrew are sufficiently trained to carry out any mission that they may be called upon to undertake.

  All helicopter crews initially pass through the military flying training system where standards are set and monitored by the tri-service Central Flying School.

  Crews in operational squadrons are monitored by the squadron training officer, who ensures that all crews maintain flying currency in accordance with the flying training directive produced by the Assistant Chief of Staff Aviation.

  While in squadron service all crews undertake periodic examinations and flying tests to confirm their proficiency. The Naval Flying Standards Flight, made up of senior, experienced instructors external to the units and squadrons, visits squadrons and examines all aircrew, producing written reports on their capability.

  Lynx
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected service life is of the Lynx Mark 8. [66033]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Maritime Lynx Helicopter Force based at RNAS Yeovilton operates both the Mk 3 and Mk 8 Lynx aircraft. Both variants are managed as one fleet. The Maritime Lynx was introduced into service in the mid-1970s. At current flying rates, the hulk of the fleet will reach its specified airframe fatigue life limits in 2008, however, the first airframe will be withdrawn for disposal in 2004. The intention is to replace both the Mk 8 and Mk 3 aircraft with the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those locations where more than five MOD police personnel are based. [65715]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following locations have a permanent complement of more than five Ministry of Defence police officers.

  MOD police HQ Essex

  Area policing teams

  Aldershot

  Chatham

  Devonport

  Bovington

  Corsham1

  Innsworth

  South Wiltshire

  Dishforth

  Preston

  Gosport

  Chilwell

  Donnington

  Colchester

  Feltham

  Whitehall

  520W
  Criminal investigation departments

  Aldershot

  Foxhill

  Catterick

  Clyde

  Central London

  Stations

  DLO Andover

  Bordon Garrison

  DEFRA Fort Halstead

  RAF Hythe

  Longcross Barracks

  Solent Station Marchwood

  RMA Sandhurst

  DSL Beaconsfield

  Bicester Garrison

  AWE Burghfield

  RMCS Shrivenham

  RAF Welford

  RNAS Culdrose

  BRNC Dartmouth

  MOD Abbeywood

  JSU Corsham

  DERA Boscombe Down

  RAF Fairford

  Larkhill Garrison

  AAC Netheravon

  Porton Down

  Winterbourne Gunner

  RNAS Yeovilton

  HMS Forest Moor

  RAF Fylingdales

  AFC Harrogate

  DM Longtown

  RAF Menwith Hill

  DM Dean Hill2

  RDMC Fort Blockhouse

  DM Gosport

  HMNB Portsmouth

  NATO Balado Bridge

  DM Beith

  RNSE Caledonia

  HMNB Clyde

  DM Coulport

  DM Crombie

  DM Glen Douglas

  RNAS Prestwick

  QinetiQ West Freugh3

  DSDC Donnington

  Hereford Garrison

  DM Kineton

  RM Llantrisant

  QinetiQ Pendine3

  RAF Stafford

  RAF Alconbury

  Colchester Garrison

  Regents Park Barracks

  Feltham Station

  RAF Lakenheath

  521W

  Mill Hill

  QinetiQ Shoeburyness3

  US(N) London

  AWE Aldermaston

  RAF West Drayton

  Woolwich Garrison

  1 The complement at this site is currently the subject of consultation with the Defence Police Federation. In the meantime, however, some officers from Corsham are being detached on a temporary basis to help reduce overtime where it is currently high.

  2 Site due to close.

  3 MDP complement due to be withdrawn.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of MOD police. [65717]

  Mr. Ingram
  The overall strength of the Ministry of Defence police is kept under constant review to ensure that the staffing levels of the force match the tasking requirements. This will involve both the creation and the discontinuance of posts at different locations, and, where appropriate, the transfer of personnel.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD police there were in(a) 1997 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [65716]

  Mr. Ingram
  The strength of the force on 31 May 1997 was 3,807 officers and 3,338 on 31 May 2002.

  Submarines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fleet submarines are at sea. [66029]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 2 July 2002 we had six fleet submarines operationally at sea, and one at sea conducting sea trials. The remaining five are either in extended periods of maintenance, or at extended readiness.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk armed SSNs will be operational in this and each of the next five years. [66035]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, the number of Tomahawk-capable SSNs which will be operational in this and the next five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  2002

  5

  2003

  4

  2004

  4

  2005

  5

  2006

  6

  2007

  6

  This does not take into account maintenance periods.

  Munitions Depots
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the area is of the munitions depot at West Dean, Wiltshire; and what percentage is(a) buildings, (b) roads and hard standing, (c) farmland, (d) woodland and (e) designated as a SSSI. [65714]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Munitions Depot, Dean Hill has a total area of some 236 hectares (583 acres). Building development is of low density and disbursed across the 522W
  whole site. There are 1.3 hectares of underground storage within the hillside and approximately five hectares of buildings. These are connected by an infrastructure of roads, rail, services and bonded storage which is contained within a footprint of approximately 75 hectares or 31 per cent. of the total. 36 per cent. of the site is let for agricultural purposes, while woodland constitutes 15 per cent. The site of special scientific interest (SSSI) extends to some 43 hectares or 18 per cent. of the total, and it should be noted that part of the woodland is within the SSSI.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of(a) stored munitions and (b) engineering and munitions maintenance work is carried out at Dean Hill for each of the three armed services. [65732]

  Mr. Ingram
  48 per cent. by volume of the munitions stored at Dean Hill are held in support of the Navy and 52 per cent. in support of the RAF. However, munitions stocks held at Dean Hill represent less than four per cent. of munitions stored by Defence Munitions on behalf of all three armed services.

  In the last year, 49 per cent. of engineering and munitions maintenance work at Dean Hill was carried out in support of the Navy and 51 per cent. in support of the RAF. Again, however, this represents about four per cent. of the processing capacity within Defence Munitions.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria used to decide which munitions depot to dispose of; and if he will list the depots against which Dean Hill competed. [65733]

  Mr. Ingram
  An internal rationalisation study, known as Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 (DMRS 2), started in 2001, and examined the best utilisation of Defence Munitions (DM) facilities throughout the United Kingdom. An earlier study (DMRS 1) had already recommended two other site closures at DM Welford on Berkshire and DM Smalmstown near Carlisle in 2000.

  Even after the impact of the closure of the Welford and Smalmstown sites has been taken into account, DMRS 2 confirmed that spare capacity remains in DM's explosives storage and processing capacity.

  The DMRS 2 team examined munitions storage, processing and supply issues. Most of DM's eight principal depots cover a variety of these outputs. The study drew these elements together to determine how the necessary capacity could most efficiently be retained. Taking all of these elements into account, it was concluded that only the capacity and facilities provided by the DM Depot at Dean Hill, near to West Dean village in south Wiltshire, was not critical to the delivery of DM's outputs. The other Defence Munitions depots are required either for the volume of explosives storage and processing capacity they offer and/or have specialised (often unique) facilities to outload and issue munitions to customers.

  All eight Defence Munitions depots were included in the review. Apart from DM Dean Hill, these are DM Beith in Ayrshire, DM Crombie in Fife, DM Glen Douglas in Dunbartonshire, DM Gosport in Hampshire, DM Kineton in Warwickshire, DM Longtown in Cumbria and DM Plymouth in Devon.

  Married Quarters
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 25 June 2002,Official Report, column 749W, on married quarters, what criteria are used to assign standards to service families accommodation. [66230]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) uses a Standard for Condition rating system. Properties are categorised as being Standard 1, 2, 3 or 4 according to points for each of a number of attributes including bathroom and kitchen facilities, electrical sockets, building fabric, safety, and energy efficiency. A property is graded Standard 1 for Condition (SIFC) only if all the attributes are assessed as being at Standard 1.

  Forces Manpower
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is full manning of the(a) Royal Air Force and (b) Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [66293]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF is in broad manning balance. However, shortfalls remain in a number of branches and trades. The RAF aim is to meet the Public Service Agreement (PSA), so that full manning against the requirement within a tolerance band of +1/-2 per cent.524W
  will be achieved by March 2004. The naval service will not now reach its PSA target of full manning within a tolerance band of +1/-2 per cent. in 2004, but it is determined to do so by 2005 and work continues on measures to achieve this.

  Non-munition Stocks
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the book value of non-munition stocks was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66294]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information was not presented on a Resource Accounting basis until financial year 1999–2000. Consequently, the information sought for 1997 and 1998 is not available. The opening and closing balances for non-munition stocks in financial year 2000–011 were:

  Financial year 2000–011

  £ million

  Opening balance

  2,35,295

  Closing balance

  2,34,573

  1 The Departmental Resource Accounts for 2000–01 were the subject of NAO qualification.

  2 Figures are book values after deducting provisions from gross stock values.

  3 Figures are subject to normal Modified Historic Accounting indexation, and are rounded to the nearest whole.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Harold Shipman
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has set a tariff in the case of Harold Shipman. [67644]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I do not usually comment on the tariff decided in individual life sentence prisoner cases. However, I recognise that Harold Shipman's crimes raise issues of particular public concern and I therefore intend to depart from my usual practice in this case. Harold Shipman was convicted in January 2000 on 15 counts of murder. I extend my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the victims. These were the most heinous of offences and the grossest breach of the duty of trust he owed as a doctor to the victims all of whom were trusting patients. Taking all the circumstances into account I have decided that nothing less than a whole life tariff should apply in this case.

  British Overseas Citizens
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of British overseas citizens who hold no other nationality. [67224]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following representations made during passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill about the continuing difficulties faced by British Overseas Citizens who have no other nationality, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided that those British Overseas Citizens who currently do not hold, and have never given up another nationality will be given an entitlement to register as British citizens. We are doing this to address the situation which left those people concerned with no right of abode in any country. An amendment to this effect will be made to the Bill at Report Stage in the House of Lords. Applicants will be dealt with at our posts overseas and will not need to meet any United Kingdom residence requirements. There will be no deadline for applications.

  Fireworks
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional steps he plans to take to restrict the use of fireworks. [66875]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, Official Report, column 218.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when his Department will establish rural targets and monitoring as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02"; [54409]

  (2) when his Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff (a) training, (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02"; [54419]
  526W
  (3) when his Department will implement proofing and checklist measures as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report "Rural Proofing in 2001–02". [54435]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 82W.

  Road Traffic Penalties
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the results of the consultation on road traffic penalties. [64283]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]We are currently in the final stages of formulating the Government's response to the consultation exercise on road traffic penalties.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002, to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin),Official Report, column 703W, on Government funding of the voluntary sector, how the voluntary sector has been defined for the purpose of the estimates; and whether some categories of non-governmental organisation have been excluded from this definition. [65038]

  Beverley Hughes
  The definition used for the purposes of the estimates is the same as that published in the report on Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000 (annexe B. page 23) ISBN 1 84082 636–3, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Some categories of non-governmental organisation are excluded under this definition, i.e. universities, non-departmental public bodies, political parties, informal groups and self-help groups directly run by clinicians.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 2002, to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin),Official Report, column 703W, on Government funding for the voluntary sector, if he will break down the figure for (a) other state sources, by type of statutory body, (b) lottery funding by lottery distributor, (c) local government by local authority, (d) central Government by department and (e) European funds by Directorate-General; and in the case of (e), what EU funding for the voluntary sector is given in the other member states. [65037]

  Beverley Hughes
  The full information requested on a breakdown of funding to the voluntary sector from all these sources is not routinely collated by Government and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on central Government funding by Department was published in the report on Central Government Funding of Voluntary and Community Organisations 1982–83 to 1999–2000 (pages (4–5) ISBN 1 84082 636–3, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Dumped Vehicles
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the steps the police take to track down the owners of dumped vehicles. [66515]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The police and local authorities have a joint responsibility for the removal of abandoned vehicles and taking action as appropriate against their owners. When a vehicle is reported or discovered apparently abandoned on the highway, the police will carry out a number of checks to ensure it is not stolen, illegally parked, or causing an obstruction or danger. If it is, removal of the vehicle will be arranged as soon as possible. Once the vehicle is removed, the police will take steps to identify the last registered keeper of the vehicle via a search of vehicle keepership information on the police national computer.

  Where an apparently abandoned vehicle is not of police interest, details are forwarded to the local authority, which has responsibility for its removal and ultimate disposal. The Government have recently introduced tough new measures to help local authorities deal more effectively with the problem of abandoned vehicles, including improved access to the Driving Vehicle Licence Agency (DVLA) vehicle records.

  Policy Appraisal
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has established a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment; and what progress has been achieved. [66606]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]In 1998, the Home Office, Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Cabinet Office Women's Unit issued Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment (PAFET) guidelines to all Government Departments. PAFET covers the responsibility officials have for assessing how their work is likely to affect different groups and to take action to ensure this is taken into account from the beginning of the policy process and its evaluation.

  Guidance has been circulated to all senior managers at Grade 7 level and above within the Home Department to ensure that the effects of any policy changes on all sections of the population are considered at the earliest stage of policy development.

  In addition, as a result of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, listed public bodies are now required to consult on the potential impact of new policies, and to monitor existing policies, to ensure that there is no differential and adverse impact on people from minority ethnic communities.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the EU directives and regulations that have been implemented through his Department in 2002; and what was the cost of each to public funds. [64975]
  528W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No European Union directives and regulations have been implemented through the Home Office in 2002.

  Plain Clothes Allowance
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposal to remove the plain clothes allowance to CID officers; and whether he intends to introduce measures requiring police officers to contribute payments towards the cost of their uniforms. [30114]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Negotiating Board (PNB) reached agreement on 9 May 2002 on a package of modernising reforms to police pay and conditions of service. The PNB is the statutory negotiating body for police pay and conditions of service, on which all the main police organisations are represented, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities, the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation.

  One of the reforms agreed is to reduce the plain clothes allowance on 1 April 2003 to half its current rate of £258 and then to abolish it altogether on 1 April 2004. That change has to be seen in the context of all the changes, which include an increase in the basic salary for all federated ranks' officers of £402 a year from 1 April 2003 and a shortening of the federated ranks' pay scales, resulting in faster progression to the top of the scales. Once they have spent a year at the top of the scales, federated ranks officers will be eligible for a new competence-related payment of £1,002 a year, with at least 75 per cent. of those eligible expected to get the payment. In addition, under a new special priority payment scheme to target extra pay at those officers at the sharp end of policing, officers in qualifying posts will receive annual payments of between £500 and £3,000 normally, up to £5,000 exceptionally.

  The PNB Agreement does not require officers to contribute to the cost of their uniforms.

  Youth Justice
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases involving young people as defendants have been thrown out of magistrates courts in each month in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; [588911

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the recent trend in court cases involving young people which (a) are adjourned and (b) do not end in a conviction. [58890]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested for 1999 and 2000 is contained in the table, except for statistics of cases that are adjourned which are not collected centrally.
  529W

  Persons aged 10–17 whose charges were discontinued, discharged, withdrawn or dismissed at magistrates courts, England and Wales, 1999 and 2000, by month

  Number of persons

  Month

  Proceedings discontinued1

  Discharged Section 62

  Charge withdrawn3

  Sub-total

  Charge dismissed4

  Total cases not ending in conviction

  1999

  January

  695

  216

  2,388

  3,299

  378

  3,677

  February

  794

  187

  2,210

  3,191

  359

  3,550

  March

  801

  218

  2,617

  3,636

  412

  4,048

  April

  688

  175

  2,158

  3,021

  353

  3,374

  May

  681

  167

  2,122

  2,970

  336

  3,306

  June

  745

  172

  2,603

  3,520

  366

  3,886

  July

  795

  166

  2,504

  3,465

  409

  3,874

  August

  704

  147

  2,275

  3,126

  327

  3,453

  September

  739

  184

  2,638

  3,561

  400

  3,961

  October

  678

  189

  2,408

  3,275

  375

  3,650

  November

  716

  191

  2,765

  3,672

  451

  4,123

  December

  541

  168

  2,097

  2,806

  320

  3,126

  Total

  8,577

  2,180

  28,785

  39,542

  4,486

  44,028

  20001

  January

  661

  200

  2,436

  3,297

  397

  3,694

  February

  681

  168

  2,550

  3,399

  422

  3,821

  March

  758

  191

  2,616

  3,565

  483

  4,048

  April

  563

  193

  2,158

  2,914

  383

  3,297

  May

  619

  205

  2,600

  3,424

  419

  3,843

  June

  733

  209

  2,756

  3,698

  459

  4,157

  July

  791

  193

  2,726

  3,710

  480

  4,190

  August

  756

  195

  2,876

  3,827

  472

  4,299

  September

  651

  217

  2,543

  3,411

  513

  3,924

  October

  717

  214

  2,913

  3,844

  558

  4,402

  November

  773

  192

  2,960

  3,925

  545

  4,470

  December

  563

  160

  2,213

  2,936

  435

  3,371

  Total

  8,387

  2,349

  32,296

  43,032

  5,590

  48,622

  1 Under section 23(3) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, adjourned 'sine die' etc.

  2 Discharged under section 6 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (when examining Justices decide that there is insufficient evidence on which to commit the defendant for trial).

  3 No evidence offered, not proceeded against or charge withdrawn.

  4 Under section 9 Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (when the court, after hearing the evidence, decide the defendant is not guilty).

  5 Staffordshire police were only able to submit sample data for one week in each quarter for persons proceeded against in magistrates courts in 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, estimates derived from these data are not robust enough at a monthly level and have been included in the totals only.

  Communications Interception
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow(a) the police and (b) other regulatory or investigatory agencies of the state to intercept the e-mails and internet communications to internet websites of private individuals; and if he will make a statement. [62053]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Authority to intercept communications can only be given by the Secretary of State personally. Where the warrant is the result of a request for assistance made under an international mutual assistance agreement and where the subject or premises to which the interception relates appear to be outside the United Kingdom, authority may be given by a senior official. Such authority can only be given to those persons specified in Section 6(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. They are:the Director-General of the Security Service;
  the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service;
  the Director of the Government Communications Head Quarters;
  the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
  530W
  the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis;
  the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (now the Police Service of Northern Ireland);
  the chief constable of any police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967;
  the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;
  the Chief of Defence Intelligence; and
  a person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

  Authority can only be given where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the interception is necessary:

  (a) in the interests of national security;

  (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime;

  (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well being of the United Kingdom;

  (d) in circumstances where he would issue a warrant under (b) above, to give effect to an international mutual legal assistance agreement.

  The interception of communications is subject to oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner.
  531W
  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Interception of Communications: Code of Practice) Order 2002 was laid before Parliament on 8 May 2002. The Code of Practice sets out in further detail the procedure, safeguards and oversight regimes governing the lawful interception of communications in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to ensure that individuals are protected from invasion of privacy and personal rights when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is extended. [62675]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government recognise the need to balance respect for personal privacy with legitimate measures to protect the public, especially in the context of rapidly developing technology.

  I have therefore decided to bring forward new proposals in this area in the autumn after consultation over the summer.

  The aim of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is to provide greater security, clarity and regulation of these activities. First the Act is intended to ensure that:
  public authorities who have been added can only access communications data for one of the specified purposes in the Act;
  such access will have to be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve;
  use of the power will be subject to oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner; and
  anyone who thinks their data has been wrongly accessed will have the right to complain to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he will do to warn users of the Internet that the Government will be monitoring them. [62676]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There is no question of general monitoring of users of any means of communication in the United Kingdom (UK) including the internet. An agency listed in section 6(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which applies for authority to intercept communications must identify either one person or a set of premises as the interception subject. Authority must be given in each case by the Secretary of State personally and will not be given except when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the interception is necessary for a specified purpose and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved. The purposes are the prevention and detection of serious crime, the protection of national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The fact of an individual interception is not, of course, disclosed to the target.

  With regard to communications data (i.e. not the content of a communication but data related to it), the aim of Chapter II of Part 1 of RIPA is to provide greater security, clarity and regulation of this activity as well as to introduce proper procedures for oversight and complaints.

  In relation to implementation of this part of the Act, I will be bringing forward new proposals in the autumn following detailed public consultation in order to secure public confidence that arrangements balance respect for personal privacy with legitimate measures to protect the public.

  HMP Holloway
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether staff at HMP Holloway were permitted to watch the England against Nigeria football match on 12 June; and if visits to prisoners continued during this period. [64501]

  Hilary Benn
  There were no special arrangements made for prison staff at Holloway to watch the England against Nigeria football match. The prison arranged for all prisoners to be unlocked in time for the match, so that they could either watch it in their cells or on association. Some staff came in early to enable this to happen. Staff supervising association will have been able to watch the match with prisoners.

  The match had no impact on visits as domestic visits do not occur on weekday mornings at Holloway. Visits on the afternoon of 12 June were slightly delayed due to staff shortages and the need to train a new drug dog.

  Brixton Prison
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers working in Brixton between 1996 and April 2002 who had previous military experience had served in Northern Ireland. [65440]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the earlier careers of prison staff is not held in the form required by the question and could only be obtained by asking individuals. As previously explained to my hon. Friend in a written answer from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1243W, this would involve examining around 1,300 files and interviewing several hundred staff, many of whom no longer work for the Prison Service. This could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons in England and Wales have been opened since January 1992; and when they first received prisoners. [66232]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service records a prison's opening date as the date from which the prison receives its first prisoners. Since January 1992, 20 prisons have opened in England and Wales. These prisons are listed in the table.

  Prison

  Opening date

  Elmley

  February 1992

  Bullingdon

  March 1992

  Wolds

  April 1992

  Holme House

  May 1992

  Woodhill

  July 1992

  Highdown

  August 1992

  Lancaster Farms

  March 1993

  Blakenhurst

  May 1993

  Doncaster

  June 1994

  Buckley Hall

  December 1994

  Eastwood Park

  March 1996

  Colchester

  February 1997

  Weare

  July 1997

  Parc

  November 1997

  533W

  Prison

  Opening date

  Altcourse

  December 1997

  Lowdham Grange

  February 1998

  Ashfield

  November 1999

  Forest Bank

  January 2000

  Rye Hill

  January 2001

  Dovegate

  July 2001

  Ashfield, Buckley Hall and Lowdham Grange are new establishments built on former prison sites. Eastwood Park was reopened following a major refurbishment after being closed in December 1992. Colchester opened in 1997 as a young offender institution. The establishment piloted a high intensity training camp regime and closed when the pilot finished in February 1998.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales have a whole life tariff. [66233]

  Hilary Benn
  There are at present 23 people in custody in England and Wales with whole life tariffs.

  Parole Licences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals in the last 12 months had their licences revoked and were consequently recalled to prison in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [66616]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]During the 12 month period ending 31 May 2002, 4,773 determinate prisoners and 19 life sentence prisoners were recalled to prison using the Secretary of State's powers to revoke a prisoner's licence pursuant to sections 38(a)(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Prisoner Costs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average annual cost is of accommodating a person in(a) a prison and (b) a youth offender institution; and if he will make a statement. [66624]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The table gives the annual average establishment cost per place in 2001–02 by category of prison. Figures are expressed in resource terms and exclude capital expenditure and headquarters overheads.

  Average annual establishment cost per prison place 2001–02

  £

  Male closed young offender institution

  20,732

  Male open young offender institution

  20,075

  Category B

  22,497

  Category C

  18,463

  Dispersal

  34,365

  Female closed

  24,795

  Female local

  31,310

  Female open

  21,220

  Male juvenile

  27,452

  Male local

  26,878

  Male open

  17,438

  Male remand centre

  32,474

  Semi open

  20,224

  Average all establishments

  23,500

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the extent of the trafficking of women and children in the UK. [66152]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic given the reluctance of the victims of trafficking to report to the police. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom (UK) or the European Union. A Home Office research study, "Stopping Traffic" (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

  The Immigration and Nationality Department Intelligence Section (INDIS) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) produce confidential monthly assessments and annual threat assessments for Reflex, our multi-agency task force on organised immigration crime. These assess the extent of organised immigration crime, which includes the trafficking of women and children, as it impacts on the UK. Reflex is led by the National Crime Squad and brings together all the key agencies involved in combating the problem. including INDIS, NCIS, the security and intelligence agencies and key police forces including the Met, Kent and the British Transport police.

  Wolvercote Clinic
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a decision has been made about the future location of the Wolvercote clinic; and if he will make a statement on the provision of residential treatment of sex offenders living in the community. [67645]

  Hilary Benn
  In the interests of public protection, I have commissioned the national probation service to undertake a national review of the provision of residential treatment for sex offenders. This will encompass the work of the Lucy Faithfull foundation, which runs the Wolvercote clinic in Epsom.

  I have also decided not to proceed with the relocation of the Wolvercote clinic to Silverlands.

  The Wolvercote clinic will cease to operate at Horton hospital in Epsom following the sale of the site. Contingency plans will be implemented for the nine remaining residents so that they can complete their treatment on a non-residential basis, and for those under licence or supervision, formal contact with the authorities will continue.

  Kevin White Centre (Waiting Times)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many patients(a) are awaiting treatment and (b) have had to wait for treatment at the Kevin White centre in Merseyside in the last year; and how long the waiting period is on average in each case. [64616]
  535W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Figures are not available on the numbers waiting for treatment (or the average waiting time of each case) at the Kevin White centre for 2000–01.

  The following figures provide an illustration of current access to the unit:
  during April and May 2002 a total of 42 people were admitted into the Kevin White Unit;
  of the 18 people who entered treatment in May 2002, 15 had been waiting less than two months, with only three waiting between three and five months.

  The Government set up the National Treatment Agency last year with the objective of increasing the capacity, quality and effectiveness of drug treatment in England. Since then the NTA has:
  established waiting time targets for drug treatment;
  piloted a co-ordinated system of treatment delivery in eight areas (this aims to integrate all support services); and promoted the shared-care approach to enable GPs to work more effectively with specialist services and drug users in their areas.

  In June 2002, the NTA issued its third paper providing national guidance to Drug Action teams, commissioners and service providers on managing and reducing waiting times for specialist drug treatment.

  Detox Units
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are waiting for places in detox centres in the north west. [64615]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested is not centrally held. From information provided by the 22 Northwest Drug Action Teams (DATs) in treatment plans submitted to the National Treatment Agency (NTA) in January this year, the mean waiting time for access into treatment for in-patient detoxification services and residential rehabilitation in the Northwest is as follows:

  In-patient Detoxification Services

  December 2001:

  Priority—average 4.3 weeks (range 0–20 weeks)

  Non-priority—average 13.7 weeks (range 0–52 weeks)

  December 2002 Forecast:

  Priority—average 3.5 weeks (range 0–10 weeks

  Non-priority—average 8.8 weeks (range 2–40 weeks)

  Residential Rehabilitation:

  December 2001:

  Priority—average 5.0 weeks (range 0–24 weeks)

  Non-priority—average 9.5 weeks (range 0–43 weeks)

  December 2002 Forecast:

  Priority—average 3.4 weeks (range 0–8 weeks)

  Non-priority—average 4.7 weeks (range 0–13 weeks).

  The NTA's priority is to reduce waiting times for treatment. It aims to enable practitioners, managers and commissioners to achieve measurable and sustainable reductions in waiting times, in line with NTA targets.

  The NTA programme will achieve this by equipping local stakeholder teams, at DAT level, with the confidence, knowledge and skills to identify the main causes of avoidable waiting and to implement shared action plans to redress these.
  536W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) drug rehabilitation and (b) detox units there are in the north west of England. [64614]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are 17 specialist residential rehabilitation units in the North West of England for people recovering from problems with drug use. Nonresidential rehabilitative support is available from a large number of community drug teams offering a comprehensive service over most of the region.

  Three of the 17 units also offer detoxification services. Additionally, there are three specialist in-patient detoxification units in the north west of England.

  Many drug users undergo in-patient detoxification in non-specialist beds within existing psychiatric care systems.

  As above, community based detoxification is widely available across the region.

  Drug Misusing Offenders
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the level of repeat offending by drug misusing offenders was in(a)1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66289]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme currently provides estimates of repeat offending by drug misusing offenders for the purpose of tracking the drugs strategy. Repeat offending drug misusing offenders are defined as the proportion of arrestees who are using heroin and/or cocaine and/or crack at least once a week and who have offended at least twice a month in the last 12 months. The proportion of arrestees falling within the definition of repeat offending drug misusing offenders category was 15 per cent. for the financial year 1999–2000 (the first year of data collection). This only represents an interim figure from eight fieldwork sites. A summary of the full, two-year data from 16 sites (1999–01) is due be published later this year.

  We are currently reviewing the drugs strategy targets and progress against them, including those concerning drugs and crime, to ensure we still have the right balance and focus. As part of this review, researchers in the Home Department are undertaking work to improve our ability to track changes over time in drug-related crime.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bill of Rights
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy on a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [58366]

  Mr. Browne
  In accordance with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the then Secretary of State commissioned the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to "consult and advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland". I understand that the
  537W
  Commission is currently considering submissions made to it following the publication last September of its consultation document 'Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland' and expects to report to me in 2003. The Government's position remains that we will not reach any policy conclusions on the scope for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland until that report has been received.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  LNM Holdings
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Government approved International Finance Corporation support for LNM Holdings in its acquisition of the Czech Nova Hut Steelworks. [65662]

  Clare Short
  The Board of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), of which the British Government is a member, has not considered any proposal for financial support for LNM Holdings in its acquisition of the Czech Nova Hut Steelworks.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations have been received in relation to the EBRD financing of LNM Holdings' acquisition of the Nova Hut Steelworks. [65663]

  Clare Short
  None.

  Malawi
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's actions during the famine in Malawi. [66869]

  Clare Short
  Since October 2001 my Department has committed over £23 million to help the people and Government of Malawi deal with the food crisis. Our assistance has supported the supply of agricultural inputs to help increase domestic food production, access to employment income from public works, and supplementary feeding programmes for children under five and mothers. These activities have been carried out in partnership with local NGOs, UN agencies, EU and Malawi Government departments. Included in the above sum is £10 million which I announced last month for Malawi as a contribution to the international response to the regional crisis. It will also be used for food imports, agricultural inputs and feeding programmes for vulnerable groups.

  My officials in Malawi are playing a leading role in the Malawi national task force and working groups responsible for development of a comprehensive, long-term national food security strategy.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what deliveries of humanitarian assistance have been made to the Nuba Mountains since the ceasefire was signed. [65656]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]According to UN sources in Khartoum, over 1,600 metric tonnes (mt) of food aid has been delivered to government controlled 538W
  areas of the Nuba Mountains and 1,800 mt to areas controlled by the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army. In addition, United Nations (UN) agencies and other and international non-government organisations are actively implementing relief programmes in both areas.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of recent reports of displacement of civilians in Western Upper Nile, Sudan. [65657]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]Fighting in Western Upper Nile continues and it has not been possible to accurately ascertain the extent of displacement of civilians in the region.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made towards setting up mechanisms for monitoring the ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains, Sudan. [65655]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]An international monitoring unit has been established as part of the Joint Military Commission under the Nuba Mountains ceasefire agreement. Norwegian Brigadier General Wilhelmson heads the 95 strong Joint Monitoring Mission which comprises international monitors and representatives of the Government of Sudan and the SPLA. The UK has provided the vice chairman of the Joint Military Commission, four monitors to the international monitoring unit and US% I million to help meet the costs.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in respect of the section 8 orders being carried out in Zimbabwe. [65679]

  Clare Short
  We believe there is a strong case for land reform in Zimbabwe. However we strongly deplore the way in which the Zimbabwe Governments fast track process is being implemented.

  Section 8 orders are a part of a deeply flawed process that is not supported by the British Government or the international community.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to discuss with EU colleagues proposals to stabilise Zimbabwe's farming industry. [65682]

  Clare Short
  We have been active in promoting an international coalition, including the EU, to bring to bear whatever pressure is possible on the ruling party to change its ruinous economic policy. In the meantime, we are exploring proposals with non-governmental organisations to help small scale farmers revive maize production in the next growing season.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on assistance(a) offered and (b) proposed for assisting farmers in Zimbabwe. [65684]

  Clare Short
  Neither the UNDP nor the Abuja processes have resulted in a plan for sustainable land reform. In the absence of a credible Government programme, we are considering with non-governmental organisations how we can help poor farmers in the
  539W
  communal areas to increase food production, which has been so badly affected this year by drought, the failing economy and ill-conceived fast track land reform.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has allocated in 2002–03 for projects in Zimbabwe; and if she will list them. [65683]

  Clare Short
  The original allocation made for Zimbabwe in 2002–03 was £12 million. The following projects are being funded from this figure (most have been or will be funded over several years):

  £ million

  UN Humanitarian Assistance and Recovery Programme

  6

  Support for UN Relief and Recovery Unit

  0.086

  NGO Supplementary Feeding Programme

  4

  NGO Emergency Preparedness and Response

  0.8

  Sexual and Reproductive Health Phase2

  20

  Social Marketing Phase 2

  6.8

  Education Section HIV/AIDS Impact Assessment

  0.13

  Bikita integrated rural water supply and sanitation

  12.72

  Small Dams Rehabilitation

  1.96

  Credit for the Information Sector

  1.84

  Agribusiness Entrepreneur Network development

  0.492

  Wills and Inheritance rights programme

  0.86

  Empowerment of Farm Worker Communities

  1.6

  We have recently increased spending in the southern Africa region to assist with the current food crisis, and Zimbabwe will benefit from additional support through the UN World Food Programme, and through nongovernmental organisation feeding and agricultural recovery programmes.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of families in Zimbabwe who have been moved from their homes as a result of section 8 orders. [65678]

  Clare Short
  It is difficult to obtain accurate information. According to the Commercial Farmers' Union about 2,900 farm owners have received section 8 orders and most of these will be legally required to leave their homes in the first half of August. However many may choose not to do so at this point while further legal avenues are being explored. Farm workers are also at risk of losing their only income and their home with the change of farm ownership. There are around 300,000 farm workers affected by the land reform programme which with their families affects perhaps two million people. While we do not know exactly how many of them have already been forced off farms, we are working with the farm workers' organisations and the UN World Food Programme to monitor their situation and meet their immediate humanitarian needs.

  Oxfam
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last met the Chairman of Oxfam. [66333]

  Clare Short
  I have not recently met Rosemary Thorp, the current chair of Oxfam. However I do regularly meet with Barbara Stocking, the Director of Oxfam, alongside other Heads of major NGOs.

  Poverty Reduction Strategy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 753W, which countries have a poverty reduction strategy that exhibits characteristics of strategic processes for sustainability. [65500]

  Clare Short
  There is no internationally-agreed system for monitoring the extent to which poverty reduction strategies exhibit characteristics of strategic processes for sustainability. The 'characteristics' of strategic processes for sustainability are broadly the same as the agreed `principles' of strategic processes for sustainability. The challenge is to ensure that strategies adhere to these principles.

  The following 13 countries have agreed formal Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) with the World bank: Albania, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Guyana, Honduras, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia.

  A further 33 have interim PRSPs, which set out a road-map for reaching a full PRSP:

  Armenia

  Azerbaijan

  Benin

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Cape Verde

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Cote D'Ivoire

  DR Congo

  Djibouti

  Ethiopia

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Guinea-Bissau

  Guinea

  Kenya

  Kyrgyz Republic

  Lao PDR

  Lesotho

  Macedonia

  madagascar

  Malawi

  Mali

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Pakistan

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Tajikistan

  Yemen.

  Full details of these can be found at www.worldbank.org. Other developing countries have poverty plans, though the sustainability of these is difficult to quantify. Some display more sustainable characteristics than others. My Department, together with partner

  541W
  governments and the rest of the international community, works to ensure they provide the framework for sustainable development.

  UN World Food Summit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people attended the UN World Food Summit in Rome in June from(a) her Department and (b) other UK Government Departments; and what the total cost of the visit was. [66223]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Summit: five years later event in June was attended by(a) seven people from DFID and (b) four from DEFRA. The total travel and subsistence costs were £6,250.00. There were also three non-officials on the delegation whose costs wee not met from public funds.

  UN Summit on Children
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people attended the UN Summit on Children in New York in May from(a) her Department and (b) other UK Government departments; and what the total cost of the visit was. [66221]

  Clare Short
  The delegation to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children comprised eight people from DFID, including Hilary Been, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 11 people from other UK Government Departments and six people from the UK Mission in New York. Not all invoices have been received but the total cost of the visit will be in the region of £75,000.

  In addition other Government Departments financed attendance by one NGO representative and two young people at an approximate cost of £15,000.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in her Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [65957]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is as follows:

  Gas (Kw/H)

  Electricity(Kw/H)

  Oil(litres)

  Total cost (£)

  1996–97

  3,078,904

  2,837,540

  n/a

  212,935

  1997–98

  3,065,413

  3,037,780

  9,892

  227,056

  1998–99

  3,271,499

  3,105,217

  11,233

  211,036

  1999–2000

  3,694,801

  3,078,375

  11,744

  185,826

  2000–01

  3,180,602

  2,895,150

  11,679

  187,857

  2001–02

  3,279,018

  3,018,021

  15,378

  221,941

  n/a = Not available

  The contract for our electricity supply in London has recently expired. Our new agreement sets out that 10 per cent. of our supply is from renewable sources. We will look to establish a similar arrangement for our East Kilbride office when the current contract expires next year.

  South Africa (Discussions)
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Government of South Africa regarding the humanitarian situation in(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique, (c) Zimbabwe, (d) Zambia, (e) Lesotho and (f) Swaziland. [66177]

  Clare Short
  DFID officials are in touch with the Government of South Africa and with Grain South Africa. South Africa is participating in World Food Programme and SADC discussions on the humanitarian situation in the region.

  South Africa's transport corridors are essential for moving food supplies to inland countries in the region. The South African Government has recently worked with WFP on an assessment of the routes.

  South Africa could also be affected by movements of people from areas of food shortage.

  Trafficking
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to prevent people trafficking in(a) West Africa and (b) central and eastern Europe. [66183]

  Clare Short
  Combating people trafficking is part of a wider set of issues related to the vulnerability of poor people to the interests of national and international traffickers. It is an international problem requiring co-ordinated action. DFID's goal is to eliminate the poverty and social injustice that creates the conditions where such abuse can flourish. With other Government Departments, we are supporting the efforts of Governments and international agencies to strengthen social protection policies and justice systems in line with the international treaty framework covering these issues.

  We are also supporting efforts such as Anti-slavery International's work with civil society in West Africa to stop the trafficking of children for domestic work, and the International Organisation for Migration's programme of training for agencies helping trafficked women in the Balkans.

  Ghana
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her Department is doing to support cocoa producers in Ghana. [66187]

  Clare Short
  DFID has provided a bank guarantee to secure finances for the Day Chocolate Company (33 per cent. owned by Kuapa Kokoo—a Ghanaian smallholder cocoa farmer's union). Our support aims to develop new opportunities for mainstreaming fair trade chocolate into the United Kingdom large-scale multiple retail market. The products are Divine, Darkly Divine and Dubble. This represents a major advance in fair trade marketing.

  DFID is also supporting a substantial portfolio of research developing integrated pest management and biological control solutions for a variety of key cocoa pests and diseases. These technologies are particularly critical in view of the move towards organic productions.
  543W
  We are also supporting the Government of Ghana's (GoG) plans to improve rural infrastructure by installing steel bridges on feeder roads in rural areas of western and central regions—the main cocoa growing regions. Most of the current log bridges have deteriorated to the extent that they cannot carry loaded vehicles and, as a result, there is limited access to markets and social services. The goal of the project is to improve the livelihoods of the people living in the targeted areas by providing physical access, all year round, to markets, schools and hospitals/clinics. DFID has committed £8.5 million to this project and so far 28 bridges have been constructed, with a further 37 envisaged.

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of her Department's funding has been allocated to countries in central and eastern Europe in each of the last five years. [66188]

  Clare Short
  Figures on DFID spending broken down by country are available in "Statistics on International Development", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The relevant tables for the figures requested are Table 7.4 "Bilateral Aid by Country (Europe)" which shows DFID spend in each country in Europe for the last five years and Table 3 "Gross Public Expenditure on Aid" which shows DFID expenditure split between bilateral and multilateral channels for the last five years.

  Corruption
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to combat corruption in(a) Malawi, (b) Mozambique, (c) Zimbabwe, (d) Zambia, (e) Lesotho and (f) Swaziland. [66179]

  Clare Short
  The six countries are all signatories to the Southern African Development Community Protocol against corruption, which outlines comprehensive measures to prevent, detect, punish and eradicate corruption in the public and private sectors.

  Working with governments and other development organisations, our programmes provide a range of assistance depending on the particular needs of each country. This addresses both enforcement action against corruption, such as effective anti-corruption agencies, and preventive measures, such as strengthening public sector financial management and supporting civil society to promote transparency and accountability in public life.

  Malawi and Zambia benefit from £2 million DFID support for a World Bank Institute anti-corruption programme in 14 countries.

  In Mozambique and Zambia we are working with the World bank to survey the extent of corruption and to support efforts to develop a national anti-corruption strategy which involves all key stakeholders. In Lesotho we are working with the Government to design a justice sector programme which will include the establishment of an anti-corruption unit.

  In Malawi and Zambia we have helped to establish anti-corruption commissions and have provided assistance to build up their management systems and capability to conduct preventative and investigative activities.
  544W
  In Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Lesotho we are supporting efforts to strengthen financial controls and administrative systems in government.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66193]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development does not have a general policy on the use of 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public. Instead, and in line with promoting the widest possible access to its Public Enquiry Point, DFID provides an 0845 number for UK callers.

  The cost range for callers using the 0845 number is 3.95p (peak) to 1p (weekends), compared with 7.91p (peak) to 2p (weekends) for an 0870 number.

  GATS Talks
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her priorities are in respect of the forthcoming CATS talks. [66559]

  Clare Short
  The current negotiations on the GATS offer developing countries the potential to gain access to new markets overseas and to benefit from more efficient and competitive services at home. One of my key priorities for the GATS talks is to ensure that developing countries are able to participate fully in the negotiations. To this end, my Department is working with the UN Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on a £350,000 project to strengthen developing country involvement in the services negotiations in Geneva. We are also working with other donors and international organisations to find the best way of providing technical assistance to developing countries to carry out an impact assessment of the requests made of them.

  More generally, my officials are working closely with the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) and other Government Departments to ensure that UK and EC policy on trade in services takes development considerations into account. In the recently agreed EC requests of other WTO Members, for example, requests to least developed countries have been mainly limited to 3–5 sectors, with a focus on sectors where liberalisation is most likely to contribute to development. The requests also make clear that the EC recognises the importance of liberalisation being underpinned by domestic regulatory frameworks designed to ensure the achievement of public policy objectives.

  Burundi
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the policy of the World bank and IMF towards Burundi. [66325]

  Clare Short
  The IMF have been in regular dialogue with the Government of Burundi in recent months and will be undertaking a further mission to Burundi in July to progress negotiations on an emergency post-conflict facility, which we hope will be in place this autumn. The World Bank's Transitional Support Strategy for Burundi
  545W
  was agreed in March, involving support for demobilisation and reintegration, HIV/AIDS prevention and agricultural development, and a further Economic Rehabilitation Credit is under preparation. We remain in close touch with both institutions about their plans.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what level of development aid her Department has made available to(a) Burundi and (b) other countries in the Great Lakes Region in the last five years. [66324]

  Clare Short
  Over the past five years, my Department made the following levels of development aid available to Burundi, and other countries in the Great Lakes region:

  £ million

  Burundi

  Dem. Rep. Congo

  Rwanda

  Uganda

  1997–98

  1.6

  6.9

  6.2

  47.9

  1998–99

  0.3

  0.5

  13.6

  52.5

  1999–2000

  0.9

  1.3

  14.4

  81.2

  2000–01

  1.5

  3.1

  32.8

  86.2

  2001–02

  10.5

  15.5

  126.9

  166.6

  1 These figures are provisional. Final disbursement figures will be available in November when the 2002 edition of DFID's 'Statistics on International Development' will be published.

  Green Ministers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development who her Department's Green Minister is; when they(a) have attended and (b) plan to attend meetings of the Green Ministers Committee; what the outcomes of meetings were for her Department's activities; and if she will make a statement. [65984]

  Clare Short
  Our Green Minister is Sally Keeble MP. She was appointed to the ENV (G) Committee on 29 May.

  Following the general election in June 2001, the previously informal Green Ministers Committee was upgraded to a Cabinet Sub-Committee of ENV and it is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. Therefore I cannot relate progress or outcomes by my Department to anything that has been discussed.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of(a) paper and (b) other goods purchased by her Department was recycled paper in each year since 1997; what the annual total cost of these purchases was; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65766]

  Clare Short
  The following table shows my Department's costs for paper and paper products since 1997. The recycled element of the figures up to last year are for recycled paper only; other recycled products were obtained but were not separately recorded or identified. since May of this year, 98 per cent. of paper used by my London office is recycled and therefore this proportion 546W
  will now increase significantly. Other recycled paper products, particularly envelopes where available, will be purchased in future. Further trials of recycled paper are currently being carried out in our East Kilbride office.

  £

  Cost of paper and paper products

  1997

  57,658 of which 199 was recycled paper only

  1998

  62,790 of which 235 was recycled paper only

  1999

  48,249 of which 99 was recycled paper only

  2000

  93,439 of which 2,179 was recycled paper only

  2001

  67,447 of which 1,289 was recycled paper only

  2002

  28,327 of which 2,527 was recycled paper only

  Health Care Reform Programmes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support her Department is giving to health care reform programmes in 2002–03 in(a) Tanzania, (b) Zambia, (c) Ghana and (d) Bangladesh. [65757]

  Clare Short
  In Tanzania we plan to disburse up to £11.8 million to the health sector development programme during 2002–03 to support health sector reforms.

  A further £4.76 million will be spent on technical assistance projects to support improved approaches to managing malaria, increasing access to and quality of reproductive health care, and better evidence based planning for public health services.

  Commission on Macroeconomics and Health
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money was provided by her Department in 2001–02 to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. [65755]

  Clare Short
  My Department provided £693,073 in 2001–02 to support the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.

  Overseas Financial Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to ensure that overseas financial aid is used for development purposes. [65735]

  Clare Short
  My Department continuously reviews and assesses mechanisms for the delivery of, and accounting for, UK development funds in order to minimise the risks of misuse.

  Financial aid to developing countries through direct Budget support is provided after a thorough evaluation of public financial management and accountability systems against specific benchmarks, and risks have been assessed in a systematic way.

  DFID set out the arrangements in detail in a guidance note for staff in March 2002, "Managing Fiduciary Risk When Providing Direct Budget Support". A copy is being placed in the Library.
  547W
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence her Department has collated over the last 12 months that overseas financial aid has not been used for development purposes. [65731]

  Clare Short
  My Department has no such evidence.

  EU Aid
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU summit in Seville with respect to aid; [65190]

  (2) whether EU development aid may be tied to asylum policies following the conclusions reached in the Seville summit. [65189]

  Clare Short
  The conclusions of the European Council meeting in Seville (20–21 June) dealt with three issues relevant to international development.

  First, as part of the EU's continuing preparations for enlargement, it was agreed that the work of the Development Council should be merged into a new General Affairs and External Relations Council which will also deal with foreign policy, military and security policy, foreign trade and humanitarian aid. The Government will be discussing working arrangements for this new Council over the next few weeks in order to ensure effective handling of the European Community's development programmes.

  Second, in their discussions of asylum and immigration, Heads of State and Government agreed that closer economic cooperation, trade expansion, development assistance and conflict prevention were all means of promoting prosperity and reducing the underlying causes of migration flows. It was also agreed that, in dealing with countries that do no cooperate in combating illegal immigration, measures taken by the European Union should not jeopardise EU development objectives.

  Third, Heads of State also endorsed the EU position for the World summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and stressed the Union's willingness to continue playing a leading role in the preparation of the summit.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much EU aid will be used to support poor countries' efforts to comply with the EU's asylum policy in each of the next three years. [65194]

  Clare Short
  There has been no change in the objectives of the EC's development programmes. A separate budget line was established in 2001 to fund migration-related activities in third countries. Euro 10 million was committed through that budget in 2001 and Euro 22.8 million was provided for 2002. This budget is not used in pursuit of the EC's development policy. The amount available for this budget is decided on an annual basis and figures for the next three years are therefore not available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the steps she has taken to ensure that the European Union devotes more of its resources to the poorest countries. [64690]
  548W
  Clare Short
  In 2000, only 38 per cent. of EC aid was spent in low income countries compared to 70 per cent. a decade before. In November 2000 we secured adoption of an EC development policy which, for the first time, makes poverty reduction the central objective of EC development programmes. This new policy calls for priority in resource allocation to be given to low income countries and we continue to work for agreement on the budget allocations to implement this policy and have the greatest impact on poverty reduction. In particular we are working for an increase in allocations for Asia. We welcome the positive steps that have been taken to reform EC development assistance. This should help improve the rate of programme implementation, of particular importance to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries where many of the world's poorest people live. But much remains to be done to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance.

  United Nations Development Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Development Programme in crisis prevention and recovery. [64976]

  Clare Short
  Crisis prevention and recovery has been identified as one of the six core practice areas within the UNDP mandate. The former Emergency Response Division which deals with these issues was upgraded to a Bureau in November 2001 and now has greater authority to engage in the inter-agency processes such as the Executive Committee on Peace and Security, and to develop its role in peace building in relation to that of the UN Department for Political Affairs. These are very welcome developments, through which UNDP is attempting to realise the "untapped" potential of the organisation in crisis and conflict situations, as noted in the Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations (the Brahimi report), published in August 2000.

  My Department has observed that strategy and policy development over the past 12 months is starting to deliver demonstrable benefits at the country level. UNDP's transition recovery programme, developed in the aftermath of the earthquake in Gujarat in January 2001, is a positive example of a community-led recovery process which builds on local traditions and capacities. UNDP has also played a key role in drafting the UN's five-year strategy for mine action. The pivotal role of UNDP is clearly recognised by the relevant players in this field, since it has been tasked to lead on 10 of the 40 strategic objectives.

  Crucially, UNDP is also beginning to develop policy and tools to deliver conflict-sensitive development programmes. My Department is encouraging UNDP to incorporate conflict assessment into planning and management processes such as the common country assessment and the UN development assistance framework.

  However, there is still a considerable amount of progress to be made, before UNDP's role in crises and conflicts will be universally accepted and welcomed by the United Nations family and the broader international community. It is essential that UNDP capitalises on the opportunities which now present themselves and focuses on successful implementation at the country level across

  549W
  the full range of technical areas. My Department will continue to work with UNDP's Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery and encourage a continued focus on improving delivery at the field level.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61642]

  Clare Short
  Performance against DFID's Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) is reported on annually in our departmental report, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The SDA forms an integral part of DFID's systems. Separate analysis of costs and savings from the pursuit of SDA targets could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61043]

  Clare Short
  Performance against DFID's Public Service Agreement (PSA) is reported on annually in our departmental report, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. The PSA forms an integral part of DFID's systems. Separate analysis of costs and savings from the pursuit of PSA targets could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support her Department gave to the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund in 2001–02. [67000]

  Clare Short
  My Department provided US%38.5 million (equivalent to £26,708,788) to the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF) during 2001–02.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [66184]

  Clare Short
  The various technical and economic agreements reached at the recent Inter-Congolese Dialogue at Sun City represented some progress towards a settlement of the conflict in the DRC, but the key agreement on an inclusive transitional government has not yet been achieved. We are working actively within the UN and directly with the parties concerned to help promote an inclusive agreement, which will be an essential basis for agreeing a constitution and planning elections. We also need to make progress on DDR and a halt to the arming of negative forces so that the security of Rwanda and Burundi can be improved and a phased withdrawal of foreign forces agreed. I plan to visit Kinshasa at the end of July to discuss these issues further with President Kabila and explore what more the UK can do to help.
  550W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action has been taken by(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) the international community as a result of the UN Panel investigation into illegal exploitation of mineral resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo published in November 2001. [65559]

  Clare Short
  The November 2001 report was the second produced by the UN Panel on resource exploitation in the DRC. At the request of the Panel, the UN Security Council took note of the report and recommended that the Secretary General grant an extension of the Panel's mandate for a further six months to prepare a final report which is due in August. It is anticipated that this will provide an updated assessment of the situation and make recommendations to the UN and international community on specific actions which should be taken to help end the illegal exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of wealth of the DRC. We shall study the final report carefully and participate fully in the Security Council's deliberations on its recommendations. In the meantime, the UK has encouraged the Governments of countries mentioned in the Panel's reports to take the allegations seriously and investigate the activities of the individuals and organisations named therein.

  Small Arms Strategy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the share of the Global Conflict Prevention Pool's Small Arms Strategy that has been spent. [64688]

  Clare Short
  In partnership with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, my Department has established a UK Small Arms and Light Weapons Reduction Programme under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. Over the three years from 2001–02 to 2003–04, we will allocate £19.5 million to UN agencies, regional organisations, Governments and non-governmental organisations seeking to develop and implement local, national, regional and international measures to combat small arms problems. During financial year 2001–02, £3.4 million was spent of an allocated £4.35 million. The under spend has been carried over to the current financial year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Sales
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on arms sales to(a) India and (b) Pakistan between December 2001 and June 2002; and if he will make a statement. [65409]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been no change in our policy on arms sales to India or Pakistan between December 2001 and June 2002. All relevant export licence applications for India and Pakistan are considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, and in the light of the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Andrew Love) by my hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter (Mr. Ben Bradshaw), on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1296–98W.
  551W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's arms export policies in calming tensions between Pakistan and India between December 2001 and June 2002; and if he will make a statement. [65410]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All relevant export licence applications for India and Pakistan are considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, and in the light of the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Andrew Love) by my hon. Friend, the member for Exeter (Mr. Ben Bradshaw), on 15 March 2002,Official Report, column 1296–98W. The consolidated criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for external aggression.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has undertaken(a) to assess and (b) to prevent the diversion of arms to terrorist organisations in Pakistan. [65408]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government focus their efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage, including where needed through checks made by our Posts overseas. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the best way of preventing arms from falling into the wrong hands. Nevertheless, the Government remain committed to carrying out end-use monitoring in those circumstances where this will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion and where such monitoring is practicable. And our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on reports of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment. We take these reports into account in our assessment.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations his Department received regarding(a) increases in Pakistan's (i) offensive and (ii) defensive weapons capabilities in each month from November 2001 to May 2002 and (b) his Department's assessment as to their effect on relations between India and Pakistan; [65412]

  (2) what representations his Department received regarding (a) increases in India's (i) offensive and (ii) defensive weapons capabilities in each month from November 2001 to May 2002 and (b) his Department's assessment as to their effect on relations between India and Pakistan. [65411]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received numerous representations on India and Pakistani weapons capabilities in the last eight months. We do not record separately whether the representations distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 25 June 2002, Official Report, column 728, as long as there are one million men under arms on either side of the Line of Control. the risks of a conflict remain significant.

  India
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made with the Government of India on bilateral training initiatives in counter-terrorism. [66173]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the then Parliamentary Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Ben Bradshaw) to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Stephen Pound) on 13 May 2002,Official Report, column 456W.

  Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 293W, whether the term income refers to cash available from contributions to (a) the OPCW Secretariat and (b) the agreed budget of the OPCW; by when the major budgetary contributors to the OPCW budget finished paying their contributions in each of the last five years; (i) what the role of the Head of Administration in the OPCW is and (ii) from which country this post-holder came in 2001; if he will make a statement on the monthly statements made by Mr. Jose Bustani covering the operational programme; if he will make a statement regarding the use of the term unrealistic; whether the revised budget of the OPCW addresses the concerns over the previous OPCW budget proposals referred to; how many member states of the OPCW there were in each of the last five years; what the UK Government's estimate is of the frequency of inspections (A) proposed for the major budgetary contributors to the OPCW under the budgetary proposals referred to and (B) for the major budgetary contributors to the OPCW under the current budgetary proposals; and if he will make a statement on the action of the Conference of States Parties in the handling of the staff grading review referred to. [65259]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The term income referred to the income of the OPCW from the usual three sources: contributions from member states in accordance with assessments adopted by the Conference of States Parties; payments by declared possessors of chemical weapons in respect of costs incurred by the OPCW in verifying chemical weapons destruction; and interest on cash deposits held.

  We do not have precise information on the timing of payments by member states. Our understanding is that all the major contributors paid their assessed contributions by mid-year in each of the past five years.

  The Head of the Administrative Division of the OPCW supervises the work of the budget and finance branch, the human resources branch, the information systems branch, the procurement and support services branch and the training and staff development branch. The post was vacant throughout much of 2001: it was occupied by a US national early in the year, and succeeded in September by another US national.

  The OPCW Secretariat, through much of 2001, issued monthly statements on income and expenditure. The Director-General included commentary on the operational programme in his statements to Executive Council meetings and in separate briefings of delegations through the year, where he outlined the cuts to the operational

  553W
  programmes he believed were needed to keep within anticipated income; and reported on progress in delivering what remained of the operational programmes. The Executive Council, on receipt of these reports, requested further authoritative information; requested specific proposals to deal with problems identified; expressed concerns about proposed cuts in operational programmes; authorised the use of all available cash to finance credible levels of verification activity and international co-operation and assistance.

  The first draft of the 2000 budget proposed 12 per cent. growth over 1999; 2001 draft proposed 17 per cent. growth over 2000; 2002 draft proposed 24 per cent. over 2001; and the preliminary draft put to ABAF (Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial matters) in respect of 2003 proposed 29 per cent. growth over 2002. During these years, the norm in most international organisations was zero growth, and OPCW member states regularly made clear each year their belief that the draft budget should much more closely reflect the financial and political reality, so as to provide a sound basis for negotiations.

  At Entry-into-Force on 29 April 1997, there were 87 States Parties. At 31 December 1997–105; 31 Dec 1998–121; 31 Dec 1999–128; 31 Dec 2000–141; 31 Dec 2001 (and today)—145.

  OPCW industrial inspection targets are in many respects randomly selected by the Technical Secretariat, so it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy the likely frequency of inspections to be faced in any country or group of countries. Previous budget proposals have provided an indication of numbers of inspections planned for the various categories of industrial facilities subject to declaration and inspection. The current budget proposal for 2003 under consideration in the Executive Council makes comparable projections based on current risk assessments which, if implemented, we estimate would tend to provide a more global coverage by the OPCW. If total inspection numbers remain broadly the same as in past years, as is currently forecast, this shift in emphasis could perhaps slightly reduce inspection frequency in 2003 for some of the major contributors, relative to what might have been expected from budget projections in previous years.

  The Director-General, in August 1998, published a grading review conducted by an outside consultant, together with his intended actions in respect of the review, including his decision to implement, effective 1 January 1999, all the grade changes recommended. In October 1998, the Director-General noted to the Executive Council his understanding that some member states had reservations about the funding needed to implement the grading recommendations. In November 1998, the Conference of States Parties decided that the reclassification of posts involved should be discussed and decided by States Parties at a later stage, and requested the Director-General meanwhile not to implement the study. The Conference of States Parties in July 1999 reiterated its request to the Director-General not to implement the 1998 staff grading review, and requested him to initiate a new classification study once terms of reference were approved by the Executive Council. In June 1999, OPCW staff members filed complaints with the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, an action joined later by a total of 89 staff. The Tribunal concluded that, in August
  554W
  1998, the Director-General had had the competence for classification of posts, and that the re-classification announced should therefore have proceeded on 1 January 1999. The concern of many States Parties was that the basis of the grading review was open to question, the Director-General's decision to implement it was premature, and he had no budgetary authority to incur the significant additional costs that would arise.

  Since the recent change in leadership the situation at the OPCW has improved with indications that better staff morale and planning are leading to greater efficiency and effectiveness.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 294W, if there is a role for member states of the OPCW in approving the transfers of funds referred to; and if he will make a statement on the (a) reasons given for the loss of confidence referred to and (b) late payments by member states of the OPCW. [65275]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The OPCW Financial Regulations provide for transfers of appropriated funds between programmes. Transfers of up to 10 per cent. of the original appropriation may be made by the Director-General, and reported to the Executive Council; transfers over 10 per cent. may be made only with the prior concurrence of the Executive Council. All transfers should be reported to the Conference of States Parties.

  The loss of confidence in the former Director-General by a significant number of members of the OPCW Executive Council we believe arose largely from the financial and administrative concerns noted in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 18 June 2002, Official Report, columns 293–294W. There was also a perception among many Executive Council members that the former Director-General took an unnecessarily confrontational approach in his dealings with the Executive Council, to the detriment of the effective functioning of the OPCW, and contrary to the supportive role envisaged in Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

  As at 31 May 2002, 19 States Parties had outstanding sums due in respect of 1997 assessed contributions, totalling about £114,000 or 0.5 per cent. of that year's budget. The figures for 1998 are 29 States Parties, £177,000 (0.5 per cent.); for 1999, 31 States Parties, £50.000 (0.2 per cent.); for 2000, 28 States Parties, £76,000 (0.3 per cent.); for 2001, 50 States Parties, £590,000 (1.7 per cent.). So far in 2002, to 18 June, 76 States Parties have paid their 2002 assessed contributions in full and another 13 have made part payments totalling £34.75 million (95.6 per cent. of the budget). 56 States Parties have yet to pay any of their assessed contributions for 2002, amounting to £1.625 million (4.5 percent. of the budget). The UK pays in full and on time, and takes every opportunity to urge all States Parties to do likewise.

  Oman
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Oman. [64822]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Oman.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to protect the interests of United Kingdom nationals engaged in legal action in Zimbabwe. [65244]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our consular staff in Harare will provide support and assistance where they properly can, but in all such cases, as elsewhere in the world, British citizens are advised to seek local legal advice on how best to pursue their case.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the medicines and medical equipment that are on the dual use list of banned imports to Iraq. [65558]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no list of banned imports to Iraq. The Goods Review List, introduced by UN resolution 1409, contains dual-use items whose export to Iraq is subject to UN Security Council approval. It is not a denial list. Before approving Goods Review Listed items for export, the UN Sanctions Committee, drawing on expert advice from the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the IAEA, will decide whether the military risk of allowing the Iraqi regime to have the listed items outweighs their humanitarian benefits. The Goods Review List is a publicly accessible document, the contents of which are available on the UN website at www.un.org/Departments/oip/index.html.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Nations organisations in Iraq are present on the same basis as they routinely operate in countries where there is a non-military UN presence. [65557]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  United Nations organisations are present in Iraq in support of the UN's Oil for Food humanitarian programme. FAO, UNICEF, UNDP and WHO also operate country programmes, as they do elsewhere.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the purpose for which each United Nations-related organisation is present in Iraq. [65556]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  United Nations-related organisations are present in Iraq for the following purposes:

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Role

  NDPB

  Ms

  Gill

  Richardson

  Member

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Ms

  Hazel

  Duffy

  Member

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Mr.

  Timothy

  Corner

  Member

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Mr.

  Michael

  Watson

  Member

  Advisory Panel on Standards in the Planning Inspectorate

  Ms

  Judith

  Curson

  Member

  Audit Commission

  Mr.

  John

  Bowen

  Member

  Audit Commission

  556W
  Support to the UN Oil for Food programme:

  WFP (food sector)

  WHO (health, nutrition, water and sanitation sectors) FAO (agriculture sector)

  UNDP (electricity sector)

  UNICEF (education, nutrition, health sectors)

  UNESCO (education sector)

  UNOPS (demining, water and sanitation sectors)

  Habitat (housing, resettlement sectors)

  ITU (telecommunications sector)

  UNGCI (security for UN personnel in northern Iraq).

  Country programmes:

  FAO, UNICEF, UNDP and WHO also operate country programmes, the funding and activities of which are separate from the work these agencies do under the Oil for Food programme.

  UNIKOM:

  Monitoring the demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border.

  British Nationals (Prisoners)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on when it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to support officially a plea for clemency on compassionate grounds from a British national imprisoned overseas. [67699]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Decisions on whether to support an application for clemency are taken at ministerial level. When considering an application for clemency on compassionate grounds, Ministers will, as a general rule, mirror the policy applied by the UK prison services when considering applications for early release on compassionate grounds submitted by prisoners in the UK. Each application for support will be considered on its merits on a case-by-case basis.

  Ministers would not normally support a plea for clemency on compassionate grounds if a Prisoner Transfer Agreement exists between the UK and the sentencing state and a transfer to the UK could be completed within a reasonable time frame. In such circumstances, any request for early or temporary release on compassionate grounds could then be made to the appropriate UK prison authority.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the public appointments he has made since 7 June 2001. [66365]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 7 June last year Ministers have made the following appointments or re-appointments to the non-departmental public bodies currently sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  557W

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Role

  NDPB

  Mr.

  Roy

  Hoyle

  Member

  Audit Commission

  Mr.

  Anthony

  Prior

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Mr.

  Michael

  Finn

  Chair

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Ms

  May

  Cassar

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Mr.

  David

  Holliday

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Mr.

  Peter

  Warburton

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Mr.

  Matthew

  Smith

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Ms

  Janet

  Young

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Mr.

  Thiru

  Moolan

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Ms

  Clare

  Wright

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Ms

  Lynne

  Sullivan

  Member

  Building Regulations Advisory Committee

  Rev.

  David

  Hazlehurst

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Georgina

  Holdsworth

  Member

  Community Forum

  Ms

  Allison

  Trimble

  Member

  Community Forum

  Ms

  Barbara

  Willis-Brown

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs

  Camille

  Ade-John

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Joe

  Montgomery

  Chair

  Community Forum

  Rev.

  Graham

  Brownlee

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Edward

  Cox

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Carol

  Dickinson

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Jeanette

  Worthington

  Member

  Community Forum

  Ms

  Laura

  Moynaham

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Graham

  Bell

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Lorraine

  Cavanagh

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Zualfqar

  Hussain

  Member

  Community Forum

  Ms

  Jess

  Steele

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Richard

  Kemp

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Waheed

  Saleem

  Member

  Community Forum

  Dr.

  Mohammed

  Ali

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mr.

  Mohammed

  Malik

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Elizabeth

  Ladimeji

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Maureen

  Lambert

  Member

  Community Forum

  Mrs.

  Margaret

  Ford

  Chair

  English Partnerships

  Mrs.

  Janet

  Putman

  Member

  Housing Action Trust Castle Vale

  Mr.

  Ronny

  Ross

  Member

  Housing Action Trust Liverpool

  Mr.

  John

  Petitt

  Member

  Housing Action Trust Liverpool

  Ms

  Yvonne

  Hutchinson

  Member

  Housing Corporation

  Mr.

  Andrew

  Winckler

  Member

  Housing Corporation

  Ms

  Geraldine

  Huka

  Member

  Housing Corporation

  Ms

  Corinne

  Swain

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Mr.

  Roger

  Groom

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Mrs.

  Hazel

  Williamson

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Mr.

  Ronald

  Spinney

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Miss

  Wendy

  Shillam

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Mr.

  Simon

  Kirkham

  Member

  Property Advisory Group

  Mr.

  Geoff

  Freeman

  Lawyer Chair

  Rent Assessment Panel Northern

  Mr.

  Robert

  Wilson

  Lawyer Chair

  Rent Assessment Panel Southern

  Mayoral Management
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether local authorities must first obtain the consent of their electorate by a referendum before they proceed to a mayoral management system. [65996]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Act 2000 specifies three models of executive arrangements, two of which involve a directly elected mayor. The Act, together with regulations made under it, provides that if a local authority proposes to move to or from either of the mayoral models, they must first obtain the consent of their local electorate in a referendum.

  Elected Mayors
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which authorities have indicated that they wish to proceed to elected mayors. [65995]

  Mr. Raynsford
  To date, 28 local authorities have held referendums under the Local Government Act 2000 on whether or not to adopt executive arrangements that 558W
  involve a directly elected mayor. Eleven of these referendums produced a result in favour of a system with an elected mayor. Of these, seven (Doncaster, Hartlepool, Lewisham, Middlesbrough, Newham, North Tyneside, and Watford) held their first mayoral election on 2 May this year, and the remaining four (Bedford, Hackney, Mansfield, and Stoke-on-Trent) will hold their first mayoral election on 17 October 2002. Corby borough council have also recently advised us that they will be holding a mayoral referendum later this year, following receipt of a valid local petition.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing regional government in each English region; and if he will make a statement. [65860]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 24 May 2002 to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key),Official Report, column 624W.

  Local Government Workers
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to guarantee the conditions of local government workers where they have been transferred to the private sector. [64340]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced on 26 March measures to ensure fairness for all staff working on local authority contracts, including those transferred out of local government as a result of an outsourcing of a service.

  In broad terms, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (as amended) (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions (except in relation to future occupational pensions) when the business in which they work is transferred from one employer to another, and the business retains its identity.

  The measures we have announced include a commitment to legislate to make statutory within local government the provisions in the Cabinet Office `Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector' and the annex to it, 'A Fair Deal for Staff Pensions'. This will ensure that local authority contracting exercises are conducted on the basis that TUPE will apply, unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances, and that transferees' pension benefits will be protected. New statutory guidance to local authorities will also set out a package of measures which will ensure that new joiners taken on to work beside transferees on local government contracts will be treated fairly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each English local authority, the level of spending on(a) education and (b) social services expressed as a percentage of the SSA for that service in that authority in 2001–02. [65091]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much each local authority in England and Wales with social services responsibilities(a) spent on personal social services and (b) was allocated for personal social services by standard spending assessment in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [65202]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Figures for England have been placed in the Library of the House. Figures for Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  Capital Receipts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on plans to distribute capital receipts from local authority housing sales via a central pool. [65671]

  Mr. McNulty
  Last December's local government White Paper—"Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services"—set out our intention to introduce arrangements to pool a proportion of future housing capital receipts 560W
  arising in debt-free authorities for use to finance new housing investment where the need is greatest. The change, which will be introduced alongside other changes to the local government capital finance system, will bring the treatment of debt-free authorities in line with the arrangements that apply to other authorities. We will be consulting on the detailed operation of the pooling shortly.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the nominal Single Regeneration Budget's lifetime expenditure on physical regeneration will be. [66240]

  Mr. McNulty
  1,027 schemes under the six rounds of the Single Regeneration Budget stand to receive over £5.7 billion of SRB grant over their lifetime of up to seven years, many of which include physical regeneration activities. However, due to the holistic, multiple-objective nature of the majority of these schemes, it is not possible to say how much of SRB funding is available by specific activity including physical regeneration.

  Deprivation
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the rank is of each local authority that has undertaken a full or partial transfer since 1997 under(a) the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation and (b) the Indices of Deprivation 2000, in each year. [64393]

  Mr. McNulty
  The table sets out those authorities who have undertaken full or partial transfer since 1998 by their rank on the extent measure of the Index of Local Deprivation 1998 and the Indices of Deprivation 2000. The extent measure shows the proportion of the local authority's population living in one of the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in England. It should be noted that the extent measure is one of the four measures of deprivation in the ILD and one of the six district measures in the ID 2000.

  Authority

  Extent measure—ILD 1998

  Extent measure—ID 2000

  Allerdale BC

  153

  82

  Basildon DC

  158

  90

  Bath and North East Somerset C

  158

  158

  Birmingham CC

  15

  37

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  43

  15

  Boston BC

  158

  158

  Burnley BC

  74

  62

  Calderdale MBC

  57

  75

  Chelmsford BC

  158

  158

  Chester CC

  135

  103

  Chichester DC

  158

  158

  Congleton BC

  158

  158

  Cotswold DC

  158

  158

  Coventry CC

  38

  50

  Derbyshire Dales

  158

  158

  East Hertfordshire

  158

  158

  East Lindsey DC

  114

  59

  East Northamptonshire DC

  158

  158

  East Staffordshire BC

  143

  114

  Eden C

  158

  158

  Elmbridge BC

  158

  158

  Erewash BC

  152

  155

  Fylde BC

  158

  158

  Horsham DC

  158

  158

  Huntingdon DC

  158

  158

  Kerrier DC

  120

  49

  LB Bexley

  127

  158

  LB Brent

  21

  78

  LB Enfield

  77

  95

  LB Greenwich

  16

  47

  561W

  Authority

  Extent measure—ILD 1998

  Extent measure—ID 2000

  LB Hackney

  1

  1

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham

  14

  99

  LB Islington

  3

  9

  LB Lambeth

  5

  79

  LB Merton

  107

  158

  LB Richmond

  158

  158

  LB Tower Hamlets

  4

  2

  Lichfield DC

  158

  158

  Liverpool CC

  11

  7

  Manchester CC

  8

  4

  Mendip DC

  158

  158

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  158

  158

  Newcastle Under Lyme BC

  158

  112

  North Devon DC

  158

  104

  Oldham BC

  37

  39

  Preston BC

  26

  46

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  158

  158

  Restormel BC

  158

  158

  Rother DC

  158

  158

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  158

  158

  South Hams District Council

  158

  158

  South Oxfordshire DC

  158

  158

  South Somerset DC

  158

  158

  South Staffs C

  155

  158

  St. Edmundsbury

  158

  158

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  158

  147

  Stoke-on-Trent CC

  55

  54

  Sunderland CC

  34

  26

  Tameside

  100

  102

  Telford and Wrekin

  158

  89

  Test Valley BC

  158

  158

  Tewkesbury BC

  158

  158

  Torbay BC

  115

  158

  Tynedale BC

  158

  158

  West Devon BC

  158

  158

  West Lindsey DC

  110

  121

  West Oxfordshire DC

  158

  158

  West Somerset DC

  158

  158

  West Wiltshire DC

  158

  158

  Weymouth and Portland C

  158

  124

  Wirral

  60

  57

  Worthing BC

  121

  158

  Wyre Forest DC

  158

  129

  Housing (Older People)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish the choice and quality in housing for older people guidance strategy that has been conducted with the Department of Health; and if he will make a statement. [65058]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 27 June 2002,Official Report, column 1034W.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what further measures he is taking to increase supply of temporary accommodation to replace the use of bed-and-breakfast for the homeless. [65184]

  Mr. McNulty
  In March 2002 we announced a £35 million programme to help local authorities ensure that by March 2004 no homeless family with children is in bed-and-breakfast hotels (B&B) for more than six weeks.

  On 17 June 2002 almost £25 million was allocated to 44 high B&B using local authorities to assist them reduce numbers in B&B. The funding is being used on a range of initiatives to procure alternative temporary accommodation to B&B and on measures to prevent
  562W
  homelessness occurring. We are now working with the next 40 or so highest using B&B authorities to see how we can assist them in reducing numbers.

  In addition, all local authorities will benefit from the changes the Department for Work and Pensions has recently made to housing benefit subsidy levels which make local authority leasing of self-contained temporary accommodation much more financially viable than B&B hotels.

  Home Valuations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact upon home purchasers of the practice of district valuers reviewing the effect of improvements on value only after a sale takes place. [64375]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Dwellings are only revalued following improvements when the property is subsequently sold. This is so that people are not deterred from improving their home because their council tax might increase. The reassessment may lead to a property being moved to a higher council tax band. However, this is not always the case. No assessment has been made of the impact upon home purchaser.

  Social Housing Targets
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has made to meet the 2010 social housing targets if tenants vote against large scale voluntary stock transfers; and if he will make a statement. [64391]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have substantially increased the resources provided to local authorities for housing investment to support delivery of the commitment on decent social housing. Where an authority is unable to fund the works necessary to bring its housing up to a decent standard by 2010 from its own resources and those provided through the Major Repairs Allowance and the Housing Investment Programme, there are three options for additional funding:transfer the housing to a housing association which can access private finance;
  qualify for additional funding by establishing a high performing arms length management organisation;
  acquire additional resources through the Private Finance Initiative.

  The planned ending of direct control of local authority borrowing will also allow increased investment where an authority can meet the additional borrowing costs.

  It is for local authorities to decide with their tenants which investment option to pursue and we have extended the role of the Community Housing Task Force to help them with this. If stock transfer is rejected by tenants, then clearly the authority needs to consider which of the other options will enable it to deliver.

  Right to Buy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether housing associations retain funds raised as a result of the exercising of the right to buy. [65672]
  563W
  Mr. McNulty
  The right to buy can be exercised only by those few housing association tenants who are secure tenants of non-charitable housing associations. Any sale proceeds that remain after the deduction of expenses, outstanding loan debt and the recovery of any grant for the original provision of the property, may be retained and spent on purposes permitted by legislation for an association registered with the Housing Corporation.

  Former local authority tenants of housing stock that has been transferred to registered social landlords retain a Preserved Right to Buy. The transfer arrangements will normally contain a sharing agreement aimed at giving the local authority a share of sales receipts.

  Tenants of registered social landlord properties built or acquired with public funds since 1 April 1997 have a right to acquire their rented home under the Housing Act 1996. The Housing Corporation provides the registered social landlord with a grant to cover the discount offered to the tenant for right to acquire sales and the landlord retains all proceeds of such disposals. The legislation requires the proceeds to be placed in a separate fund—the Disposal Proceeds Fund—and the Housing Corporation directs the registered social landlord to use the proceeds to provide replacement housing for rent.

  Equity Release Schemes
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to promote equity release schemes to assist with disrepair in the owner-occupied housing sector. [65720]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 was approved by Parliament on 28 May and will come into force very shortly. It will allow local authorities to develop equity release schemes for housing renewal. This Order contains a new power enabling local authorities to provide assistance to owner-occupiers for the repair, improvement or adaptation of their properties. Such assistance can be provided in a variety of ways including grants, loans or equity release schemes. It replaces the powers contained in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 which allowed local authorities to make renovation grants available to homeowners.

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the money being allocated to Burnley to tackle the problem of empty homes as part of the East Lancashire Housing Renewal pathfinder project. [65551]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We announced on 16 May that we were making available £25 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist low demand pathfinder projects in vital preparatory work, in equal shares of £2.66 million (£1 million will be retained centrally for collective monitoring and evaluation). That funding will, importantly, not be distributed to individual local authorities but to the pathfinder project as a whole. We are considering the case for further investment to tackle low demand, over and above that which local authorities and others already devote to tackling the problem, in the spending review.

  Fire Brigades Union
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met representatives from the Fire Brigades Union; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [65994]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Responsibility for the Fire Service transferred to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2002. The Deputy Prime Minister has not met with representatives of the Fire Brigades Union.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59764]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) set out the Government's policy on timber procurement in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 948W.

  The Ripley Building and Kirkland House are currently being refurbished by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office is working closely with Balfour Beatty, the main contractor, to seek to ensure that all timber for this project, that has not yet been ordered, is procured in accordance with that policy. A full investigation into timber procurement matters on this project has been undertaken by the Cabinet Office. A report of the findings of the investigation is due to be published shortly.

  As part of some wider electrical and rewiring and redecoration works under way in Admiralty House, one new hardwood timber door is being procured. This is being procured from an independently-certified sustainable source.

  In May 2002 the Cabinet Office entered into a private finance initiative contract with Initial Style Conferences Ltd. (ISC) for a rolling programme of construction and refurbishment works to the Sunningdale Park estate. The terms of the contract require ISC to purchase timber or timber products which are compliant with the Government's policy on timber procurement relevant at the time. The Cabinet Office will provide the details of the timber procurement policy relevant at any particular time and work with ISC to ensure their compliance with it.

  The refurbishment of the National Crises Management Centre is due to commence within the next six months. The contract specification for this will include a clause stating that all timber used in the project should be procured in accordance with the Government's policy on timber procurement current at the time. The Cabinet Office will be responsible for providing details of the policy to the contractor and will work with them to help ensure their compliance with it.

  Ombudsman System
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to bring forward legislation to reform the ombudsman system. [63978]
  565W
  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have made clear that they intend to bring forward legislation to replace the existing arrangements with a more unified ombudsman body when parliamentary time allows.

  Fire Stations
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many fire stations have been(a) opened and (b) closed since 1995. [65521]

  Number of fire stations in England and Wales at 1 January 1995–1 January 2002

  Brigade name

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Avon

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Bedfordshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  22

  22

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Cambridgeshire

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Cheshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Cleveland

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Cornwall

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  County Durham and Darlington

  17

  17

  16

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Cumbria

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Derbyshire

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Devon

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  58

  Dorset

  26

  26

  29

  29

  29

  29

  29

  30

  East Sussex

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Essex

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  51

  Gloucestershire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Greater Manchester

  44

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  43

  Hampshire

  55

  55

  54

  54

  54

  54

  52

  52

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  26

  27

  Hertfordshire

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  32

  Humberside

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  31

  32

  Isle of Wight

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Kent

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  66

  Lancashire

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Leicestershire

  19

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Lincolnshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  38

  38

  London

  113

  113

  113

  113

  113

  113

  112

  112

  Merseyside

  27

  27

  27

  27

  27

  26

  26

  26

  Mid and West Wales

  60

  60

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  57

  Norfolk

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  40

  North Wales

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  44

  North Yorkshire

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  37

  Northamptonshire

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  22

  Northumberland

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Oxfordshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Royal Berkshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Shropshire

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Somerset

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  South Wales

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  South Yorkshire

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Staffordshire

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Suffolk

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Surrey

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  24

  Tyne and Wear

  18

  18

  18

  19

  19

  19

  19

  19

  Warwickshire

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  19

  19

  19

  West Midlands

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  41

  West Sussex

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  28

  West Yorkshire

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Wiltshire

  24

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Total

  1,612

  1,613

  1,609

  1,609

  1,609

  1,607

  1,605

  1,608

  Source:

  ODPM calendar year returns
  566W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Based on annual returns to HM Fire Service Inspectorate, the number of fire stations in each fire authority area in England and Wales at 1 January for each year from 1995 to 2002 is set out in the table. On the basis of these returns, 10 fire stations have opened and 14 closed since 1 January 1995. However, these figures do not reflect instances where the opening of a fire station is balanced by the closure of another in the same fire authority within the same calendar year.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have undertaken full or partial transfers of their local authority housing stock in each year since 1997. [64392]

  Mr. McNulty
  There have been 57 full and 39 partial large scale voluntary transfers (LSVT) of local authority housing stock undertaken by 73 authorities since 1997. The table shows which authorities have undertaken full or partial LSVT since 1997.

  List of all housing stock voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  No. of dwellings

  Cotswold DC1

  28 February 1997

  4,282

  South Staffordshire C1

  7 March 1997

  5,273

  Lichfield DC1

  19 March 1997

  4,921

  South Oxfordshire DC

  7 July 1997

  5,018

  Eden C

  22 September 1997

  1,510

  LB Lambeth2 Moorlands3

  5 January 1998

  515

  LB Bexley

  9 February 1998

  4,118

  LB Bexley3,4

  9 February 1998

  4,097

  Congleton BC

  2 March 1998

  4,061

  Oldham BC2 Limehurst

  9 March 1998

  642

  Liverpool CC2 Windermere3

  19 March 1998

  493

  LB Merton2 Pollards Hill3

  23 March 1998

  1,018

  LB Tower Hamlets2 Poplar I3

  23 March 1998

  1,852

  Kerrier DC

  23 March 1998

  3,732

  LB Hackney2 Kingsmead3

  30 March 1998

  951

  LB Brent2 Fortunegate/Church End3

  30 March 1998

  1,481

  Basildon DC2 Vange3

  30 March 1998

  708

  West Somerset DC

  30 March 1998

  1,869

  Stoke-on-Trent CC2 Bentilee3

  31 March 1998

  917

  Tewkesbury BC

  27 April 1998

  3,066

  Rother DC

  1 May 1998

  3,058

  LB Lambeth2 Lansdowne Green3,4

  20 July 1998

  681

  LB Tower Hamlets2 Poplar II3,4

  7 December 1998

  2,431

  Wirral2 Leasowe3

  25 January 1999

  1,082

  Tameside2 West Ashton3

  1 February 1999

  901

  West Devon BC

  22 February 1999

  1,446

  South Somerset DC

  1 March 1999

  8,883

  East Lindsey DC

  1 March 1999

  5,102

  Liverpool CC2 Pinehurst3,4

  5 March 1999

  646

  Manchester CC3,4

  8 March 1999

  1,030

  LB Hackney2 Morningside3,4

  15 March 1999

  1,084

  South Hams district council

  22 March 1999

  3,096

  LB Hammersmith and Fulham2 Old Oak3

  17 March 1999

  668

  LB Hackney2 Upper Clapton3,4

  22 March 1999

  1,000

  Telford and Wrekin C

  25 March 1999

  13,081

  LB Enfield3

  29 March 1999

  1,194

  Worthing BC

  29 March 1999

  2,525

  Bath and North East Somerset C

  29 March 1999

  9,887

  Manchester CC2 East Wythenshawe3,4

  29 March 1999

  6,667

  LB Greenwich2 Charlton Triangle3

  29 March 1999

  1,280

  LB Hackney2 Haggerston3,4

  29 March 1999

  661

  Allerdale BC

  31 March 1999

  3,704

  Allerdale BC2 Salterbeck3,4

  31 March 1999

  727

  Preston BC2 Avenham3

  14 June 1999

  1,121

  LB Lambeth2 Central Stockwell3,4

  5 July 1999

  2,358

  Birmingham CC2 Central Areas3

  21 June 1999

  2,813

  LB Islington2 Barnsbury3

  26 September 1999

  647

  LB Islington2 Ten Estates3,4

  26 September 1999

  739

  Liverpool CC2 Speke Garston3,4

  4 October 1999

  4,382

  West Lindsey DC

  18 October 1999

  3,929

  LB Lambeth2 St. Martins3,4

  25 October 1999

  1,033

  Boston BC

  29 November 1999

  4,871

  Tynedale DC

  20 December 1999

  3,564

  Newcastle under Lyme BC

  31 January 2000

  9,887

  Restormel BC

  7 February 2000

  3,577

  Manchester CC Colshaw Farm3,4

  14 February 2000

  600

  North Devon DC

  21 February 2000

  3,293

  LB Hackney2 Stamford Hill3,4

  6 March 2000

  1,095

  LB Hackney2 Pembury Estate3,4

  6 March 2000

  1,241

  Burnley BC

  8 March 2000

  5,330

  Manchester CC Sale Estate3,4

  20 March 2000

  1,655

  Weymouth and Portland C

  20 March 2000

  3,105

  Huntingdon DC

  20 March 2000

  6,650

  Elmbridge BC

  27 March 2000

  4,894

  568W

  List of all housing stock voluntary transfers which have taken place since 1997

  Authority

  Date of transfer

  No. of dwellings

  Test Valley BC

  27 March 2000

  5,495

  Wyre Forest DC

  27 March 2000

  6,056

  Manchester CC Whitefield Estate3.4

  27 March 2000

  1,033

  LB Tower Hamlets2 THCH3.4

  27 March 2000

  1,551

  Tameside MBC4

  27 March 2000

  8,532

  Tameside MBC4

  27 March 2000

  7,934

  LB Richmond

  17 July 2000

  7,139

  Coventry CC

  22 September 2000

  20,125

  Fylde BC

  2 October 2000

  1,905

  Chester CC

  27 November 2000

  7,096

  Horsham DC

  11 December 2000

  4,650

  LB Tower Hamlets3.4

  12 February 2001

  196

  East Northamptonshire DC

  19 February 2001

  3,495

  Torbay C

  19 February 2001

  2,947

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  23 February 2001

  3,132

  Calderdale MBC

  6 March 2001

  12,759

  Chichester DC

  13 March 2001

  5,321

  Mendip DC

  19 March 2001

  4,326

  West Wiltshire DC4

  26 March 2001

  3,284

  West Oxfordshire DC

  26 March 2001

  3,643

  East Staffordshire BC

  26 March 2001

  5,637

  Manchester CC Handforth Estate3.4

  26 March 2001

  659

  Sunderland CC

  26 March 2001

  36,356

  Blackburn with Darwen BC

  28 March 2001

  9,886

  Shrewsbury and Atcham BC

  1 October 2001

  5,500

  Mid-Bedfordshire DC

  5 November 2001

  3,084

  Derbyshire Dales

  4 March 2002

  3,287

  Chelmsford BC

  11 March 2002

  6,902

  East Hertfordshire DC

  18 March 2002

  2,687

  East Hertfordshire DC

  18 March 2002

  3,237

  Erewash BC

  25 March 2002

  5,847

  Reigate and Banstead BC

  25 March 2002

  4,846

  Total number of dwellings

  386,689

  Average number of dwellings

  4,028

  Number of authorities

  73

  Number of whole transfers

  57

  Number of partial transfers

  39

  Number of transfers

  96

  Number of transfers to repeating authorities

  24

  1 These transfers were completed before Labour came into office.

  2 Transfer is an Estate Renewal Challenge Fund Scheme.

  3 Partial transfer.

  4 Transfer to repeating authority.

HEALTH

  Intermediate Care Beds
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra(a) intermediate care beds and (b) nonresidential intermediate care places have been introduced since the publication of the National Plan. [47827]

  Jacqui Smith
  The results of a survey in autumn 2001 for national health service intermediate care in England indicated that good progress has been made towards meeting the NHS Plan targets.

  While audited figures for 2001–02 will not be available for another eight weeks or so, we expect on the basis of last year's survey that around an additional 2,400 intermediate care beds and 6,200 non-residential intermediate care places will have been provided, compared to year 1999–2000, which was the baseline used in the NHS Plan.

  Rural Awareness
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when his Department will introduce measures to raise rural awareness through staff(a) training,

  569W
  (b) development and (c) secondments as part of overall rural proofing measures set out in the Countryside Agency's report Rural Proofing in 2001–02; [54418]

  (2) when his Department will establish rural targets and monitoring established as part of overall rural proofing measures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02; [54408]

  (3) when his Department will have rural proofing embedded in policy-making procedures as set out in the Countryside Agency's report, Rural Proofing in 2001–02. [54430]

  Ms Blears
  The Department is committed to introducing a process of rural proofing as set out in the Rural White Paper (2000). I have taken careful note of the recommendations in the report of the Countryside Agency, and will take them fully into account in further implementing rural proofing throughout the Department.

  MMR Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with plans to launch a national advertising campaign to promote the MMR vaccine. [57455]

  Ms Blears
  Through frequent and extensive market research studies, it is clear that parents want clear, consistent advice based upon the facts about MMR. The Government's efforts have therefore focused on ensuring both parents and health professionals have access to scientifically accurate information about the vaccine. The leaflet `MMR—the facts' has been updated. To supplement this an information pack for parents containing factsheets, website references, a list of published research and a glossary of terms has been developed. The availability of this information pack, through NHS Direct, is being advertised in the national and regional press.

  Prescription Fraud
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of fraudulent exemption claims for prescriptions were submitted by pharmacists in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [61974]

  Mr. Lammy
  The responsibility for detecting fraudulent claims for prescriptions submitted by pharmacists has lain with the Prescription Pricing Authority for each of the years referred to.

  The number of cases where they have detected potential fraud is detailed in the table:

  Number of referrals

  1998

  3

  1999

  2

  2000

  2

  2001

  7

  In March 2002 it was decided, in order to put in place more effective arrangements, that the national health service counter fraud service should take over this area of work. This is likely to take place late in 2002.

  The table represents the number of investigations carried out, where the pharmacist has received the prescription charge from the patient and then submitted
  570W
  the prescription for payment as exempt. The majority of these referrals were identified during samples for targeted checks on patient claims to exemptions, and may not be representative of all patient exemption claims as a whole.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to reduce the waiting times of elderly patients and mental health patients on the Isle of Sheppey. [61814]

  Ms Blears
  The Government are committed to improving services for the elderly and mentally ill. National service frameworks have been published for both mental health services and those for older people, setting out new standards of care with targets for delivery.

  I understand that Swale Primary Care Trust is currently considering options to improve waiting times for elderly and mentally infirm patients and also to improve access to mental health services.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the in-patient hospital waiting list in(a) March 1997, (b) December 2001, (c) March 2002, (d) June 2002 and (e) the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [66286]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows published figures for the number of patients waiting for elective admission at national health service trusts in England at month end. Figures for April 2002 are the latest available. Data for June will be published on 9 August.

  Patients waiting for elective admission: NHS Trusts, England

  Month end

  Number

  March 1997

  1,158,004

  December 2001

  1,050,221

  March 2002

  1,035,365

  April 2002

  1,046.265

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7

  Scrapie
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the final results of the research being carried out for the Food Standards Agency of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency into the level of scrapie infectivity after intestine processing for sausage casings to be(a) completed and (b) published. [64113]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that work funded to date by the agency on sheep intestines has shown that not all the tissues that are most likely to contain scrapie infectivity are removed by the casings manufacturing process. A contract to carry out work to quantify the risk reduction has not yet been awarded. Such work is likely to involve bioassay and may take some time to complete and publish.

  BSE
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the European Commission's country by country assessments of the geographical
  571W
  bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk of small ruminants (a) to be sent to this Department and (b) to be published; [64110]

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Commission about the time scale for the completion and publication of the country by country assessment of the geographical bovine spongiform encephalopathy risk of small ruminants; [64111]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency, that the agency's board endorsed a report on BSE and sheep from a core group of stakeholders at its meeting in Armagh on June 13. The report contained a recommendation that the agency should request that European Commission accelerate the provision of country by country BSE risk categorisation for small ruminants. The agency has formally registered the report with the Commission, but does not yet have information on the time scale for the completion of the risk categorisation.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the EU Advisory Committee on cancer prevention is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [63635]

  Ms Blears
  The Europe Against Cancer (EAC) programme was set up under Article 129 of the Maastricht Treaty. The programme has a management committee made up of representatives from each member state. The management committee has met once in the last year. The costs to public funds were minimal, meetings last one day, the Commission pay the travel costs of nominated representatives, UK departments are required to pay subsistence and UK travel costs.

  The programme is currently funding eight projects: European network of cancer registries; European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition; European network on smoking prevention; European network on young people and tobacco; European cervical cancer screening network; European breast cancer network; education, science and quality assurance in radiotherapy and a project to evaluate the European code against cancer.

  The overarching European public health action programme of which the EAC programme is one part ends on 31 December 2002. The new European public health action programme has been agreed under conciliation procedures and is expected shortly.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final.
  572W
  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Disease Statistics
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the collection of statistics on mobility and mortality rates of various conditions and diseases. [63661]

  Ms Blears
  The Department makes use of the following information on mortality and morbidity, in particular to support the NHS Plan, "Our Healthier Nation" and work on health inequalities.

  Mortality statistics are the responsibility of the registrar general who is also director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The cause of every death is certified either by a doctor who attended the deceased in his last illness, or a coroner. ONS codes the diseases, injuries and external causes from the certificate and selects the underlying cause using the current revision of the international classification of diseases, published by the World Health Organisation. Since January 2001, the Tenth Revision (ICD-10) has been used. Prior to that, the Ninth Revision was in use from 1979. Mortality statistics are published by ONS in electronic and paper form and are used by the Department, other Government Departments, the national health service and academic researchers.

  The Department collects and uses a wide range of data on morbidity according to the condition of interest and the context of the question to be answered

  Data sources in the Department and the ONS include population surveys (such as the health survey for England, general household survey) and health services data (such as hospital episode statistics and the Royal College of General Practitioners Weekly Returns Service). Data sources include administrative sources and ad-hoc surveys according to the particular issues. Some sources have general health information and others focus on specific conditions (eg cancer registration, psychiatric morbidity survey). Further details of these and other sources are available on the Department's and ONS websites, www.doh.gov.uk/public/stats1/htm, www.nationalstatistics.org.uk/.

  NHS Dentistry
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS (General Dentist Services) dentists there were per 100,000 population in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each health authority in each year since 1997. [64536]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total number of general dental service (GDS) dentists per 100,000 population in(a) England, (b) each national health service region and (c) each health authority is shown in the table at 30 September for the years 1997 to 2001.

  The total number of GDS dentists covers principals on a health authority list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.
  573W

  General dental service: number of dentists1 working the GDS per 100,000 population2 by health authority at 30 September 1997 to 2001

  Health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  34

  35

  36

  36

  37

  Northern and Yorkshire

  32

  32

  33

  33

  34

  Bradford

  32

  32

  30

  30

  30

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  32

  32

  32

  33

  34

  County Durham and Darlington

  25

  27

  28

  28

  28

  East Riding and Hull

  24

  24

  25

  27

  27

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  34

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Leeds

  35

  38

  37

  36

  39

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  34

  36

  37

  36

  37

  North Cumbria

  33

  33

  33

  33

  34

  North Yorkshire

  36

  37

  38

  39

  40

  Northumberland

  32

  33

  34

  33

  33

  Sunderland

  26

  27

  28

  31

  33

  Tees

  34

  33

  35

  35

  37

  Wakefield

  28

  29

  28

  31

  34

  Trent

  29

  29

  30

  31

  31

  Barnsley

  28

  28

  29

  28

  29

  Doncaster

  32

  30

  30

  34

  34

  Leicester

  28

  29

  30

  30

  30

  Lincolnshire

  22

  23

  24

  25

  25

  North Derbyshire

  26

  28

  28

  30

  31

  North Nottinghamshire

  26

  29

  30

  31

  31

  Nottingham

  33

  34

  36

  35

  35

  Rotherham

  26

  28

  29

  30

  30

  Sheffield

  36

  34

  36

  36

  38

  Southern Derbyshire

  29

  31

  31

  32

  31

  South Humber

  24

  25

  26

  26

  26

  West Midlands

  29

  29

  30

  31

  31

  Birmingham

  31

  31

  32

  32

  32

  Coventry

  27

  31

  31

  31

  31

  Dudley

  26

  27

  28

  29

  29

  Herefordshire

  39

  41

  43

  45

  44

  North Staffordshire

  23

  24

  26

  27

  27

  Sandwell

  32

  31

  31

  33

  32

  Shropshire

  31

  32

  31

  34

  33

  Solihull

  26

  29

  30

  28

  33

  South Staffordshire

  26

  28

  27

  29

  30

  Walsall

  22

  23

  24

  23

  22

  Warwickshire

  29

  29

  30

  33

  33

  Wolverhampton

  28

  25

  27

  29

  30

  Worcestershire

  34

  33

  35

  33

  34

  North West

  34

  35

  35

  34

  35

  Bury and Rochdale

  33

  32

  32

  30

  30

  East Lancashire

  31

  32

  32

  32

  32

  Liverpool

  34

  33

  33

  33

  34

  Manchester

  39

  42

  44

  39

  39

  Morecambe Bay

  34

  36

  37

  36

  37

  North Cheshire

  29

  27

  31

  31

  30

  North West Lancashire

  35

  35

  37

  35

  37

  Salford and Trafford

  34

  34

  34

  35

  36

  Sefton

  33

  35

  35

  35

  34

  South Cheshire

  39

  41

  37

  38

  38

  South Lancashire

  28

  31

  31

  31

  31

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  28

  32

  31

  31

  31

  Stockport

  39

  38

  37

  39

  41

  West Pennine

  31

  31

  31

  33

  32

  Wigan and Bolton

  30

  30

  31

  32

  31

  Wirral

  41

  41

  42

  42

  42

  Eastern

  33

  34

  35

  36

  37

  Bedfordshire

  28

  30

  32

  33

  33

  Cambridgeshire3

  —

  —

  31

  32

  34

  Cambridge and Huntingdon3

  29

  29

  —

  —

  —

  East Norfolk3

  36

  38

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  41

  43

  46

  46

  49

  Norfolk3

  —

  —

  34

  34

  35

  North Essex

  32

  33

  33

  34

  35

  North West Anglia3

  27

  27

  —

  —

  —

  South Essex

  30

  31

  32

  35

  35

  Suffolk

  31

  32

  34

  34

  34

  London

  41

  42

  42

  43

  43

  Barking and Havering

  28

  29

  31

  32

  34

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  42

  43

  44

  45

  45

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  37

  36

  37

  40

  40

  574W

  General dental service: number of dentists1 working the GDS per 100,000 population2 by health authority at 30 September 1997 to 2001

  Health authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Brent and Harrow

  41

  45

  41

  45

  47

  Camden and Islington

  55

  55

  56

  59

  59

  Croydon

  44

  42

  41

  42

  44

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  50

  53

  54

  50

  51

  East London and The City

  31

  32

  31

  30

  32

  Hillingdon

  36

  38

  39

  41

  41

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  57

  56

  54

  53

  50

  Kingston and Richmond

  45

  45

  46

  45

  46

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  37

  39

  35

  36

  36

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  42

  43

  45

  44

  47

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  36

  36

  40

  42

  41

  South East

  36

  37

  38

  38

  39

  Berkshire

  35

  35

  37

  39

  39

  Buckinghamshire

  39

  38

  41

  39

  42

  East Kent

  31

  33

  34

  34

  34

  East Surrey

  45

  45

  43

  46

  46

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  40

  40

  41

  42

  43

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hampshire

  30

  32

  34

  33

  35

  North and Mid Hampshire

  33

  33

  35

  36

  37

  Northamptonshire

  26

  27

  28

  27

  27

  Oxfordshire

  33

  36

  37

  40

  41

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  34

  37

  36

  37

  36

  West Kent

  39

  37

  38

  37

  37

  West Surrey

  42

  44

  44

  45

  47

  West Sussex

  40

  42

  43

  44

  46

  South and West

  36

  37

  38

  39

  40

  Avon

  40

  41

  43

  42

  43

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  31

  33

  34

  35

  36

  Dorset

  35

  38

  39

  39

  40

  Gloucestershire

  37

  39

  39

  39

  40

  North and East Devon

  37

  38

  40

  40

  42

  Somerset

  33

  33

  33

  36

  35

  South and West Devon

  37

  36

  39

  42

  43

  Wiltshire

  32

  34

  36

  36

  35

  1 Dentists are principals on a HA list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 ONS 1997 to 2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census. ONS 2001 mid year population estimates are not yet available, mid year 2000 population estimates are used to calculate the number of dentists working in the GDS per 100,000 population in 2001.

  3 Three HAs: Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia were replaced by two HAs: Cambridge and Norfolk in April 1999.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action is being taken to improve access to NHS dentistry in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement; [65374]

  (2) how many NHS-registered dentists there were in the Portsmouth, South constituency in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [65373]

  Ms Blears
  Hampshire and Isle of Wight health authority has advised me that there are plans to develop a school of dental hygiene and therapy within Portsmouth university. Proposals to use this facility as a dental access centre are under consideration.

  Information on the number of national health service dentists in the former Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire health authority area is shown in the table. Information is not available by constituency.
  575W

  Number of dentists working in the NHS in the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and south-east Hampshire health authority at 30 September 2001

  Number

  GDS dentists1

  238

  Salaried service of GDS

  0

  PDS dentists only2

  11

  Salaried community dentists3

  30

  Hospital salaried dentists3

  30

  Total

  305

  1 The general dental service (GDS) includes principals on a health authority list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 The personal dental service (PDS) covers dentists working in the PDS who are not working in the GDS.

  3 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Notes:

  1. The number of NHS dentists includes GDS dentists, dentists working in the salaried services of the GDS, hospital and community dentists and PDS dentists.

  2. The figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent (wte) and take no account of part-time working.

  3. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service apart from dentists working in both PDS and GDS who are counted in the GDS only.

  4. Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.

  Doctors (Specialist Posts)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to take steps to allow doctors to have experience gained in associate specialist posts taken into account in their progression to consultancy level; and if he will make a statement. [64613]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have consulted on proposals to amend the European Specialist Qualifications Order (1995), to enable the Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges to take training, as well as qualifications, into account when assessing doctors for entry to the specialist register. There was strong support for our proposals from the medical profession and the amended legislation is currently being prepared. The proposed amendment is designed to facilitate entry to the specialist register for doctors working in the national health service, and may be of benefit to doctors in the non-consultant career grade posts.

  We did not specifically consult on the inclusion of experience gained outside formal training posts, as criteria for entry to the specialist register, for the current amendment. However, some responses to consultation indicated that we should consider the inclusion of experience. We accept that there needs to be a proper debate about the issue and we are considering taking forward work to look at the appropriateness of including experience in the longer term. We would not introduce retrospectively approved experience as a criterion for entry to the specialist register without a full debate and consultation about the appropriateness of this with the medical profession.

  Child Care
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what child care provisions or schemes are made available to NHS staff. [64932]
  576W
  Mr. Hutton
  A national survey of national health service child care provision, undertaken early in 2001, found that 114 NHS trusts provided nursery facilities for their staff. The NHS child care strategy aims to develop a further 150 on-site nursery schemes by 2004. and over £70 million has been made available for this. 60 new nursery schemes were funded last year and a further 30 have had funding allocated already this year. In addition, we expect all new build hospitals to include an on-site nursery in its plans.

  We are expanding the NHS child care strategy to cover other forms of child care and to ensure that all staff groups are included. We have pledged additional funding for NHS child care, building up to £100 million, to do this. Many NHS trusts already provide holiday play schemes and other forms of child care support, and we want to ensure that all NHS organisations help meet their staff's child care needs. In addition, all staff will have access to an NHS child care co-ordinator by April 2003, and we are providing funding to pump-prime these posts. Over 70 child care co-ordinators are already working in the NHS, developing local child care strategies, and providing advice and support to parents working in the NHS. A number of NHS trusts also provide child care vouchers to their staff.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals within England provide creche facilities for their staff. [64929]

  Mr. Hutton
  A national survey of national health service child care provision, undertaken early in 2001, found that 114 NHS trusts provided nursery facilities for their staff. The NHS child care strategy aims to develop a further 150 on-site nursery schemes by 2004, and over £70 million has been made available for this. 60 new nursery schemes were funded last year and a further 30 have had funding allocated already this year. In addition, we expect all new build hospitals to include an on-site nursery in its plans.

  Variant CJD
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Portsmouth, South constituency have been diagnosed with a probable variant CJD; what treatment they are receiving; and if he will make a statement. [64727]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected at constituency level. The National CJD Surveillance Unit has advised me that there have been two cases of definite or probable vCJD where patient was resident in Hampshire at death and five cases of definite/probable vCJD resident in Hampshire at onset of symptoms. Currently there are no patients diagnosed with definite/probable vCJD in the county. Information is not held centrally on the care individual patients received.

  Drug Rehabilitation Programmes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been given to drug rehabilitation programmes in the Portsmouth, South constituency in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [64590]
  577W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested on funding given to drug rehabilitation programmes in the Portsmouth, South constituency is not held centrally. More information on local drug rehabilitation services will be available from the Drug Treatment and Advice Service.

  Orphan Drug Law
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the effect has been of the Orphan Drug law on(a) hospitals and (b) patients in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [64726]

  Ms Blears
  No assessment has been made centrally of the effect of the European Union Orphan Drug regulations on the Portsmouth, South constituency.

  The Orphan Drug regulations are vital to encourage drug companies to produce clinically tested medicines for disorders that affect a very small number of people. Without the regulations these drugs would not be available.

  Cardiac Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the impact of prescribing practice relating to statins on the risk of a second heart attack to people aged 60 years and over; and if he will make a statement. [65074]

  Ms Blears
  We have not made a recent assessment of the impact of statin prescribing practice on the risk of second heart attack in people aged over 60.

  There is a well established evidence base drawn from several trials for the benefit of statin therapy in preventing further events in patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD). This evidence underpins the guidance on prescribing of statins contained in the national service framework (NSF) for CHD, as amended by the Chief Medical Officer's Update 29 (February 2001). It recommends that people with clinical evidence of CHD should be prescribed statins to lower their cholesterol level to below 5.0mmo1/1 or reduce total serum cholesterol by about 20–25 per cent., whichever would result in the lowest level. Equivalent figures for LDL cholesterol would be 3.0 mmo1/1 or by 30 per cent. reduction, whichever results in the lowest level.

  An underlying principle of the NSF that services and treatments should be accessible to everyone on the basis of need, irrespective of age, gender, race, culture, religion, disability, sexual orientation or where people happen to live.

  Health Professionals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications there were to train as a(a) general practitioner, (b) social worker, (c) physiotherapist and (d) special therapist in (i) London and (ii) England and Wales in each of the last five years, broken down by (A) health authority and (B) region. [65060]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Irradiated Goods
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safeguards in 578W
  place to prevent the sale of irradiated goods in the United Kingdom; and what regular monitoring takes place in this regard. [65107]

  Ms Blears
  The sale of irradiated foods in England are strictly controlled by the Food (Control of Irradiation) Regulations 1990, as amended by the Food Irradiation Provision (England) Regulations 2000. Similar legislation applies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The enforcement of these is the responsibility of local authorities. Periodic checks are carried out to ensure that irradiated foods are not being incorrectly marketed and action taken where necessary.

  For example, in a recent survey by the Food Standards Agency a number of dietary supplements were found to contain non-approved irradiated ingredients and the companies concerned were told to withdraw the affected products. A copy of the survey report has been placed in the Library.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce measures to require the labelling of all food sold for human consumption in the United Kingdom to contain clear details of genetically modified contents. [65108]

  Ms Blears
  The Genetically Modified and Novel Foods (Labelling) (England) Regulations 2000 require foods containing genetically modified material, such as DNA or protein, to be labelled. Equivalent provisions apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require labels to identify food substances, colourings and additives which could result in hyperactive behaviour among children and young people. [63031]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]European Union rules already require the labels of pre-packed foods to declare their in redients, including additives such as colourings, although some exemptions do apply. Amendments currently under discussion would remove a number of these exemptions, including the 'compound ingredient rule' which exempts ingredients of ingredients making up less than 25 per cent. of the food. The Food Standards Agency is supporting plans for early discussions aimed at removing the ingredient listing exemption for alcoholic drinks. It is also pressing for an early review of the justification for the remaining exemptions, especially those which apply to additives used as processing aids or which do not have a technological function in the final food.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue detailed guidance notes on financial support towards costs GPs incur as owner-occupiers or leaseholders of premises used to provide NHS general practice services. [65378]

  Mr. Hutton
  For general practitioners (GPs) who work under the national framework for general medical services (GMS), detailed guidance on funding premises is contained in the statement of fees and allowances. Guidance for GPs who work under locally agreed contracts for personal medical services is included in
  579W
  "Personal Medical Services: Comprehensive Guidance". Guidance on the new flexibilities announced on 19 April 2002, will be issued soon. Further guidance will be issued in due course on any further changes to premises arrangements which may be proposed as part of the new GMS contract currently being developed by the national health service confederation and the British Medical Association.

  Domiciliary Community Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to ensure that councils' policy on charging for domiciliary community care is in line with the national guidance by(a) 1 October 2002 and (b) 1 April 2003. 166154]

  Jacqui Smith
  Monitoring of the implementation of this policy is being carried out by the Department's social services inspectorate, as part of a wider in-year monitoring programme. Councils have been asked to indicate the stage of preparation reached at 31 May 2002, in implementing the policy. Results are currently being processed. We propose to repeat the monitoring in autumn 2002 and spring of 2003.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that local authorities consult users of domiciliary community care services when deciding on their charging policy. [66153]

  Jacqui Smith
  The guidance "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services", issued in November 2001, requires councils to consult users and carers when deciding their charging policy. The guidance is issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and is legally binding.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 310W, when the next bilateral ministerial meeting between health and education to discuss child and adolescent mental health is to take place. [66846]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have no current date to meet ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Skills to discuss child and adolescent mental health. Officials in the Department regularly meet with their counterparts at the Department of Education and Skills to discuss this topic. The last time they met was Thursday 27 June.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 310W, whether the training of teachers in mental health issues was discussed at the bi-lateral ministerial meeting; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting and work to be taken forward. [66845]

  Jacqui Smith
  At the meeting we discussed the broad issues surrounding health and education and the interface. The training of teachers in mental health issues was not discussed in specific detail.

  Primary Care
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report,
  580W
  column 159W, what research the Department has commissioned into CAMHS in primary care; and if he will place the preliminary, emerging and final results in the Library. [66841]

  Jacqui Smith
  A joint research study into child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in primary care was commissioned from teams at the national primary care research and development centre, University of Manchester, the academic department of child and adolescent psychiatry, Imperial College, London and the department of psychiatry, University of Manchester. Their final report will be available for release shortly and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Lister Hospital, Stevenage
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are for capital development of the Maxilla/Facial, Orthodontic and Restorative Department at the Lister Hospital, Stevenage. [66766]

  Mr. Lammy
  Further work is being undertaken by East and North Hertfordshire National Health Service Trust with respect to capital development of the maxilla/facial, orthodontic and restorative department at the Lister Hospital. This will be presented to a future stakeholder meeting.

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he plans to amend the draft Nurses' Agencies Regulations to(a) reduce the level of financial disclosure and (b) reduce the number of appraisals of nurses' overall performance; [66794]

  (2) for what reasons it is necessary to conduct an agency providing nurses' services in a different office from one providing domiciliary care; [66792]

  (3) when he expects to lay the Nurses' Agencies Regulations before Parliament; [66843]

  (4) what account will be taken of experience in establishing the management ability of the owner or manager of a nurses' agency; [66789]

  (5) what plans he has to make amendments to the draft Nurses' Agencies Regulations prior to laying them; [66793]

  (6) what requirement as to health and safety audit he intends to impose on nurses' agencies in respect of patients' homes prior to commencement of care; and if he will make a statement as to how this will operate in cases of urgency; [66790]

  (7) what plans he has to allow the National Care Standards Commission to have access to the premises of nurses' agencies at night. [66791]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Nurses Agency Regulations and National Minimum Standards are being finalised in the light of responses to the consultation exercise. We will lay the regulations before Parliament as soon as possible.

  Several of the issues raised are under active consideration in response to the consultation.
  581W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards there are for the privacy of medical records of the managers and owners of the nurses' agencies produced to the authorities for the purpose of showing fitness to run an agency. [66788]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

  Chiropody
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2002,Official Report, column 735W, on chiropody, whether the shift in policy focus referred to has led to service reductions; and if he will make a statement. [66849]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are not aware that the shift in policy focus from professionally-led guidance to patient-led services has led to service reductions. Shifting the balance of power has placed increasing emphasis on involving frontline staff including chiropodists and podiatrists, and consulting with users and carers to ensure services meet the needs of the local population. Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for ensuring the right services are delivered to the right people at the right time.

  To assist PCTs meet this increasing demand for national health service chiropody/podiatry services, we are committed to recruiting more allied health professionals (AHPs), which include chiropodists/ podiatrists, through the NHS Plan target of over 6,500 extra AHPs, and as extended and stated in the "Delivery Plan", there will be 30,000 extra therapists and scientists over the September 2001 baseline by 2008.

  Pershore Community Hospital
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated at the Minor Injuries Unit of Pershore Community Hospital in the last 12 months. [66862]

  Mr. Lammy
  Between May 2001 and May 2002 (latest available figures) the number of patients treated at Pershore community hospital minor injuries unit was 4,132.

  Source:

  South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of running the Minor Injuries Unit of Pershore Community Hospital has been in the last 12 months. [66861]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the last financial year the running cost of the minor injuries unit at Pershore Community Hospital was £57,000.

  Source:

  South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to find substitutes for staff whose illness has caused the closure of the minor injuries unit at Pershore community hospital. [66864]

  Mr. Lammy
  I am advised that south Worcestershire primary care trust is actively seeking substitute nursing staff with appropriate qualifications and experience in minor injuries from the in-house nursing bank, national and local nursing agencies and an advertising campaign.
  582W
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been affected by illness resulting in the closure of the minor injuries unit at Pershore community hospital; and for how long there has been a shortage of staff resulting in its closure. [66865]

  Mr. Lammy
  Two staff with clinical expertise in minor injuries went on long-term sick leave at the same time. Following this the minor injuries unit was temporarily closed by South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust on 1 June 2002, on the grounds of clinical safety.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long he estimates that the minor injuries unit of Pershore community hospital will be closed. [66863]

  Mr. Lammy
  I am advised that, due to staff shortages, the minor injuries unit of Pershore community hospital was closed on 1 June 2002. The unit will reopen when nursing staff with appropriate experience and qualifications in minor injuries are recruited or when the existing staff, currently on long-term sick leave, return. This temporary closure is being reviewed by the South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust on a weekly basis.

  Special Envoy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the targets for the Government's special envoy for the national health service. [63815]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]The remit of the Government's special envoy for the national health service is to:promote British medicine and the opportunities for internationally trained doctors to work in the national health service;
  support and promote the development of the NHS international fellowship scheme at home and abroad, including assisting in the recruitment and selection of fellows:
  work closely with the Department, the NHS, medical royal colleges and other stakeholders to enable fellows to make a valuable contribution to patient care and to get the best out of their clinical practice experience in the UK.

  Stem Cell Research
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Government's response to the House of Lords Select Committee report of Session 2001–02 on Stem Cell Research. [67646]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's response to the House of Lords Select Committee report on Stem Cell Research is published today as CM 5561, and copies have been placed in Library.

TREASURY

  Departmental Consultation
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many matters his Department has consulted outside lawyers; and what the total cost is of the fees charged in the last 12 months. [65379]

  Ruth Kelly
  This information is not held centrally, and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  BBC World Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received as part of the spending review with regard to funding for the BBC World Service. [65752]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a number of representations in connection with the funding of the BBC World Service in the 2002 spending review.

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of buildings insurance to his Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66930]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the case of Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, the Departments have never insured their own properties. Following the transfer of departmental properties under STEPS, the PFI contractor (Mapeley) is required to insure them as part of PFI risk transfer. The cost of insurance is subsumed within the overall facility price payable under the STEPS contract.

  In the case of the Treasury, the issue of buildings insurance only arises in the case of Allington Towers, for which HMT pay insurance under the terms of their lease. The cost covering the period November 2000 to October 2001 was £14,980; for November 2001 to October 2002 it is £17,342.

  Public Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how the Government are meeting their commitment to report regularly on the progress made in delivering the targets for public service improvement as set out in Cm 4011; and if he will make a statement; [66281]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the success of other Departments in meeting the public service agreement targets set out in December 1998; and if he will make a statement. [66280]

  Mr. Boateng
  Departments publish performance against their public service agreement targets in their departmental reports and, from this year, in autumn performance reports. Annex A2 on page 67 of HM Treasury's departmental report included an overall analysis of performance against the 1998 targets.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responsibilities(a) his Department, (b) the Contributions Agency and (c) the Department for Work and Pensions have for ensuring collection and prompt payment by employers of national insurance contributions, including those with contracted in pension schemes; and if he will make a statement on efforts being made to ensure compliance by employers. [65798]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The functions of the Contributions Agency were transferred to the Inland Revenue from 6 April 1999. The Contributions Agency ceased to exist at that point and the Department for Work and Pensions no longer have any responsibility in relation to the collection of national insurance contributions.
  584W
  Employers pay over national insurance contributions either monthly or quarterly to the Inland Revenue. The Board of Inland Revenue's Annual Report shows that, in the tax year 2000–01, on average 89.7 per cent. of employers paid within a week of the due date.

  The Inland Revenue encourage all employers to make payment electronically via the BACS system which reduces the time taken to clear funds through the banking system.

  Where payment is delayed the Inland Revenue take a series of steps to collect that payment. This will begin with a simple phone call and, if the employer still fails to pay, may result in recovery action being taken either by means of distraint or by action in the courts.

  The Inland Revenue also act to ensure that all employers comply with their obligations. Employers are subject to regular inspections of their records by Inland Revenue officers. During the year 2001–02 the Inland Revenue carried out over 43,000 of these Employer Compliance Reviews and identified over £257 million of unpaid tax and national insurance contributions.

  Financing for Development Conference
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people attended the Financing for Development conference in Monterrey in March from(a) his Department and (b) other UK Government Departments; and what the total cost of the visit was. [66222]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Monterrey Conference was attended by eight people—including myself—from DFID and 21 people from other UK Government Departments. Not all invoices have yet been received, but the total cost of the visit will be in the region of £150,000.

  OECD PISA Survey
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the conceptual difference is in the science and maths questions asked in the OECD(a) TIMSS and (b) PISA surveys; [65132]

  (2) when the OECD PISA 2000 technical report will be published. [65136]

  Mr. Miliband
  I have been asked to reply.

  The OECD report, "Knowledge and Skills for Life", published in December 2001, made the distinction as follows. The assessment materials in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which was conducted in 1995 by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) among students in international grades 3–4, 7–8 and the final year of secondary school, and repeated in 1999 among students in the eighth grade only, were constructed on the basis of an analysis of the intended curriculum in each participating country, so as to cover the core material common to the curriculum in the majority of participating countries. The assessment materials in PISA 2000 covered the range of skills and competencies that were, in the respective assessment domains, considered to be crucial to an individual's capacity to fully participate in, and contribute meaningfully to, a successful modern society.
  585W
  We understand from OECD that the web version of the PISA technical report is likely to be available in July and the published version in August.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the HIPC initiative; and what steps he is taking to enhance the debt management capacity of HIPC in order to meet the UN development goals. [66874]

  John Healey
  The UK continues to press to ensure that the HIPC (heavily indebted poor countries) initiative provides a sustainable exit from debt. Of the 42 HIPCs, 26 countries have already qualified for debt relief amounting to US%62 billion in total. We therefore welcome the recent announcement of an extra US%1 billion for this aim at the G8 summit in Kananaskis and the statement by G7 leaders on specific measures to deliver on the promise of the enhanced HIPC initiative. The leaders agreed to take action to secure the participation of all creditors, to complete the financing of the initiative and to address the issue of debt sustainability at completion point.

  To enable HIPC countries to develop their expertise on debt and debt management, the Department for International Development provided £2.5 million and has committed a further £1.5 million to co-fund the HIPC Capacity Building Programme, which provides technical assistance to these countries.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Product Health and Safety is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [61714]

  Mr. Morley
  The mandate of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Product Health and Safety is set out in Commission Decision 98/235/EC. The UK is not formally represented on the committee; members are directly appointed by the Commission, drawn from across the EU, on the basis of their socioeconomic interests.

  The Commission, together with member states, is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to 'simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission'. As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February (Com (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be available through its website.

  Standstill Rule (Cumbria)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received on the 20-day standstill rule in Cumbria. [64879]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]Industry organisations and individual farmers have made a number of representations on the impact of the 20-day standstill both in Cumbria and elsewhere. Ministers and officials are in dialogue with industry representatives about the veterinary justification for the rule and its economic impact.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the practical implications of the 20-day standstill order on agricultural shows in Cumbria. [64878]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]There is firm veterinary and scientific advice in support of a 20-day standstill, both to improve the prospect of detecting disease on infected premises before animals move off, and to slow the rate of spread of any undetected disease.

  Animals moving to a show are subject to a 20-day standstill prior to their first move to a show. Animals trigger a 20-day standstill on the whole farm when they return from a show, unless they are kept in approved isolation premises for 20 days. I am aware that a number of show organisers across the country have taken steps to adjust their schedules so as to work with the standstill rules.

  Mains Water
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of domestic residences in England and Wales have no connection to mains water. [62415]

  Mr. Meacher
  The 1996 English House Condition Survey showed that 1.1 per cent. of dwellings were not connected to a main water supply. Information from the Welsh Assembly Government is that the 1998 Welsh House Condition Survey showed that 1.3 per cent. of homes were without access to mains water.

  Camels
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions exist on the movement of camels. [64803]

  Alun Michael
  Camelids are susceptible to foot and mouth disease (FMD), although less so than some other species. Based on veterinary advice, movements of camelids have therefore been subject to conditions set out in a general licence under the interim livestock movement controls. Details were set out in leaflets sent to all livestock farmers in February 2002 and placed in the Library of the House. They are also on the Department's website. They reflect discussions with organisations representing the owners of camelids.

  Special arrangements apply to llama trekking, which can currently take place under a separate licence issued by the DEFRA Divisional Veterinary Manager. Again,

  587W
  details were discussed with the relevant organisations in March 2002 and can be found on the Department's website.

  Veterinary advice has now been revised reflecting the passage of time since the end of the lambing season with no re-emergence of FMD, and it is our intention to remove all restrictions on camelid movements, including llama trekking, assuming there is no change to the current disease situation. This will require amendments to the legal instrument which sets out the animal movement controls, and the changes are expected to come into force at the end of July. Controls over camelid movements would be reimposed if a further outbreak of FMD occurred.

  Fishing
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will oppose proposals from the European Commission for the phased introduction of vessel monitoring by satellite to all vessels down to 10 metres; and if she will request EU financing for mandatory fitting of VMS to UK vessels. [64509]

  Mr. Morley
  As yet there are no firm proposals to extend satellite monitoring to all vessels over 10 metres, although this is suggested in the Commission's road map to the reform of the CFP. Satellite monitoring has applied to vessels over 24 metres since 1 January 2000 and has made a significant contribution to the effectiveness of enforcement operations across the Community. There are obvious advantages in extending satellite monitoring and we shall need to consider carefully its impact on smaller vessels. It is too early to make any commitments on the issue of funding.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) quantity and (b) value of fish quota purchased by the Shetland Fish Producers' Organisation in 1998 to 2002 for (i) cod, (ii) haddock, (iii) monk, (iv) coley and (v) hake. [63954]

  Mr. Morley
  Producer organisations have been able to acquire access to quota on behalf of their members by a number of means including buying up and cancelling fishing vessel licences but retaining the track record and FQA units, taking track record and FQA units from decommissioned fishing vessels and through agreements with their members and fishermen in other organisations. It is not he practice of the fisheries departments in the UK to disclose details of such transactions whether on an individual or collective basis. Moreover, the departments do not maintain records of the value of such transactions.

  Fisheries Inspectorate
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on proposals for an EU-wide fisheries inspectorate. [64505]

  Mr. Morley
  The Commission has said that, following a feasibility study to be undertaken in co-operation with member states, it intends to propose the establishment before mid-2004, of a joint inspection structure at Community level, which will pool national means of inspection and surveillance in relation to fisheries or other areas and manage them within a Community framework. Pooling of means will include the operation of 588W
  multinational inspection teams in both Community and international waters. The Commission has also said that the establishment of a joint inspection structure will not change the distribution of responsibilities for fisheries control and enforcement between the Commission and member states, in which the member states are primarily responsible for the control and enforcement of CFP rules and the Commission is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the correct application of Community law by the member states. Effective and consistent standards of enforcement are key priorities for the UK and we shall be examining the Commission's proposals carefully to ensure that they achieve these objectives.

  Bilateral Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Ministers in her Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63074]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA Ministers meet fairly regularly with Irish Ministers in the margins of Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment Councils and in other international meetings.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with Joe Walsh last November. He was accompanied by John Malone (Secretary General of AFRD); Bart Brady (Assistant Secretary General); Mr. Seamus Healey (Assistant Secretary General); Mr. Colm Gaynor (CVO) and Pat Lynch (Agriculture Counsellor at the Irish embassy).

  In February the Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), chaired a BIC (E) meeting in Edinburgh. Sue Essex, Noel Dempsey (Environment) and Joe Jacob (Public Enterprise RoI) were in attendance.

  I met with Mr. Frank Fahey at DEFRA offices in December. Ammon Confrey (Private Secretary), Sarah White (Deputy Secretary General) and Cecil Beamish (Principal Official) were in attendance.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by her Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64625]

  Mr. Morley
  As at 1 July, DEFRA had made 70 statutory instruments since 1 January 2002. All published statutory instruments are available on the HMSO website at http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/stat.htm.

  Detailed information regarding costings, revocations and amendments on these instruments could be provided only at disproportionate cost, but details of regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) relating to statutory instruments can be found at the Cabinet Office website at: http://

  589W
  www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/scrutiny. Copies are also placed in the Libraries of the House on the day the instrument is laid.

  Herefordshire
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason Herefordshire is dealt with by the Welsh Environment Agency. [65169]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is a corporate body covering England and Wales. DEFRA sponsors all of the Environment Agency's work in England and the National Assembly for Wales sponsors the Environment Agency's work in Wales.

  The agency has eight regions, seven in England and one in Wales. The operational boundaries of regions are defined by the confines of river catchments. A catchment is an area of land from which the water drains into a particular river. This continues a long-standing policy that originated with the water authorities and was subsequently adopted by one of the agency's predecessor bodies, the National Rivers Authority.

  Herefordshire is located in the Wye River catchment. The River Wye crosses the boundary between England and Wales, but application of the catchment principle requires that the whole river is managed by a single agency operational unit, in this case Environment Agency Wales.

  This means that the whole of the Wye catchment, including a large part of Herefordshire, is managed on a day-to-day operational basis by staff working for Environment Agency Wales. However, the first and main point of contact with the agency for those living anywhere in Herefordshire is the Upper Severn Area of the agency's midlands region.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards the development of a bovine TB vaccine. [65685]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA's ultimate aim is to produce an effective vaccine for cattle to protect against bovine tuberculosis, and it is spending over £1.4 million a year on this. DEFRA recently announced that the sequence of the entire genoma of the organism that causes bovine tuberculosis has been determined in a collaborative project between the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (UK), the Institut Pasteur (France) and the Pathogen Genome Sequencing Unit at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (UK). This breakthrough is a major step forward in the long-term search for a vaccine against bovine TB and more rapid diagnostic testing. However, the Independent Scientific Group for Cattle TB (ISG) advise that this would offer a solution only in the long term.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards the completion of the scientific badger culling trial; when the trial will be completed; and what preliminary results have been obtained. 166078]
  590W
  Mr. Morley
  Field operations associated with the badger culling trial were suspended during the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, because of the risk of the disease being carried by field operatives onto agricultural land, and because of the diversion of resources. Surveying resumed in January, with trapping under way on I May. The Independent Scientific Group for Cattle TB (ISG) has considered the impact of FMD on the trial and advised that the delivery of results will only be delayed by 3–4 months, to late 2004 or early 2005.

  The ISG advise that it is to early for an analysis of results so far. It is a basic rule for scientific trials that results are not published prematurely. It has, however, been possible to complete a preliminary analysis of the risk factors associated with cattle TB and this is set out in the ISG's third annual report, copies of which are available in the House Library.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the possibility of bovine TB being transferred to humans; and if she will make a statement. [66511]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]There are estimated to be about 40–50 cases of Mycobacterium bovis (bovine TB) in humans each year in Great Britain. Most of these cases are either contracted abroad or result from the reactivation of M. bovis acquired in the past.

  Public health safeguards have been in existence for many years to minimise the risk of people being exposed to bovine TB through meat, milk or dairy products. It is possible that some cases of bovine TB may have occurred in people who have a close association with infected animals. The HSE has published guidance for farm workers on minimising the risk of infection.

  Regular meetings are held between Government Departments to monitor the potential for bovine TB to infect humans through the UK food chain and other zoonotic routes.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's assessment is of the effect of its CAP reform proposals on common agricultural policy spending(a) for the United Kingdom and (b) for the European Union (i) as it stands and (ii) after the accession of the 10 candidate countries to the European Union in 2004. [66094]

  Mr. Morley
  The effects of CAP reform on national and European spending depends on the detail and extent of the reform. We expect the European Commission to publish proposals for reform of the CAP on 10 July. We would expect any proposals to respect the budget ceilings set out in the Financial Perspective.

  Milk
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to promote awareness of the school milk subsidy scheme among primary schools in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) England. [65085]
  591W
  Mr. Morley
  In addition to campaigns by the dairy sector, the Rural Payments Agency regularly sends out guidance on the scheme to local education authorities.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will hold a meeting with representatives from dairy farmers and buyers regarding the price of milk. [66576]

  Mr. Morley
  The price that milk purchasers pay farmers for their milk is a commercial matter in which the Government cannot become involved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore has no plans to meet representatives of dairy farmers and milk buyers specifically to discuss this issue. However, Ministers frequently meet with representatives from all parts of the dairy sector in the course of their duties, do discuss the overall market situation, and are aware of the concern caused by the current low prices. The Government have therefore actively supported measures taken in Brussels to support EU markets for milk and milk products and to encourage exports.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in the management of access and systems to ensure that members of the public are informed of their rights and responsibilities if the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is implemented on a regional basis. [65736]

  Alun Michael
  Section 20 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires the Countryside Agency to issue codes of conduct for the guidance of walkers and land managers about their rights and obligations on access land.

  The agency is also revising the Country Code and consulting widely on its content. The agency plans to relaunch the Code, to contain guidance both to walkers and land managers about access under the Act and more generally, in the summer of 2003.

  I am currently considering whether it will be possible to opt for a regional roll-out of the right of access and to manage the implementation of arrangements for informing people of their rights and responsibilities accordingly.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the workings of the Access to the Countryside legislation, with particular reference to farm land. [66518]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency is consulting on draft maps of open country and registered common land on a rolling, regional, programme. Following the consultation on each draft map, the agency will then issue a provisional map, and land managers will have an opportunity to appeal to the Secretary of State if they object to the mapping of any land as open country or registered common land.

  In addition to mapping, there are practical issues which must be addressed, such as managing access and ensuring that members of the public and land managers are properly informed of their rights and responsibilities. We
  592W
  are working closely with the Countryside Agency and other bodies to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place before the right of access is commenced in any area.

  Flood Defence
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the last assessment of the relative risks and priorities in regard to the categorisation of watercourses in England took place; and when she intends to review this categorisation to determine responsibilities for flood defence measures based on the current assessment of the severity of the flood risk issues and their relative priority. [66189]

  Mr. Morley
  Watercourses in England are classed either as "main river" or "ordinary watercourses". The Environment Agency has permissive powers to undertake flood defence works on main rivers while for ordinary watercourses similar powers rest with the relevant operating authority, ie the local authority or, where one exists, the internal drainage board.

  In 1999 the Government published a series of high level targets for flood and coastal defence, alongside an elaboration of the Environment Agency's general flood defence supervisory duty. Following this, work has been undertaken to identify "critical ordinary watercourses" which are those watercourses agreed between the Environment Agency and the relevant operating authority as presenting a significant flood risk. The Environment Agency has also been working with the operating authorities to ensure that these watercourses and any related flood defences are regularly inspected and their condition reported to the Environment Agency.

  We recently consulted on a Review of Flood and Coastal Defence Funding including a number of options for streamlining the service. These included the possibility of transferring to the EA responsibility for watercourses presenting the most significant flood risk. We have received nearly 300 responses to the consultation, and will be considering these and our conclusions through the summer and autumn.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the high level targets for flooding and coastal defence her Department(a) met within the stated objective date, (b) has met and (c) has still to achieve. [66555]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The high level targets (HLT) published in November 1999 apply to the Environment Agency and other bodies. No targets apply to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The targets generally require the Environment Agency and others to report on specific issues at specific times. Unfortunately reports due in 2001 were delayed because resources had to be diverted during the serious and widespread flooding in autumn 2000 and to deal with follow-up work.

  Reports covering the 2001–02 period were published on 24 May 2002 for: HLT 1 (Policy statements); HLT 2 (Provision of Flood Warnings); HLT 3 (Emergency exercises and emergency plans) and HLT 9 (Biodiversity). I expect shortly to be able to publish reports for HLT 2 (due April 2002) and HLT 5 (Flood defence inspections and assessment).
  593W
  On other targets, the National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (HLT 4) is now expected to become operational by September. Coastal groups have provided partial responses under HLTs 6, 8 and 13 and we are working with them to secure fuller and timely compliance in future. Information has been forthcoming from operating authorities under HLT 7, and the Association of Drainage Authorities have issued guidance to IDBs under HLT 14, though this was delayed by factors beyond the Association's control.

  The Environment Agency are still awaiting submissions for the targets 10, 11 and 12, and reports will be published in coming months. While there might be some residual delay following the impact of the autumn 2000 floods, I hope to achieve rather more timely publication in future.

  Air Quality
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department's latest modelling shows that the objectives of the 1997 National Air Quality Strategy will be achieved for each of the eight pollutants named in the strategy under current policies. [65541]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]Our latest modelling suggests that, for five out of the eight named pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, benzene, 1,3 butadiene, and sulphur dioxide), we are broadly on track to meet the objectives set out in the 1997 National Air Quality Strategy. In respect of three pollutants, however, (particles, ozone and nitrogen dioxide) there are some parts of the country which are at risk of exceeding the objectives originally proposed in the 1997 strategy.

  Table 1a: Air Quality Strategy standards (2000)

  Pollutant

  Concentration

  Standard measured as

  Nitrogen dioxide

  200 micrograms per metre cubed1

  1 hour mean

  40 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Annual mean

  Sulphur dioxide

  266 micrograms per metre cubed1

  15 minute mean

  350 micrograms per metre cubed

  1 hour mean

  125 micrograms per metre cubed1

  24 hour mean

  Particulate matter (PM10)

  50 micrograms per metre cubed1

  24 hour mean

  40 micrograms per cubic metre1

  Annual mean

  Ozone

  100 micrograms per cubic metre1

  Running 8 hour mean

  Carbon monoxide

  11.6 milligrams per metre cubed1

  Running 8 hour mean

  Benzene

  16.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Running annual mean

  1,3-butadiene

  2.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Running annual mean

  Lead

  0.5 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Annual mean

  0.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Annual mean

  Table lb: Air Quality Strategy objectives (2000)

  Pollutant

  Concentration

  Measured as

  Date to be achieved by

  Nitrogen dioxide

  200 micrograms per metre cubed, not to be exceeded more than 18 times per year

  Hourly mean

  31 December 2005

  40 micrograms per metre cubed

  Annual mean

  31 December 2005

  Sulphur dioxide

  266 micrograms per metre cubed1, not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year

  15 minute mean

  31 December 2005

  125 micrograms per metre cubed, not to be exceeded more than three times per year

  24 hour mean

  31 December 2004

  350 micrograms per metre cubed, not to exceeded more than 24 times per year

  1 hour mean

  31 December 2004

  594W
  Many of the objectives of the 1997 National Air Quality Strategy have been tightened or amended in recent years, in the light of on-going policy and scientific developments. Details of our latest objectives together with modelled forecasts for each pollutant, are set out in the January 2000 Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland, and also in the September 2001 consultation document on proposed new air quality objectives for particles, carbon monoxide, benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). These documents are both available via the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/index.htm.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recommended standard is for each of the eight pollutants named in the National Air Quality Strategy; and whether the standards for each pollutant were breached in(a) the UK and (b) London in the last recorded year of monitoring. [65542]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]The standards for each of the eight pollutants in the Air Quality Strategy are given in Table I a. The strategy is advised by the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQS), which recommends health based ambient air quality standards on which objectives will generally be based. Standards represent the concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere which can broadly be taken to achieve a certain level of environmental quality. They are based on assessment of the effects of each pollutant on human health including the effects on sensitive subgroups. The Air Quality Strategy also incorporates objectives which are policy targets generally expressed as a maximum ambient concentration to be achieved, taking account of the costs and benefits, and the feasibility and practicability of moving towards the standards. These are given in Table 1b.
  595W

  Table lb: Air Quality Strategy objectives (2000)

  Pollutant

  Concentration

  Measured as

  Date to be achieved by

  Particulate matter (PM10)

  50 micrograms per metre cubed1, not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year

  24 hour mean

  31 December 2004

  40 micrograms per metre cubed

  Annual mean

  31 December 2004

  Ozone1

  100 micrograms per metre cubed1, not to be exceeded more than 10 times per year

  Running 8 hour mean

  31 December 2005

  Carbon monoxide

  11.6 milligrams per metre cubed1

  Running 8 hour mean

  31 December 2003

  Benzene

  16.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Running annual mean

  31 December 2003

  1,3-butadiene

  2.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  Running annual mean

  31 December 2003

  Lead

  0.5 micrograms per metre cubed

  Annual mean

  31 December 2004

  0.25 micrograms per metre cubed

  Annual mean

  31 December 2008

  1 The objective for ozone is not in regulations for the purposes of local air quality management due to the transboundary nature of this pollutant.

  There are 122 automatic air quality monitoring sites in the UK national monitoring networks and of these 24 are in London. All data are reported in the National Air

  Table 2: The number of sites in the UK and London which breached each of the standards and objectives

  Number of automatic sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy standard in 2001

  Pollutant

  Air Quality Strategy standards

  UK2

  London

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Hourly mean, 200 micrograms per metre cubed1

  22

  5

  Annual mean, 40 micrograms per metre cubed1

  32 automatic and 251 non-automatic sites

  18 automatic and 24 non-automatic sites

  Sulphur dioxide

  15 minute mean, 266 micrograms per metre cubed1

  17

  2

  1 hour mean, 350 micrograms per metre cubed

  2

  0

  24 hour mean, 125 micrograms per metre cubed1

  1 automatic and 8 non-automatic sites

  0 automatic and 0 non-automatic sites

  Particulate matter (PM,10)

  24 hour mean, 50 micrograms per cubic metre1

  47

  12

  Annual mean, 40 micrograms per metre cubed

  1

  1

  Ozone

  Running 8 hour mean, 100 micrograms per cubic metre1

  69

  12

  Carbon monoxide

  Running 8 hour mean, 11.6 milligrams per metre cubed1

  0

  0

  Benzene

  Running annual mean, 16.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  0

  0

  1,3-butadiene

  Running annual mean, 2.25 micrograms per metre cubed1

  0

  0

  Lead

  Annual mean, 0.5 micrograms per metre cubed1

  0

  0

  Annual mean, 0.25 micrograms per metre cubed

  0

  0

  Number of automatic sites exceeding Air Quality Strategy objective in 2001

  Pollutant

  Air Quality Strategy objectives

  UK2

  London

  Nitrogen dioxide

  Hourly mean, 200 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded more than 18 time per year

  4

  1

  Annual mean, 40 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  32 automatic and 251 non-automatic sites

  18 automatic and 24 non-automatic sites

  Sulphur dioxide

  15 minute mean, 266 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year

  1

  0

  1 hour mean, 350 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded more than 24 times per year

  0

  0

  24 hour mean, 125 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded more than three times per year

  1 automatic and 4 non-automatic sites

  0 automatic and 0 non-automatic sites

  Particulate matter (PM10)

  24 hour mean, 50 micrograms per cubic metre not to be exceeded more than 35 times per year

  6

  1

  Annual mean, 40 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  1

  1

  Ozone

  Running 8 hour mean, 100 micrograms per cubic metre not to be exceeded more than 10 times per year

  36

  7

  Carbon monoxide

  Running 8 hour mean, 11.6 milligrams per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  0

  0

  Benzene

  Running annual mean, 16.25 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  0

  0

  1,3-butadiene

  Running annual mean, 2.25 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  0

  0

  Lead

  Annual mean, 0.5 micrograms per metre cubed not to he exceeded

  0

  0

  Annual mean, 0.25 micrograms per metre cubed not to be exceeded

  0

  0

  1The objective for ozone is not in regulations for the purposes of local air quality management due to the transboundary nature of this pollutant.

  2Total number of sites in the UK exceeding the standard (ie London plus rest of UK)

  596W
  Quality Archive (www.airquality.co.uk). The number of sites in the UK and in London which breached each of the standards and objectives are given in Table 2.

  Arable Farm Prices
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent trends in arable farm prices. [66517]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]The table shows price patterns for arable crops over the period May 2001 to May 2002, one month more than a year to allow comparison for the maincrop potato where the season end is May. Here follows the explanation of the price trends.

  Bread making wheat prices have fallen by around 4 per cent. between May 2001 and May 2002. Domestic demand has been flat and any short term supply difficulties have been met by imports from the EU.

  Feed wheat prices have declined by around 12 per cent. over the last year with the most marked fall since February 2002. Markets have come under increasing pressure from cheap Black sea eg Ukrainian supplies.

  Feed barley prices have been affected by falling wheat prices and limited trade on the domestic market. Overall they have declined by 19 per cent. over the period May 2001 to May 2002.

  Maincrop potato prices have declined by 20 per cent. since the start of the current maincrop season in August 2001 and by 47 per cent. compared to the end of the 2000–01 season in May 2001. The fall in prices can be attributed to supplies outstripping demand. There is a large price difference between the poorest and best quality stock.

  Early potatoes are not shown on the table as at this point in 2002 there is no monthly representative data, however weekly information provides an indication. For the 2001 early season (June and July), prices were considerably higher than during 1999 and 2000 due to strong demand and poor weather restricting supplies. Early indications for 2002 suggest a likely fall in prices due to large volumes of imports. The latest provisional weekly prices (14–20 June) show the prices 98 per cent. and 30 per cent. higher than the equivalent weeks in 1999 and 2000 but 53 per cent. lower than in 2001.

  £/tonne

  Date

  Bread making wheat

  Feed wheat

  Feed barley

  Maincrop potatoes

  May 2001

  84.86

  76.48

  72.02

  159.12

  June 2001

  88.18

  76.56

  71.73

  1—

  July 2001

  86.05

  75.19

  66.96

  1—

  August 2001

  88.72

  75.38

  65.22

  105.86

  September 2001

  91.04

  76.71

  66.99

  84.89

  October 2001

  89.87

  76.27

  65.69

  79.01

  November 2001

  89.89

  77.05

  65.51

  81.87

  December 2001

  89.94

  76.75

  67.44

  84.32

  January 2002

  90.79

  76.84

  68.07

  91.59

  February 2002

  91.23

  76.23

  67.02

  93.47

  March 2002

  87.05

  72.45

  63.67

  93.34

  April 2002

  84.09

  68.75

  59.75

  89.26

  May 2002

  81.23

  67.46

  58.26

  84.73

  1 Out of season

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress made on farm diversification. [66519]

  Alun Michael
  It is a Government policy priority to help farmers to consider diversifying the economic base of their businesses. This accords with views on farm diversification emerging from the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.

  To help achieve this policy aim DEFRA provides grants under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, which forms part of the England Rural Development Programme. Since the scheme's launch in October 2000, over 200 diversification projects have been approved and awarded nearly £9 million in funding. The Department also offers assistance in the form of free planning consultancy advice to farmers who intend to pursue an eligible diversification project through the Rural Enterprise Scheme and we are considering how to improve the provision of help and information to farmers considering diversifying their business. Our Rural Development Service has been running successful business planning seminars in a number of the regions.

  There are many types of farm business and no single approach will be appropriate. The Rural Enterprise Scheme is just one of a number of measures under the England Rural Development Programme, including agri-environment schemes, aid for conversion to organic farming, grants for processing and marketing of agricultural products, farm woodlands, energy crops and vocational training.

  Curry Report
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what economic assessment she has made of the implementation of the Curry report. [66352]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]The Policy Commission estimated that implementing its recommendations would cost approximately £500 million over three years. However, the cost of many of the recommendations will depend upon the precise way in which they are implemented. The Government intend to produce a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England in the autumn, following a wide-ranging process of stakeholder engagement. This strategy will incorporate a definitive response to each of the Policy Commission's recommendations, although not all of these fall to, or involve expenditure by Government.

  Farming Techniques
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government have done to encourage farmers to adopt more wildlife-friendly farming techniques. [66645]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department and its agencies have a variety of mechanisms to promote more wildlife-friendly farming among farmers. The two largest instruments are the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas schemes. These offer farmers and other land managers payments to assist them in the protection and enhancement or the rural environment.
  599W
  Other measures include:
  Wildlife Enhancement Agreements (administered by English Nature on Sites of Special Scientific Interest);
  environmental measures attached to the Organic Farming scheme:
  cross-compliance measures to ensure good environmental management of set-aside land to tackle over-grazing and inappropriate supplementary feeding of livestock;
  delivery of free conservation advice to farmers, focusing especially on priority Biodiversity Action Plan species and habitats;
  a biodiversity and conservation management research programme worth over £2 million a year.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what legislation is in place to control the welfare of(a) livestock and (b) other species. [66646]

  Mr. Morley
  The following is a list of primary legislation in England and Wales relating to the welfare of livestock and other animals (the list excludes secondary legislation and EU directives):

  Night Poaching Act 1828

  Game Act 1831 (and amendments)

  Night Poaching Act 1844

  Hares Act 1848

  Game Licences Act 1860

  Poaching Prevention Act 1862

  Ground Game Act 1880 (and amendments)

  Protection of Animals Act 1911 (and amendments)

  Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

  Protection of Animals Act 1934

  Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937

  Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949

  Pet Animals Act 1951 and amendment 1983

  Cockfighting Act 1952

  Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

  Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954

  Abandonment of Animals Act 1960

  Animals (Cruel Poisons) Act 1962

  Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966

  Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968

  Riding Establishments Acts 1964 and 1970

  Conservation of Seals Act 1970

  Animals Act 1971

  Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991

  Guard Dogs Act 1975

  Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and amendment 1977

  Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976

  Animal Health Act 1981 (and amendments)

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and amendments)

  Zoo Licensing Act 1981

  Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

  Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988

  Deer Act 1991

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.

  Livestock Movements
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to change the 20 day standstill rule on livestock movements in time for autumn sales. [65571]

  Mr. Morley
  No decision will be made until the recommendations of the Royal Society and Lessons Learned Inquiries have been published. There is firm veterinary and scientific advice in support of the present 20 day standstill as a means of helping protect against the rapid spread of any new incursion of disease. We are in discussion with industry representatives about the economic impact of the present standstill rule.

  Wye Navigation Order
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make an announcement about the Wye Navigation Order. [68018]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has applied for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 making it the navigation authority for the River Wye. A public inquiry into the application was held in 1997 following which further detailed representations were made. After careful consideration the Minister responsible my noble Friend the Lord Whitty has decided to accept the Inspector's recommendation and, with the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales, make the Order. A copy of the decision letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Communications
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will calculate(a) how many and (b) at what total cost circulars were issued by her Department in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [33381]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA was created in June 2001. Obtaining information prior to this date would incur disproportionate cost.

  Records show that up to the end of the 2001 financial year the departmental publicity and publications section produced 418 circulars/information documents, 225 forms targeted at the farming community and ancillary organisations and 38 consultation papers. The total cost of this was £2,012,886 of which £831,049 covered the cost of delivery of these items by mail.

  Affordable Homes
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many affordable homes(a) were built and (b) are estimated to be built in (i) deep rural and (ii) mixed rural areas in each year from 1996 to 2016. [58931]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Available information on affordable housing units completed by social landlords since 1996–97 in local authority districts classified as either "deep" or "mixed" rural are presented in the following table.
  601W

  New affordable housing units completed: England

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Deep rural authorities

  Local authority

  37

  16

  1

  18

  2

  n/a

  Registered Social Landlords

  851

  2,022

  1,541

  1,462

  1,280

  1,121

  Total new affordable housing units

  888

  2,038

  1,542

  1,480

  1,282

  n/a

  Mixed Rural authorities

  Local authority

  84

  57

  36

  1

  62

  n/a

  Registered Social Landlords

  3,047

  6,599

  5,945

  4,849

  4,722

  3,965

  Total new affordable housing units

  3,131

  6,656

  5,981

  4,850

  4,784

  n/a

  All Rural authorities

  Local authority

  121

  73

  37

  19

  64

  n/a

  Registered Social Landlords

  3,898

  8,621

  7,486

  6,311

  6,002

  5,086

  Total new affordable housing units

  4,019

  8,694

  7,523

  6,330

  6,066

  n/a

  Notes:

  Registered Social Landlord (RSL) completions represent units funded through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme and/or via local authorities with Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG).

  Affordable housing schemes by RSLs comprise those for rent (including Tariff, and Mixed Funded schemes); temporary social housing schemes (including MiniHag, and short-life housing); and shared or outright ownership schemes (including leasehold for the elderly). RSL schemes will include "off-the-shelf' purchases from private developers, and other

  additions to RSL stock through acquisition and refurbishment.

  Sources:

  LA new-build from DTLR housing activity monthly P2 returns.

  RSL provision from Housing Corporation returns.

  No precise information on affordable homes constructed without public funding is available. Provisional data covering 2000–01 were collected as part of the Housing Investment Programme Statistical Appendices for the first time last year, but returns were incomplete. We have made changes to this year's return to encourage more complete reporting.

  Central Government does not make long-term forecasts of affordable housing build. We expect local authorities to plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community including those in need of affordable housing.

  The Government recognise the importance of affordable housing in maintaining balanced and successful rural communities, and is doubling the size of the Housing Corporation's programme to deliver affordable housing in small rural settlements (with a population of 3,000 or less), from 800 in 2000–01 to 1,600 homes a year by 2003–04. We expect to deliver around 9,000 affordable homes annually in rural areas by 2003–04, including the 1,600 in small rural settlements.

  Hazardous Freight
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) hazardous and (b) radioactive material has been transported through the Portsmouth, South constituency by road on a regular basis in the last year; and if she will make a statement. [66481]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information of this nature is not held by the Department.

  Illegal Waste
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advertising campaigns(a) have taken place and (b) are planned by (i) her Department, (ii) the Environment Agency and (iii) other Government bodies in relation to tackling problems from (A) litter, (B) fly tipping, (C) abandoned
  602W
  vehicles and (D) other waste disposed by illegal means; how much these have cost; what assessment has been made of their effect; and if she will make a statement. [64738]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department grant funds the environmental charity, Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), which runs the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. Last year ENCAMS ran anti-litter advertising campaigns targeted at drivers who throw litter from cars, and adolescents. The latter campaign used pop stars, soap personalities and footballers to convey the message that it is not "cool" to litter. ENCAMS also initiated a clean up campaign targeted at those who drop litter in and around football grounds using Michael Owen and other famous footballers to get the message across—so far campaigns have been launched at Liverpool and Arsenal football grounds. This year ENCAMS will be launching a campaign directed at fast food litter. This campaign will run in August in cinemas throughout the country. ENCAMS also runs a number of Keep Britain Tidy campaigns throughout the year which get local communities cleaning up their local environment.

  It is primarily the responsibility of local authorities and the Environment Agency to instigate advertising campaigns in relation to fly tipping and waste disposed of by illegal means. While there is no central list of campaigns by local authorities, the Environment Agency has worked to establish the fly tipping forum which has helped to raise awareness and the profile of the issue. The forum is proposing to organise a seminar specifically relating to fly tipping and waste related crime in the future. In addition, information about fly tipping and advice on what to do in relation to a fly tipping incident can be found on the agency's website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/wasteman/flytip/. The agency has also produced a fly tipping leaflet which gives details of how to report fly tipping incidents.

  DEFRA has not carried out any advertising campaigns in relation to abandoned vehicles, nor is any planned.
  603W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) advice and guidance has been given by her Department and (b) legislation is in place with relation to tackling problems from (i) litter, (ii) fly tipping, (iii) abandoned vehicles and (iv) other waste disposed by illegal means; and if she will make a statement. [64737]

  Mr. Meacher
  Guidance for dealing with litter is contained in the 1999 DETR Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse. This sets out reasonable and acceptable standards of cleanliness for local authorities and Duty Bodies which they can be expected to meet. Advice for the general public is published by the Tidy Britain Group in their leaflet entitled "Litter and the Law". This explains the litter laws and how the public can help to achieve a litter-free local environment.

  The current legislation in place to deal with litter and refuse is contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This makes Duty Bodies responsible for keeping their land clear of litter and refuse. It also gives both local authorities and citizens the right to take legal action to get areas cleaned up.

  The Environment Agency, in conjunction with the fly tipping forum has put together a comprehensive pack of guidance to help various sectors of society to deal with fly tipping. This guidance is available on the Environment Agency website at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/wasteman/flytip/.

  Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it a criminal offence to dispose of waste outside the terms of a Waste Management Licence or a registered exemption from licensing. Section 59 of the same act gives the Environment Agency and local authorities the power to serve notice on the perpetrators of fly tipping, requiring them to remove the waste and pay for the clean up. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are also empowered to effect the removal of fly tipped waste and to recover the costs from those responsible.

  The Department has not given any advice or guidance with relation to tackling problems from abandoned vehicles. The legislation covering abandoned vehicles is contained in the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 and the Removal and Disposal of Vehicles (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.

  There is no advice given by the Department in relation to waste disposed by illegal means—other than fly tipping. The Environment Agency can also take action to revoke or amend a waste management licence, if waste is deposited outside the conditions of that licence. These provisions are detailed in the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

  Waste Disposal
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been conducted for(a) her Department and (b) the Environment Agency on progress towards meeting the EU Incinerator Directive; and if she will make a statement. [65603]
  604W
  Mr. Meacher
  On 20 June 2002, I announced in a written answer,Official Report, column 489W, the publication by the Department of a consultation paper setting out how the Government intend to implement Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste. This followed consideration of the directive's requirements and the refinement of a regulatory impact assessment (which is included as Annexe 1 to the consultation paper). Responses to consultation are requested by 9 September, in the light of which the Department will finalise draft secondary legislation to put before the House.

  In anticipation of the impending implementation of this directive, the Environment Agency has taken the following actions:
  Permits for all new incinerators now incorporate the directive's emission limits. Notices varying the operational conditions for existing municipal waste incinerators were issued earlier this year requiring operators to report on plant performance against the emission standards set out in the directive.
  Detailed guidance on the interpretation of the directive has been drafted in order to help agency staff to apply the directive's requirements in a consistent and transparent manner.
  A technical guidance note on waste incineration techniques and their associated emissions has been drafted and placed on the agency's website.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has had from the(a) European Commission, (b) Environment Agency, (c) Environmental Services Association, (d) waste management companies, (e) industry and (f) others on the EU Waste Incineration Directive; and if she will make a statement. [65604]

  Mr. Meacher
  The former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions conducted extensive consultations with these organisations during negotiations of the draft directive on the incineration of waste. The Department announced on 20 June 2002 the publication of a consultation paper setting out how the Government intend to implement the resulting directive (2000/76/EC) and inviting, by 9 September, responses from regulators, trade associations, industry and any other organisations or individuals with an interest. At this early point in the consultation period, no response has been received.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she had had with(a) the European Commission and (b) others regarding the Waste Acceptance Criteria; what the status of the timetable for implementation is; and if she will make a statement; [65630]

  (2) what representations she has received regarding the Waste Acceptance Criteria; and if she will make a statement. [65629]

  Mr. Meacher
  The waste acceptance criteria have been discussed at length with the Commission and other member states at a series of regular meetings of the Landfill Sub-Committee of the Committee for the Adaption to Scientific and Technical Progress of EC Legislation on Waste held since 1999.

  These negotiations have been shadowed by a consultation group comprising representatives of the Environment Agency. Government Departments, the devolved Administrations, the waste management industry and waste producers. The representations made by

  605W
  members of the group have formed a valuable input into the development of the UK's negotiating position on the waste acceptance criteria.

  The Commission have now finalised and circulated a draft decision setting out criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills. This will be voted on at a meeting of the Committee for the Adaption to Scientific and Technical Progress of EC Legislation on Waste in Brussels on 23 July 2002. The draft decision document requires the waste acceptance criteria to be transposed into domestic legislation by July 2004 and implemented by July 2005.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research(a) has been conducted and (b) is planned for her Department on the (i) healthy, (ii) environmental and (iii) other impacts of (A) emissions from incinerators and (B) dioxins in incinerator ash; and if she will make a statement. [65605]

  Mr. Meacher
  Emissions: The Environment Agency is currently conducting a 'Human Health Review of Incineration and Combustion Techniques' which is looking at the health impacts of emissions and a number of combustion processes including incineration.

  Dioxins in incinerator ash: The Environment Agency has conducted an investigation into the composition, destination and use of residues from the 11 Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in England. This includes analyses of dioxin levels in the residues, and assessments as to the environmental and health risks involved. The Agency's report has now been published and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Planned research: With the involvement of the Department of Health and the devolved Administrations, my Department recently hosted a seminar to identify the research needs of all waste management options, including incineration.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is responsible for(a) testing and (b) monitoring (i) incinerator ash and (ii) incinerator emissions; and if she will make a statement. [65606]

  Mr. Meacher
  Operators are responsible for testing and monitoring incinerator emissions (including incinerator ash) and demonstrating compliance with assessment criteria specified by the regulator. The Environment Agency regulates all municipal waste incinerators (MWIs) with a capacity of 1 tonne per hour or greater. Local authorities regulate MWIs with a capacity less than I tonne per hour.

  The Environment Agency carries out independent monitoring of emissions at least once a year. The agency also checks the operator's monitoring procedures and findings using a formal audit procedure.

  Food Safety
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that sufficient numbers of environmental health officers are being trained to oversee food safety. [64533]
  606W
  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Food safety is the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. I am advised by the agency that its board has expressed concern about the recruitment and retention problems being faced by local authorities. It requested officials to discuss the issues with other relevant stakeholders to look for ways to improve the situation and to help ensure continued provision of effective food law enforcement services. The matter is to be considered again in detail at the board's meeting on 11 July 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to commission an audit of the uses of sheep and goat products in(a) food and (b) non-food products. [64112]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the board of the agency endorsed a report on BSE and sheep from a group of stakeholders at its meeting on 13 June in Armagh. It contained a recommendation that the agency, with other Government Departments, should commission a full audit of the uses of sheep and goat products in food and non-food products. The agency will now take forward its share of the work and approach the other Departments involved.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been taken since the foot and mouth epidemic to ensure that if another outbreak were to occur it could be efficiently dealt with. [66647]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has produced an interim contingency plan for foot and mouth disease in consultation with some key stakeholders and operational partners. The interim contingency plan builds on the existing plan (which is required by EC Directive 90/423) and codifies experiences and lessons learned from the recent outbreak. However, it does not seek to pre-judge the results of the official inquiries into the last outbreak. All plans will be comprehensively reviewed as a result of any recommendations made by the official inquiries.

  A programme of testing through simulation exercises is planned for the future. Stakeholders at both national and local level will be invited to be involved in the programme.

  A number of restrictions on animal movements remain in place as a means of helping protect against the rapid spread of any new incursion of disease, and measures have been taken to improve standards of biosecurity in livestock markets and shows. These arrangements also will be reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the official inquiries.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to implement the ICAO recommendation on the continued close environmental monitoring and inspection of foot and mouth disposal sites and the publication and reflection in her Department's contingency plans of the results. [65191]
  607W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department is working closely with the Environment Agency (EA) to ensure that FMD disposal sites are effectively monitored. Up until the end of March 2002, the EA managed a programme of environmental monitoring in the areas worst affected by the outbreak. DEFRA has now taken over responsibility for this interim monitoring programme and has recently issued a tender for the sampling and analysis of selected sites throughout England and Wales.

  The Department also intends to commission individual site-specific risk assessments for each carcase and ash disposal site. These assessments will be made available to the EA, who will review the environmental risk and Groundwater Authorisations. Based on the results of these risk assessments, the Department will then commission a targeted monitoring programme to ensure that any potential longer-term environmental impacts are identified.

  In addition to this monitoring programme, each of the mass burial sites has its own comprehensive monitoring programme with regular reporting to DEFRA and the EA. The agency also carries out audit monitoring. Watchtree has 68 monitoring boreholes, Tow Law 32, Throckmorton 28 and Widdrington six. These boreholes are at varying distances from the cells and samples are taken, in some cases at several different depths. The Environment Agency is sampling stream springs and watercourses in the vicinity of the mass burial sites. No pollution from carcase disposal has been detected to date.

  The need for formal risk assessments to be undertaken prior to the burial of carcases or ash is being incorporated into departmental operational guidance.

  EU Committees (Scottish Executive Representation)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Seveso II) is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. (66449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Committee of Competent Authorities (CCA) next meeting, which will be its eighth, will be held in Odense, Denmark, from 16 to 18 October 2002. The UK delegation will be headed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), and will include others, also from HSE and the Environment Agency (EA). Matters relating to Scottish representation at such meetings should he raised with the Scottish Executive.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66459]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently no plans for the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution by asbestos to meet. The UK 608W
  representation on this committee depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations attend as necessary in accordance with their interests.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee on agricultural structures and rural development is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [64899]

  Alun Michael
  The EU Committee on agricultural structures and rural development is next due to meet on 24 July 2002. UK representation may vary according to the agenda for each meeting and may include members of the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations where there are items of sufficient interest. Agendas and papers are routinely circulated to all devolved Administrations in advance of meetings and they also receive reports of matters discussed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is given to Government Departments in relation to(a) recycling of waste products, (b) purchase of materials which are recycled, and (c) purchases of materials from renewable sources; what plans there are to change such guidance; and if he will make a statement. [65597]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government's policy on these issues is currently set out in the "Model Framework for Greening Government Operations", that was issued in 1998 and is on DEFRA's Greening Government website: http://defraweb/environment/greening/conserve/conserve.htm. This will be replaced by a new Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate that will be rolled out during the current financial year and set targets for all key operational areas of the Government estate, including waste management and procurement.

  The Greening Government website also provides guidance on recycling waste products, e.g. in the "Waste Guide—Advice for Government Departments". The procurement page on that site also contains guidance on purchasing recycled materials, e.g. Part 2 of the "Green Guide for Buyers" contains best practice advice on 'Resource Efficiency' covering the four "Rs", and there is specific guidance in Part 3 covering paper and IT equipment. URL: http://defraweb/en vironment/greening/greenpro/greenpro.htm There are also links to other sources of information such as the Buy Recycled Programme's Products Guide and the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

  There are plans to revise the "Waste Guide". The Secretary of State has also set up a cross-Government Sustainable Procurement Group that will report to Ministers this summer on using the Government's purchasing power to promote sustainable development and encourage innovation and the supply of environmentally preferable goods and services. Their report due in July will, among other things, look at how the Government can increase its purchases of re-manufactured and recycled goods.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Catherine Meyer
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department will set up a meeting with hon. Members to discuss the case of Catherine Meyer. [65383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister responsible for consular affairs, would be happy to meet with my hon. Friend to discuss this case.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when her Parliamentary Secretary will meet the hon. Member for Leicester, East to discuss the Catherine Meyer case. [66332]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I will meet with the hon. Member for Leicester, East if he wishes. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department has had no involvement in the case since November 1994.

  Leicester County Court
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the staffing level is at Leicester county court; and what it was in 1990. [64832]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department holds records on this which are accurate, back to April 1996.

  The Department employed a total of 57 employees as at 1 June 2002 at Leicester county court. As at 1 April 1996 the Department employed 68 employees.

  Land Registry
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were employed in the Land Registry in 1990; and how many are employed currently. [66329]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 1 April 1990, the Land Registry employed 10,771 members of staff and on 1 April 2002 it was employing 7.998.

  Contact Orders
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contact orders were(a) granted and (b) refused under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2001. [65721]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures sought are published annually in Judicial Statistics.

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Granted

  41,862

  46,070

  55,030

  Refused

  1,752

  1,276

  713

  Contact orders include ones made for indirect contact or supervised contact, though no breakdown is available.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many members of her Department have been employed in its Regulatory Impact Unit in the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [65972]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 1997 and March 2002, one person was employed to co-ordinate work on regulatory impact across LCD, alongside other duties. In April, this increased to two.

  It is the job of departmental Regulatory Impact Units to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in their Departments. The staff in each unit work closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. They focus on those regulations that impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many successful appeals for visa applications there have been from Arab countries since September 1999. [65232]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are a number of different types of visa and only family visit visa appeals are recorded separately from other immigration appeals. From October 2000 (when the appeal right for such applications was reintroduced) to 31 May 2002 there were 93 successful family visit visa appeals from the nationals of member states of the Arab League. The breakdown by country is as follows:

  Algeria—23

  Djibouti—1

  Egypt—9

  Iraq—8

  Jordan—1

  Lebanon—0

  Libya—4

  Mauritania—7

  Morocco—6

  Oman—0

  Somalia—5

  Sudan—9

  Syria—2

  Tunisia—5

  Yemen—13.

  No appeals were received from nationals of Bahrain, Comoros. Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates.

  Solicitors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what support she is providing to the Law Society to facilitate the prompt reform of those solicitors practice rules identified as anti-competitive by the Director General of Fair Trading; and if she will make a statement. [66476]
  611W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Reform of the solicitors practice rules and removal of anti-competitive restrictions therein are matters for the Law Society to take forward. Where there are restrictions in legislation relating to the regulation of solicitors, they fall to Government to consider. As has already been announced, the Government are planning to consult before the summer break on those issues which fall to it arising from the DGFT's report.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions her Department has had with the Law Society in the past 12 months on 612W
  employed solicitors advising the public, fee-sharing and referral fees; and if she will make a statement. [66474]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Officials from both the Lord Chancellor's Department and from the Department of Trade and Industry have separately held meetings with the Law Society. The DTI has discussed competition issues generally. The LCD has discussed progress relating to those matters highlighted in the Director General of Fair Trading's report, "Competition in Professions". The issue of employed solicitors advising the public is one of the matters to be considered in the Government's consultation paper planned for release before the summer break.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Zimbabwe
The Earl of Caithnessasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, given the loss to the Zimbabwean economy as a result of Mr Mugabe's policies, they still believe that their policy for southern Africa is viable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, our approach to Zimbabwe has been to work to create and sustain an effective international consensus. We continue to work closely with the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth, the Southern African Development Community and others. We consider that broad-based approach to be the right one. Ultimately, Zimbabwe's only way back to sustainable development is through respect for the rule of law, a return to democratic principles and sensible economic policies.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the past two years, Mr Mugabe has taken about 18 billion US dollars from thousands of private investors. That was done with the tacit support of leaders of neighbouring countries and is in direct contravention of what they signed up to at the recent G8 summit. Given the Minister's Answer, I want to know what, if any, good reason there is to invest in or trust those countries in the future.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are all aware of the difficult economic situation in Zimbabwe. We know that unemployment has reached 70 per cent and that there will be negative growth of 10 per cent this year. We are all concerned about that.
I think that the noble Earl was referring to NePAD. There is a declaration on political, economic and corporate governance that is due to go to the African Union meeting next week. In it, African leaders affirm their commitment to the promotion of democracy and its core values in their respective countries. At the G8, we made it absolutely clear that we would focus our efforts only on countries in Africa that demonstrated,
"a political and financial commitment to good governance and the rule of law, investing in their people and pursuing policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty".
Lord Acton: My Lords, as one who has spent a great deal of his life in Zimbabwe, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister is aware of how grateful I am to Britain for the generosity that it has shown to the hungry people of Zimbabwe. On 1st July, in reply to a Written Question, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that Britain was to give a further £45 million of food aid to Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. Can the Minister say how much of that £45 million is meant to be used to ease the plight of the people of Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend for those comments. We have worked hard to ensure that our policy, which is to try to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are put first, is reflected in the policies of the governments of our partner countries.
We know that there is a humanitarian crisis and that, in the rest of southern Africa, it has much to do with drought. In Zimbabwe, it is also to do with economic mismanagement and, in particular, the fast-track land reform programme. We introduced supplementary feeding last September, before the Government of Zimbabwe recognised that there was a problem. We expect that nearly half of the £45 million will go to Zimbabwe, which would bring our total pledge of humanitarian assistance to about £32 million.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the combination of drought and mismanagement in Zimbabwe means that we are likely to have a rising problem with refugees overflowing into neighbouring countries and, possibly, coming on to this country? Are the Government already in consultation with the Government of South Africa and others about how to handle such a surge of refugees?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have kept a close eye on that. At the moment, there does not seem to be any additional refugee flow as a result of the drought and the humanitarian situation. We are, of course, in constant contact with our partners, including South Africa, and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the problem. We have contingency plans—not only for Zimbabwe but for other parts of the world—that would enable us to deal with a crucial situation.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, apart from the NePAD initiative, what measures are Her Majesty's Government taking to promote greater efficiency and effectiveness in SADC? What discussions are taking place with President Thabo Mbeki to encourage him to take a stronger and more decisive line on Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been a reform programme for the Southern African Development Community, to which we have contributed. We will continue to contribute to it. Discussions with South Africa are ongoing. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had discussions with his counterpart, Dr Zuma, only last week. The Prime Minister met President Mbeki at the G8 meeting in Kananaskis.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of just how astonished some of us continue to feel that the Prime Minister could, on Monday, make a Statement to the other place about African development that included not a single mention of Zimbabwe? That is at a time when there is continuing torture, misery and starvation in that country and when the Zimbabwean Government's political opponents are murdered, all of which has a disastrous effect on inward investment in the whole of southern Africa.
Why does the Government's conscience seem to stop at the borders of Zimbabwe? Is it not now time to make a real effort to increase the sanctions, which have, so far, been dismissed as a joke, and to get together a coalition to press vigorously for fresh elections? Is it not time that something positive was done?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I refute everything that the noble Lord has said. First, we made it clear, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal repeated the Statement, that the complexity of what was in the G8 Africa plan meant that it should be read in its entirety. I advise noble Lords to examine the plan. The first two pages set out clearly the commitments being made by the G8 and by NePAD partners.
I am astonished that the noble Lord is surprised. As I have said consistently in the House, Zimbabwe is but one country in Africa. It is important that we remember the real gains that have been made on that continent. I refute entirely the remarks made by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—
Lord Blaker: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the last questioner was from the Conservative Benches.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the Minister say how the successful ceasefire in Angola called on 4th April, following more than 30 years of war, is being supported by Her Majesty's Government? What are we doing to promote stability? What are the
342
Government's policies on demining, the internally displaced population and the situation of families in the quartering of family areas?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we remain concerned by the humanitarian situation in Angola. We are pleased at the progress that has been made in the peace efforts. I had a meeting this morning with an Angolan MP. We will continue our efforts.

Financial Reporting Standard 17
3.10 p.m.
Lord Higginsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect they expect Financial Reporting Standard 17 (FRS 17) to have on charities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Accounting Standards Board has announced a delay to the introduction of FRS 17 following the decision of the International Accounting Standards Board to review IAS 19, the equivalent international standard. Organisations, including charities, will now not have to change their accounting practices twice to introduce FRS 17 by 2003 and a new international standard in 2005. Charities will have the opportunity to make their views known on the standard that will apply to them from 2005.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I should declare an interest as the chairman of a corporate pension fund, although it is not a charity. Does the Minister agree that, while greater transparency in company accounts is highly desirable, the FRS 17 proposal—rightly or wrongly—has brought about a number of unfortunate side effects? Does he further agree that charities are especially vulnerable because they do not normally hold extensive reserves which would lay them open to the charge that they were not fulfilling their functions or, if they were seen to have large reserves, donations might decline? Their assets are often restricted by trusts, deeds and so forth.
The noble Lord points out that implementation of FRS 17 has been delayed. Given that, is there not a case for waiting until we adopt the international European standard, which might have less of an impact on charities? In the meantime, perhaps we should proceed as we are at present.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no one would argue against improved transparency either in company or charitable accounts. Clearly, charities also have a duty to their stakeholders. Without going into further detail, FRS 17 has been extremely challenging in its introduction.

343
The noble Lord made two points with regard to whether all charities are exposed. Of course not all charities have defined benefits schemes; those which do not will not be vulnerable. I understand that the intention is for IAS 19 to be converged by the ASB, but at present we are not certain exactly what IAS 19 will look like. However, we have gained a useful breathing space for reflection and, it is hoped, for negotiation and influence.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this issue is a problem for charities mainly in relation to the funding of pensions? Does he further accept that many funders of charities are reluctant—to put it mildly—to contribute a fair share of the pension overheads of charities with employees in pensions?
Will the Government set a good example in this regard by demonstrating that they are willing to make a full contribution towards the pension and other employment overheads of charities when contracting with or funding them? It has to be pointed out that, at the moment, that is far from being universally the case.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, at times the issues of the funding of pensions and FRS 17 can become interconnected. Clearly there is an issue with regard to the cash funding of the pension scheme on which an employer has determined, irrespective of the accountancy treatment. As an employer, any charity must think carefully and prudently about the package of employment benefits it thinks it needs and can afford to offer.
With regard to the first question put by the noble Lord, asking whether the Government will in effect sign a blank cheque to fund all such pension schemes—perhaps that was not quite what he said—the answer is no. However, we are looking at the whole issue, both in the cost-cutting and the PIU reviews on charities. We expect to produce some interesting publications in the autumn about how policies towards charities and the voluntary sector are to be developed in the future.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the implications of the delay in the introduction of FRS 17? Is it not true that reserves still have to be shown in the accounts? Therefore, the point made with regard to the reserves held by charities is valid, irrespective of anything the Government may have done with regard to postponing the introduction of FRS 17.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is right. The noble Baroness has gone to the point I sought to make. Irrespective of the accountancy treatment, a company or a charity has to be able to meet its liabilities as they fall due, including pension liabilities. I understand that until FRS 17 or its equivalent is brought in, a note will be put to the accounts making a statement about the estimated assets and liabilities of a pension fund. The
344
information will still be available in the accounts, but it will not be quite such a painful presence on the balance sheet.
Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in understanding that FRS 17 rests on the principle of the worst case scenario? It assumes that all liabilities will become due at once; it assumes that defined pension liabilities will all become due at the moment of entitlement; and it further assumes that charities will be able to dispose of their assets when in fact, in law, many of them will not be able to do so. Am I also right in thinking that anything that can assume such a concatenation of worst case scenarios all happening at once deserves the comment of Winnie-the-Pooh:
"'Supposing it didn't?', said Winnie-the-Pooh, after some thought"?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I feel that my knowledge of Winnie-the-Pooh is stronger than that of the intricacies of the accountancy presentation of pensions. For that reason, I shall write to the noble Earl rather than go into the full details.

Primary Care Trusts
3.16 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the transfer of powers from health authorities to primary care trusts has been satisfactorily completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, on 1st April 2002, 139 new primary care trusts were established, to make a total of 303. There was only one remaining primary care group at that time. The transfer of functions from health authorities to primary care trusts is well under way and early indications are that primary care trusts are progressing well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I welcome warmly the Government's very radical reorganisation and transfer of powers to primary care trusts because that will certainly reduce the bureaucracy involved in dealing with sick and disabled people. However, because the trusts are inexperienced, is there not a danger that they may deal exclusively with high-profile illnesses and disabilities and neglect the relatively unpopular conditions? Will my noble friend use performance indicators to ensure that that does not happen? Will he further seek to ensure that, as best he can, he will give general guidance to the PCTs on the points that I have raised?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on the question of performance indicators, the first set are due to be published later this year. It is clear that we need to strike a balance in this area. The whole point of devolving authority to primary care trusts is to ensure that GPs and other primary care staff have a much greater input into key decision-making. In many ways that is the best answer to the questions put by my noble friend. GPs experience the sicknesses of many patients day in, day out. I believe that the commissioning decisions reached by PCTs will be best informed by the experience of GPs. However, of course we shall ensure that if, through commissioning decisions, services are being missed out, we have a performance management regime to enable us to intervene where we have to do so.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Secretary of State has pledged that primary care trusts will be responsible for dispensing 75 per cent of the health service budget. When will that become a reality?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are aiming for that to take place in 2004.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the transfer of authority and funding from health authorities to primary care trusts is preserving adequately the needs of tertiary and highly specialised treatments in our hospitals? Furthermore, is he satisfied that the problems related to teaching and research are being properly addressed now that we are increasing the number of medical students being admitted to our medical schools?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much accept the point made by the noble Lord on the question of specialised commissioning. We do expect some primary care trusts to take a leading role in their health communities, but we also have in place national specialist commissioning arrangements.
With regard to teaching and research, it is in the interests of everyone working in the National Health Service to support those activities. We shall not get the high-quality doctors, nurses and other staff we need unless we do so. I fully expect primary care trusts to support teaching and research programmes. The noble Lord will know that we have agreed to a joint review to be conducted by ourselves and the DfES to look at those aspects which are presently causing concern.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question concerns local out-workings in the context of shifting responsibilities. Will the Minister comment on what many people in Portsmouth see as a disastrous scenario—that is, the possible closure of the Haslar hospital in Gosport and the redevelopment of the Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham on an already over-crowded site with
346
sometimes chronic traffic problems in the vicinity? In the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a veritable expedition to the North Pole.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising the issue, which I know he feels keenly. The whole point of what we are trying to do with primary care trusts is to decentralise decisions down to local level. Within Portsmouth the local primary care trust will have much more influence in the future, informed by the experience by general practitioners, who are in turn informed by what patients think. So far as concerns the specific issue, we shall look very carefully at the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that primary care trusts, with their welcome emphasis on patient and public involvement, will be well placed to monitor all the health needs of the communities they serve, including what my noble friend calls the "unpopular" ones? What are the Government's plans for evaluating and disseminating the information collected by PCTs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Primary care trusts will be helped by the enhanced arrangements for public and patient involvement in decisions at the local level through the creation of patients forums. As regards information about good practice, we are committed to a large programme of dissemination of such information. Primary care trusts will be fully a part of that programme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have asked one question; we have not. Is the Minister aware that every reorganisation involves some redundancies because people find themselves in positions for which they are no longer suitable? When the GPs changed to primary trusts, a good deal of expense was involved in meeting redundancy costs. Who will be responsible for meeting these costs if the same situation arises? Has this part of the operation been adequately funded?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have made available more than £60 million to support the establishment of primary care trusts. Responsibility for staff redundancies will be transferred to the relevant authority. That is no different from any other reorganisation. Since we came into office in 1997 we have made great strides towards reducing the amount of money spent on bureaucracy—but not, I hasten to add, at the expense of investing in high quality management. I draw a distinction between the two.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of a trust concerned with the treatment of

347
drug addicts. Is the Minister aware that the transfer of funding to primary care trusts has caused chaos in the payments to many charities, which is causing extreme financial embarrassment to some. These charities are very much concerned in dealing with one of our most pressing social problems. Will the Minister look at this issue?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that. I shall be very happy to investigate. I am very keen to see stability in the funding and support by the health service of voluntary organisations in order that they may know what is likely to be their funding, not only for a year ahead but for a longer period. That is entirely consistent with the long-term spending review for the health service that we have already announced.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I apologise for my untimely and inappropriately early intervention. Have those in primary care trusts been adequately trained to fulfil their function of ensuring equity in the monitoring of uniformly high standards, especially in relation to the care and protection of children and the care of the vulnerable and elderly?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the answer is yes. While ensuring that there is a uniform provision of service throughout the NHS, we must also ensure that primary care trusts have sufficient flexibility to make their own decisions in the light of local circumstances.

Accounting Standards
3.24 p.m.
Lord Boardmanasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their proposals for ensuring that there is transparency in United Kingdom company accounts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government believe that the UK's accounting standards already provide for a high degree of transparency in company accounts, although in a world of increasingly complex transactions we must not be complacent.
A number of measures are in hand to build on the existing position. These include the recommendations of the company law review, the move to international accounting standards and the group chaired by DTI and Treasury Ministers which was formed in February to co-ordinate the response of key regulators to issues of accounting, auditing and aspects of corporate governance raised in the aftermath of Enron. This group will produce an interim report by the end of July.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not regret that the Government set a bad example by keeping billions of pounds of borrowing off their balance sheet? As to company law, the subject of my Question, does he consider that
348
chairmen of companies should be required to take a greater responsibility—and perhaps a personal responsibility—for the fairness of the accounts. After all, chairmen recommend to shareholders the accountants they wish to appoint. They also appoint senior executives, some of whom, no doubt, will be aware of any imperfections in the accounts. These matters require considerable consideration.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are exactly the kind of complicated questions the group is looking at and on which it is co-ordinating various expert views.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that those firms which may be involved in the inquiries he envisages do not themselves suffer from the very defects about which he is complaining?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the work we are doing at the moment involves co-ordinating the expert advice of various bodies. I do not think the particular issues we are talking about in terms of accounting standards apply to those bodies, which are, by and large, statutory bodies involved in controlling and regulating the profession.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister accept that company accounts in this country generally present a truer and fairer view than those in the United States—not because British businessmen and accountants are straighter than their American counterparts but because we learnt the lessons of our own Enrons and WorldComs five or 10 years ago? They were called Barings, BCCI and, above all, Maxwell.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is probably a fair judgment. I do not believe t hat you can make a comparison. In this instance, we had both problems and solutions, in some cases, earlier on. Of course, as has been pointed out, the basis of accounting is in some critical ways different. The American system has some very specific rules whereas the British system is principle-based and auditors have to give a view as to whether there is a true and fair account of the economic situation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what has happened with accounting practices, in America and elsewhere, is too serious for party political exchanges? It could happen here. I am glad that my noble friend is not complacent, but does he accept that it is less a matter for government intervention than for intervention by the major financial institutions, which select the non-executive directors who sit on the audit committees of major companies in the UK? If he is going to do anything at all, will my noble friend intervene by telling these major financial institutions—which may in practice

349
control most of the FTSE 100 companies—that they should intervene more frequently to ensure that the non-executive directors are doing the right job?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for that view. However good the rules, unless there are people in the company who independently will enforce those rules and insist that the right things are done, many of the rules will be a complete waste of time. My noble friend is right to point out that the financial institutions which control many of the shares are undoubtedly in the best position to ensure that the non-executives fulfil their responsibilities properly.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is right when he says that public accounts are too important to be dealt with in a party political way. Is it not true that the Government do exactly that? This Government call spending "investment"; call benefits "credits"; and call tax "insurance". By using those accounting practices, the Government massaged down the politically sensitive figure for the UK tax burden—and would still be doing that today if they had not been stopped by the Office for National Statistics. Is that not the reason for the Chief Adviser to the Treasury—the Government's own adviser—writing this comment? I quote:
"Reader understanding of financial reports in the public sector is sometimes felt by those who compile them to be a disadvantage".
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, was specifically about UK company accounts. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, always wants to make his little speech about deficiencies that he sees in the public accounts but the original Question was about company accounts.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
There has been considerable worry about late Written Answers, which has been taken seriously by the committee. At the end of the day, there is not much that we can do if departments refuse to answer. We suggest that there may be a way around some of the confusion, where there has been a certain amount of pass-the-parcel from department to department. We hope that the system that is being implemented will be of some assistance.
The comments on appellations simply repeat what is in the Companion. If I may say so, the habits of the House have been in decline for some time and that section of the report is an attempt by the committee to
350
get people back into line. I do wish that Members would stop referring to "the noble Minister" when they should refer to "the noble Lord the Minister".
Moved, That the third report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 137).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I welcome the inclusion of the paragraph about appellations and will add to the noble Lord Chairman's remarks. I hope that the appellation "the noble Lord X" will also be dropped. The correct term is "the noble Lord, Lord X". Also, while the table of appellations has been taken from the Companion, is it correct in the case of marquesses? The appellation shown is "the noble Marquess (the Marquess of…)". Surely that should be "the noble Marquess, Lord X". If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was delighted to see that the Select Committee has reaffirmed that correct appellations should be used. Too often one hears a Member refer to "the noble Lord, Earl so and so", "the noble Earl so and so" or "the noble Minister"—which, as the noble Lord Chairman said, is a mistake. We all get into muddles and make mistakes, which is understandable—provided that it is a mistake and not done on purpose. One member of the Government Front Bench perpetually seems to leave out the appellation "the noble Lord". One might think that he does so on purpose. I refer to a very distinguished noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. I mean, the noble Lord the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, my Lords.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am so grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. It is odd that the noble Lord so often leaves out the word "noble". As we get older, we get befuddled and make mistakes. Perhaps the noble Lord is entering that territory. I somehow doubt it. It rather looks like a private campaign. As the noble Lord is so concerned that I should refer to him correctly as the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I hope that he will observe the niceties and refer to your Lordships as "the noble Lord" or "the noble Earl" as appropriate. If not, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House will correct the noble Lord the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, tow him into line and say, "You may be having a campaign of your own, but while you are on the Government Front Bench, you must abide by the Government's views".
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, as we accord to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force the appellation of "noble and gallant", is it not to be regretted, if and when the senior military officer in this country—the Chief of the

351
Defence Staff—may be invited to join the House, that he should not also be referred to as a noble and gallant Lord?
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I too welcome the section on forms of address. Is the committee likely to take on board the need to remind Members that when the Lord Chancellor, Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman is on his or her feet, other noble Lords are required to remain seated? That convention seems largely to have been forgotten.
Lord Roper: My Lords, my understanding was that the committee has already reported on the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. We have before us the Companion as it stands, without the amendment that the committee has already made.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. I had spotted that point myself. As the noble says, the committee has agreed that former Chiefs of the Defence Staff shall be referred to in your Lordships' House as "noble and gallant".
I will not enter into debate on the point put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. That matter is for the person involved. It is not the job of the Chairman of Committees to correct individuals.
As to references to "the noble Marquess", that is the appellation in the Companion as it stands at the moment. We fear that there was an error in the latest edition because previous editions have it exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would wish. I may say in passing that I have not seen many Marquesses around recently.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Following is the report referred to:
1. Late answers to Questions for Written Answer
The Companion to Standing Orders stipulates that questions for written answer are expected to be answered within a fortnight (paragraph 4.108). In recent sessions many written questions have remained unanswered after three weeks and some have remained unanswered for over five months. It appears that one reason for the delays in answering is disagreement among some government departments about who is responsible for answering written questions since they are addressed to "Her Majesty's Government" and not to any particular minister or department.
In order to improve this situation we recommend the following new procedure.
Questions will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government but on receipt of a written question the clerks will make a provisional allocation to a government department. The department will have 24 hours in which to ask for the question to be reallocated on the ground that another department accepts responsibility for it. Thereafter, in the composite list of questions for written answer published daily on the Internet and weekly in paper form with the House of Lords Minutes, the department to which the question has been allocated will be indicated by initials printed alongside the question.
The present practice is to reprint daily in the House of Lords Minute, 21 days after a question has been tabled, those questions on which answers are overdue. If the above recommendation is agreed to, the initials of the departments would be printed alongside the question and this would make public the identity of departments that are late in answering.
2. Appellations
There has been an increasing failure by members of the House to observe the conventions when referring to other members of the House in debate. The Committee reminds the House that the correct forms of address are set out in paragraph 4·39 of the Companion as follows:

Archbishop of the Church of England

"the most reverend Primate (the Archbishop of…)"

Bishop of the Church of England

"the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of…)"

Duke

"the noble Duke (the Duke of…)"

Marquess

"the noble Marquess (the Marquess of…)"

Earl

"the noble Earl (Lord…)"

Countess

"the noble Countess (Lady…)"

Viscount

"the noble Viscount (Lord…)"

Baron

"the noble Lord (Lord…)"

Baroness or Lady

"the noble Baroness (Lady …)" or "the noble Lady (Lady…)"

Members with rank of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and holders of the Victoria or George Cross

"the noble and gallant…" (service rank is not referred to)

Lord Chancellor, Lords of Appeal, Law Officers of the Crown, Judges of superior courts in the United Kingdom or former holder of these offices

"the noble and learned …"

Archbishops and Bishops of other Churches who are Members of the House

"the noble and right reverend Lord"

Former Archbishops or Bishops subsequently made Members of the House

"the noble and right reverend Lord …"

Fellow member of a political party

"my noble friend" (instead of one of the above descriptions)

Relatives

"my noble kinsman …" or "my noble relative…" (precise relationship is not mentioned)

3. Application of the rotation rule and of Standing Order 64
All of the House's sessional committees are subject to a rotation rule whereby committee members retire after either three or four sessions' service. Such members are eligible for reappointment after the lapse of one session. We recommend that a four-session rotation rule should apply to the two new select committees appointed by the House in February and March 2001, namely, the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee.
If this recommendation is agreed to, a transitional arrangement will be needed to avoid the simultaneous retirement of all members of both committees, except the chairmen, in 2004. We recommend therefore that four members of each committee should be rotated off by the end of session 2002–03 and four more at the end of session 2003–04. The normal rotation rule should then operate from the end of session 2004–05.
Standing Order 64 allows those sessional committees to which it applies (and their sub-committees) to continue to meet at the start of a new session pending appointment of the new committee.

353
We recommend that the Constitution Committee and the Economic Affairs Committee be added to the list of committees in Standing Order 64.
4. Amendments to standing orders on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
We recommend the following changes to standing orders to take account of recent legislation and changes made by the House of Commons to their standing orders, as notified to this House in the Commons Message of 20th May.
Standing Order 40 (arrangement of the order paper)
In paragraph (6) leave out "on a draft order laid under section, 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 or"
This amendment is needed because no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and this reference is therefore unnecessary.
Standing Order 64 (sessional committees)
Leave out "Deregulation" and insert "Regulatory Reform"
This amendment is consequential on the change in the name of this Committee to Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following the coming into force of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
Standing Order 72 (affirmative instruments)
For Standing Order 72(1) substitute:
"72.—(1) No Motion for a resolution of the House to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until:

(a) except in the case of any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, or a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, or a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;

(b) in the case of a draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; and

(c) in the case of a draft remedial order or remedial order laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, there has been laid before the House the report thereon of the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

Provided that the report is laid

(i) in the case of a draft remedial order, within 60 days of the laying of the draft order or

(ii) in the case of an order not approved in draft, within 119 days of making the order,

such periods to be calculated in the manner prescribed by Schedule 2 to the Act; and
(d) in the case of a Hybrid Instrument, the proceedings under Private Business Standing Order 216 or 216A have been terminated."
This amended version of SO 72(1) reflects the fact that the Northern Ireland Act 2000 supersedes the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and that no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The reference to "any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001" is inserted to ensure that the standing orders of the House of Lords relating to affirmative instruments are in line with similar standing orders of the House of Commons.
Standing Order 73 (joint committee on statutory instruments)
In paragraph (1) leave out "Northern Ireland Act 1974" and insert "Northern Ireland Act 2000.
This amendment is needed because the Northern Ireland Act 2000 supersedes the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
354
In paragraph (1) leave out "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994".
This amendment reflects the fact that no further orders will be brought forward under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.
In paragraph (1) after "Human Rights Act 1998" insert "and any draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act".
This amendment is needed because any draft order made under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 is considered by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and not by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
5. Terms of reference of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
The terms of reference of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also need to be updated in the light of the expiry for practical purposes of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. We recommend the following revised terms of reference:
"To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders and subordinate provisions orders laid under that Act, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments."

House of Lords Reform
3.37 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 20th June be now considered, and that a committee of 12 Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on issues relating to House of Lords Reform;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

V. Bledisloe,

L. Brooke of Alverthorpe,

L. Carter,

L. Forsyth of Drumlean,

B. Gibson of Market Rasen,

L. Goodhart,

L. Howe of Aberavon,

L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay,

B. O'Cathain,

E. Selborne,

L. Weatherill;

That the committee have power to agree with the committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

355
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Tuesday 9th July at half-past ten o'clock in Committee Room 20.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I have no wish to delay the House or the approval of the House for the Motion, but noble Lords will have noted from the Minutes of the Committee of Selection that sat on 10th June that I moved— and lost, on the casting vote of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees—an amendment seeking to increase Cross Bench representation on the 24-strong Joint Committee from just two to three members. I owe it to the House to explain my reasons for that untoward step.
I make it clear that I imply absolutely no criticism of the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. My Motion, having collected an equality of votes for and against my proposition, presented the noble Lord with a most difficult situation. He dealt with it entirely correctly as he should, and my Motion was defeated. Nor would it be right for me, at the risk of delaying the establishment of this important Joint Committee, to attempt to persuade your Lordships to invite the Committee of Selection to reconsider its recommendations.
For some years, by custom and practice it has been conventional for the usual channels and the Committee of Selection to work to an allocation ratio of two:two:one:one—that is, two each for the Government and main Opposition parties, and one each for the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers for every six members on committees. I asked the Library to research whether there was any record of the introduction of a 2:2:1:1 ratio. It found none; and it found only two specific references in Hansard to the ratio—both by me, as it happens, in recent weeks.
There have been variations in the allocations on a very few committees when Cross-Bench numbers have been better than the 2:2:1:1 ratio would allow. But the Cross-Bench share on those committees was not unreasonable or excessive for the number of Peers who sit on these Benches.
Noble Lords will recall that the latest totals are: 219 Conservative; 192 Labour; 65 Liberal Democrat; 26 Bishops; and 180 Cross-Benchers—almost three times the Liberal Democrat numbers, and now 24 per cent of the total House of 690 Peers, if the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are excluded.
Some will suggest that party/group representation on committees follows no more than a loose convention which is in many cases ignored. My experience in the two and a half years that I have been Convenor is that 2:2:1:1 is not ignored. It has almost invariably been the starting-point for discussion on forming any new committee and has not infrequently been the end result.
356
The make-up of many sessional and other longstanding committees was also settled some years ago. Rotation of members on these committees follows a tradition of replacing one for one from party or Cross-Bench group. So the shares of membership of these committees is little changed over many Sessions and has not kept pace with changes in the composition of the House.
My rationale for raising committee membership allocations is that, as Convenor of 180 Cross- Bench Peers, I should like to see—a view backed by noble Lords on these Benches—their numbers and expertise deployed to the benefit of the House and the country. With the considerable changes in your Lordships' House since the end of 1999—in its make-up; in the introduction of the independent appointments commission Peers; and in the widely acknowledged part that a strong independent element plays in the second Chamber—I felt that only two independent members on a Joint Committee of 24 on Lords reform was insufficient. I had to accept that it would not be possible to increase the total numbers on the committee, nor to press for the Labour share of 12 members of the Joint Committee to be reduced to make room for another Cross-Bench member. The Motion that I moved in the Committee of Selection was the only option available to me.
I have argued, and will continue to argue, in the usual channels and elsewhere for an approach that would allow for fairer Cross-Bench representation as well as, when appropriate, representation from the Bishops Benches or from non-grouped Peers—the so-termed "others".
I have drawn encouragement from expressions of greater willingness to be flexible in the sharing of membership of committees. Thus, I hopefully assume that the 2:2:1:1 ratio will not be the accepted norm from which departures are difficult or impossible to achieve, however well justified.
If that had been the case in settling the membership of the Leader's Group on Working Practices or in the make-up proposals for the Joint Committee on Lords Reform which are now before the House, I should not have had to trouble your Lordships today.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, those of us on these Benches are pleased that we have moved to form this committee to seek progress on the reform of this House. As I understand it, there is a desire, expressed in this process, to draw together our several voices to find, if possible, a way forward which wins widespread consent. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I am therefore disappointed that a mechanism has not been found for including someone from these Benches to contribute to the committee.
The composition of this House touches upon two crucial aspects of our constitution: the nature of our parliamentary democracy and the establishment of the Church. The noble and learned Lord the Lord

357
Chancellor made it very clear in this House on 22nd May that the Government have no desire to enter into the minefield of disestablishment. He said:
"it would be an enormously complex undertaking to pull out the threads of the established status of the Church of England without damaging the tapestry of the constitution".—[Official Report, 22/5/02: col. 812.]
The presence of Bishops in this House is part of that constitutional tapestry. We have sovereignty in this country vested in the Crown in Parliament under God. In our own particular history that is expressed in the structure of this House. Radical changes in these arrangements could lead to the unravelling of other aspects of the constitutional settlement.
In the contributions made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in the Wakeham Commission, and in all the speeches made from these Benches on the reform of this House, it has been made very clear that we wish to play a constructive part in achieving an acceptable and principled reform. We are wholly committed to finding a representative and credible shape for the future of this House.
The Bishops are here not primarily to speak for the Church of England, narrowly conceived as a denomination, but for the spiritual and moral needs of the whole community. That is why we have stood for holding on to the best of our inheritance as we seek a more representative and inclusive shape to the whole House, including its spiritual aspects.
Contributions have already been made which indicate that we might have some practical ideas about how this can be achieved. I therefore find it extraordinary in the light of this history that a mechanism has not been found for these Benches to be at the table and contributing throughout the whole discussion. I cannot see how the task can be done in our absence.
Yes, it will involve more work for one of our number, already busy in the Lord's vineyard. But if there is a desire and a way can be found, it can be done. Do we not have a collective responsibility in this House to ensure that all the aspects of our shared life are participating in questions concerning its future shape? The failure to include this perspective will make the task much harder; it risks the inadvertent opening up of issues that will lead us into difficulty; and it will mean that we are less likely to deliver a solution. Failure to find a solution which strengthens our parliamentary life in the 21st century would be very bad news for our people.
I regret having to speak in such strong terms. We have a duty on these Benches to seek to fulfil the role entrusted to us, and we are determined to do all that we can to ensure that the richness of what this means is not only preserved but shaped for the emerging needs of the people. I hope that we may hear some constructive responses to these concerns.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, I have no wish to delay the passage of this Motion. But like the noble and gallant
358
Lord, I, too, was sorry that the Committee of Selection decided on the ratio that it did as regards the Cross-Benchers and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I have the greatest respect for the Liberal Democrats, sometimes even some admiration. But so far as concerns the numbers in this House, it would have been more appropriate had three Cross-Benchers been proposed for the committee and perhaps, therefore, only one noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Be that as it may, the committee decided as it did, and that is that.
I strongly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford about the absence of a Bishop from the Joint Committee. It would have been highly appropriate to have a Bishop on the committee. I am very sorry that it has been decided otherwise. It will no doubt be said that we should have had to sacrifice one member from one or other of the political groupings in this House. But why should that be so? Why could not a right reverend Prelate be added to the list? It is perhaps too late for that. None the less, I confirm my considerable disappointment, very much for the reasons expressed by the right reverend Prelate, that there is no Bishop on the list that is before the House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said that it is perhaps too late for that. I have no wish to make things difficult for the Chairman of Committees, of whom I am an admirer, but we have now heard from the Convenor of 180 or so Members of your Lordships' House, and from a spokesman of 25 Members of your Lordships' House—a total of more than 200 Members—that they are not satisfied with the Motion. I wonder, therefore, whether this is the right moment to put the Question or whether the committee should reconsider.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in case your Lordships think that it is has influenced my opinions, may I say that I have been in Parliament for 57 years—34 years in the other place and 23 years here? During those 57 years, I have seen the amount of representation of people accustomed to responsibility decline at various times in another place. There was a time when every profession was well represented. There were nearly always about 20 Queen's Counsel. At the beginning of this Parliament, however, the Government could not find a Queen's Counsel in the other place fit to be appointed Attorney-General, nor one fit to be appointed Solicitor-General. We now have the advantage of the Attorney-General being in your Lordships' House. Numerous other changes have taken place during that time.
On the other hand, your Lordships' House has not only retained the eminence that it had years ago before many changes were made; it is now truly representative of the professions, business, farming and land-owning. Whatever responsibility is required can be found among your Lordships. The remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, about representation of Cross-Benchers are very important. Like my noble friend, I agree entirely

359
with what the right reverend Prelate said too. It would be very unfortunate if the representation of your Lordships' House was inadequate and not representative. Therefore, I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter.
I turn to the detail of the powers being given. I agree broadly with the last five. However, the first one states:
"That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman"
It seems to me to be wrong that the Lords' representatives on the committee will have to agree, even if they do not. I should have thought that they should have the power to agree or disagree and the matter could then be referred back to both Houses for a better solution. I hope that I have said enough to prompt reconsideration of the issue.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I support my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. Every authoritative voice on second Chamber reform has said how important it is to have a strong independent element in this House. We have heard that there are 180 Cross-Benchers as against a total roll of 690. It is therefore extraordinary that there are only two Cross-Bench Peers in a committee of 24. Despite the temptation, it is right not to seek today to challenge the decision, arrived at incidentally only by a casting vote, of the Committee of Selection.
I emphasise that I am grateful that there is a new spirit abroad to challenge and, ultimately overthrow, the infamous 2:2:1:1 formula, which, for far too long, has dominated the selection of some—not all—important committees in the House. Flexibility, common sense and a duty to be seen to be fair should be the guiding principles as we enter a new age in this House. I look forward to that flexibility taking account of the strength and diversity which exists on these Benches. I wish the committee well in its Herculean task. It is not too much to say that the health of the parliamentary estate very much lies in its hands.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always difficult to get a fair balance of people to form a committee. I understand the Cross-Benchers feeling as they do. My concern lies with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. It is a thousand pities that the bishops are not incorporated in this committee at all. They form a unique part of the House; their experience is totally different from that of everyone else; and they bring a breath of fresh and different air to the House. We may not always agree with them but that does not matter, especially when they are already threatened with being emasculated from 25 to 16, or whatever the figure is. They should have been included on the committee: it is a great pity that this brand of Peer is not incorporated. I hope that those in charge will think again.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I speak as a member of the Committee of Selection which made the decision. I hope that the House will accept its views.
360
I do not know the individual opinions of any members of the committee as regards the form of this place. Perhaps I know the opinions of one or two, but not those of most members. However, I know that they are people of integrity and honesty who will do their best to listen to, and reflect, the views of all parts of the House. I hope that that will be seen as the basis on which the committee will proceed. Otherwise, we would be saying that we have no confidence in Members of this House or the committee because we do not think that they will fully take account of the views of the Cross-Benchers or bishops.
I reject that. I have full confidence that all those who sit on the committee will seek the views of others. I am quite sure that the bishops will be asked to give evidence to the committee, and that it will reflect in detail the views that we have heard expressed here. I believe that the Committee of Selection has got it right. I have full confidence in it; I hope the House has too.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, in view of the anxieties that have been expressed, I wonder whether the Chairman of Committees can give any indication of whether special priority will be accorded those who are not members of the committee to give evidence to it at an early stage.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I shall be brief as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reflected my remarks. I have much sympathy with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said. I recognise the contribution that Cross-Benchers make to the work of the House. None the less, I believe that the Committee of Selection reached the right decision. We had difficulty in considering the matter raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. The constructive way in which he put his points today reinforces our concerns, but our hope was that once the committee had been established it would be able to take views as fully as possible, especially those of the Bench of Bishops.
I hope that those noble Lords who will be nominated to serve on the committee, having heard the debate, will find ways in which to do that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Committee of Selection. Both in the committee and more widely we were extremely sympathetic to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor of the Cross Benches. Indeed, we supported the points that he made by voices and votes. As has been said, the committee was deadlocked, so the chairman had to cast his vote, leading to the decision we are discussing today.
We thought it important that on this committee there should be a substantial representation of the independent element of your Lordships' House and also of Parliament as a whole. There is little or no equivalent to the Cross Benches in another place. We thought it important not least because of the importance attached by everyone—the Royal Commission and others—who made proposals. Most proposals lay emphasis on the importance of an independent element in the reformed House.

361
The Committee of Selection took its decision and we have no amendments before us today. We were sympathetic to the position of the bishops, as set out by the right reverend Prelate. It is important that the views of the bishops who are our colleagues in this House, as well as the faith communities more widely, should be taken into account by the Joint Committee. I hope that the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues will give evidence in writing, verbally and in person on those points. They will be listened to with care.
One of the proposed powers of the Joint Committee is that of appointing specialist advisers. It could perhaps consider appointing a number of special advisers to determine whether some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford can be taken into account in its deliberations.
4 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I hope that the words spoken in this House today are listened to by all members of the Joint Committee. They are obviously sincerely and properly held. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his comments about my vote in the Committee of Selection. I was faced with a difficult situation. One Member of your Lordships' House described my action as despicable. I am sorry that the Member concerned felt that way.
As chairman, I had to maintain the status quo; I did that. Whether I agreed with the status quo is a different matter. As the noble and gallant Lord said, the status quo relied on a 2:2:1:1 split for a considerable time. It is not for me to tell the usual channels what changes there should be, even if I believe that there should be changes. Neither of the two larger parties in your Lordships' House offered a seat to Cross Benchers or bishops.
I have considerable sympathy with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. There was a serious discussion in the Committee of Selection on that very issue. It did not go unnoticed. The only comfort I can offer him is that I hope there will be an opportunity for evidence to be taken. However, I believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for an early evidence-taking session may not be the case. As I understand it, the first phase of the committee's work will be to sort out the possible options. It will then move on from there.
However, there is a lot of evidence, and much time has been taken in producing evidence in relation to the reform of your Lordships' House. The Royal Commission contained a Member of the Bench of Bishops in the shape of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford who made a big contribution. His chairmanship and membership of various committees is a good example of the way in which Members of the Bench of Bishops contribute to your Lordships' House. We are extremely grateful.
362
I cannot take the House much further at this stage. I sincerely hope that what has been said today will be conveyed by our representatives and made plain to Members of another place and the whole committee. I hope that careful attention will be paid to their remarks. The question of the split between the major parties, the minor party and the Cross Benches is a matter for another day; it is not a matter for me.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he suggesting that the House should now reach a decision to approve the Motion that he has put forward? In spite of what has been said, is he excluding the possibility that the matter should be adjourned for a few days so that the matters mentioned can be borne in mind and the Motion improved accordingly?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I would have no confidence that if it went back to the Committee of Selection any different solution would be achieved. To rebalance these matters will take rather longer than between now and next week. Therefore, the answer is yes, I have moved the Motion as it stands.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
4.6 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Mobile Telephones (Reprogramming) Bill [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Possession or supply of anything for reprogramming purposes]:
Lord Campbell-Savoursmoved the amendment:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from "be" to ", and" in line 20 and insert "in conjunction with equipment capable of interfering with the operation of unique device identifier be used for such purposes"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long. The Minister will know that I raised in Committee the whole question of what would happen in the event that a cable was the item referred to as "anything" in Clause 2(1)(a).I shall read

363
the clause as I imagine it might be read in the minds of those who are faced with whether a prosecution could take place:
"he has in his custody or under his control anything"—
which I refer to as a cable—
"which may be used for the purpose of changing or interfering with the operation of a unique device identifier".
Following the Committee stage I raised that whole question with Nokia and the mobile industry crime action group. Indeed, I met representatives of the action group in the House a couple of days ago. While they do not fully subscribe to the case that I make, they certainly understood the point and said that it was the subject of substantial debate in the department when the consultations were taking place. My argument is that a cable, in conjunction with a cache of 20, 30 or 40 telephones, might, in the minds of a prosecuting authority, be sufficient to warrant bringing a prosecution. My noble friend will no doubt say that he believes that that is not the case, but I can imagine circumstances in which it might well be the case. I can give my noble friend one example. With advances in science and developing technology, the printed circuitry may be involved in the cable and not necessarily in a PC. Such a cable, along with a cache of phones, might well be the basis on which a prosecution is called.
For the purpose of greater clarity at this stage, when such technology is not in place, I am asking that a clear message be sent to those who take these decisions as to what evidence should be taken into account when a prosecution is brought. The amendment refers specifically to the additional equipment taken in conjunction with a cable that would have to be in place along with a cache of phones before a prosecution was bought.
I should also point out that there is a mistake in the amendment as printed. The word "a" is omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I generally support the amendment. My view has not changed since Committee stage. The Government's approach is dangerously complacent. The Bill seems to have been drafted by someone wearing blinkers. There are times when the use of blinkers is appropriate. When a narrow and specific issue is being dealt with, it is right to have a tightly focused approach. However, the problem that we are dealing with relates not just to mobile phones, but to street crime and a host of other issues. I have heard nothing to alter my view that the Bill has been drafted with such a tight focus that it can only be a second best Bill. It ought to focus more widely on the general issue of theft on the streets—dealing exclusively with the subject of mobile phones, but taking its remit wider than the specific backstreet operation.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We rehearsed the arguments at Second
364
Reading and in Committee. The amendment would not take anything away, but would establish greater clarity. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept it.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I pay tribute to the diligence and persistence of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on the issue. Many of us respect his many years of parliamentary attention to issues that he believes need changing.
Let me explain why we think that the Bill as drafted is right and appropriate. Clause 2(1) targets a person who possesses anything that can be used to change an IMEI number and intends to use it or allow it to be used for that purpose. The offence covers all equipment or software that may be used for reprogramming, even if it was not designed with that in mind. The amendment would redefine the offence so that it applied to anything that might be used in conjunction with equipment that is capable of changing an IMEI number.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a dealer selling a cable would be caught by the offence. If I understood him correctly, his concern was whether the offence was wide enough to cover equipment such as a cable when it is supplied by a dealer in the knowledge that it will be used to reprogram a mobile phone.
I fully appreciate my noble friend's concerns, but I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, because the Bill makes it clear that anyone who supplies or offers to supply anything that may be used to reprogram a phone will commit an offence if he knows or believes that the person to whom it is supplied intends to use it or allow it to be used unlawfully. The offence is not merely retailing the cable, but doing so in the knowledge that it will be used illegally to reprogram IMEI numbers.
The term "anything" in the Bill covers any software or equipment required for the purpose of making the change. Going back to our debate, I acknowledge with gratitude that that would include a cable, but the offence would not occur with the legitimate supply of equipment, because knowledge or belief of intent would have to be proved. In the everyday circumstance of a telecommunications retailer selling someone a cable that could be used for the purposes that we are talking about, the retailer would not be at risk of committing an offence—and therefore of prosecution—unless he knew or had good reason to believe that the item was going to be used for that purpose.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, when I raised the issue last week, I picked on the weakest case. I could have picked on others, because there are three areas of offence: subsection (3) says, "he offers to supply"; subsection (2) says, "he supplies"; and subsection (1) says:
"he has in his custody".

365
Surely the prosecuting authorities would find it easier to decide on bringing a prosecution in that case than in the case that my noble friend referred to. Perhaps that goes back to me choosing the wrong example last week.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is nothing wrong with the example. There was something wrong with my hearing when I heard "table" rather than "cable", but that is beside the point.
My noble friend referred to the words, "has in his custody". There would be no offence open to charge or prosecution unless there was evidence of an intent towards criminality. The retailer is safe in the circumstances that we are describing.
The definition is deliberately drawn widely by using the word, "anything". The amendment could be seen to narrow that offence. It would restrict the offence to the possession of anything that might be used in conjunction with equipment to change an IMEI number. The possession of a cable by itself would not be an offence, even if the intent to use it to change IMEI numbers could be proved. I do not believe for a second that that is what my noble friend intended.
The term "equipment" may also not be wide enough to cover anything that may be used to help change an IMEI number. It is doubtful that software would be covered by "equipment". For those reasons, the Government prefer the current drafting of the offence, while paying proper respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for the challenges that they have brought on the issue.
I hope that the Government are not for a second dangerously complacent, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He argued his corner well in Committee. We had subsequent discussions and we offered to bring an assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to a meeting with him so that he could put to rest his legitimate concerns on whether the police were satisfied that the Bill allowed them to bring forward reasonable prosecutions. The noble Lord had the grace to say that he did not wish to avail himself of that opportunity because he did not wish to press the matter further. I mention that because I do not think that it is the action of a dangerously complacent government. We were prepared to carry on the discussion after the debate in the Chamber.
I acknowledge with gratitude the challenge that has been made, but I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. On the basis of what he has said and the undertakings he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
4.19 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 53 [Reparation orders]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Baroness Park of Monmouthmoved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 32, line 15, at end insert "from the membership of appropriate statutory organisations"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73A, 74A, 75A, 75C and 77A. They all deal with the perceived need to define more precisely the power of the Secretary of State and, after him—upon devolution—of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting together.
My concern was about the object, however well intentioned, of being, as the politically correct would say, inclusive. Those Ministers might for perfectly understandable political reasons appoint persons whose agenda would be to achieve power over, rather than to serve, the community, and who might be representing the very paramilitaries who make their own people's lives a misery.
When the question was first debated in Committee, the noble and learned Lord quoted a number of organisations whose members might be seen by the Government as falling into the third category of designation that is provided for in the Bill, and which is now under consideration. He subsequently wrote a most helpful letter—one of many—to which he attached a list of such organisations. I found that very helpful and reassuring. However, I hope that he will nevertheless be able to accede to the amendment, which clarifies the position and gives the necessary reassurance that only persons from recognised organisations with professional expertise to offer can be considered for that powerful third discretionary slot, which recurs throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in so far as it is very much in line with a helpful government amendment, to which we shall come later, about the membership of community safety committees. The Government, having reflected on what was said in Grand Committee, have recognised the inherent danger in the Bill in respect of community safety partnerships. The noble Baroness has done nothing more than extend the logic of what is now the Government's position by trying to ensure that those who will have responsibility—a very important responsibility—will be people of some substance and will be accountable. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. The amendments that I

367
had tabled but which I did not move were fairly negative. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees that those amendments that have superseded it and which are in the name of my noble friend are very positive. They do not simply involve youth justice; they also relate to other parts of the Bill, including the provisions on safety partnerships.
The Bill, which I hope will be enacted, will devolve a criminal justice system to Northern Ireland. That criminal justice system will be used to guide, force and manage the law over people living in Northern Ireland for many years to come. As I have—really rather drearily—said several times before in different ways, we are very anxious not to leave much flexibility in the Bill. It should be a technical Bill and, largely, it is such a Bill but it contains some extremely good and interesting innovations. We feel that it is inappropriate to leave in such a Bill open clauses involving the Secretary of State's powers—or the powers of whoever they are devolved to in future—which mean that the Secretary of State or those other people are free to do more or less what they want at the time.
There are quite a few amendments in the group that is before us—Amendments Nos. 72A, 73A, 74A, 75A, 75C and 77A. They thread through this and other parts of the Bill and involve instances of the open clause, which we on this side of the House do not like. We are suspicious of it and do not feel that it would be responsible to leave it in. I hope that the noble and learned Lord feels that my noble friend's amendment is positive, reasonable and could be lived with. I support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am inclined to think that Amendment No. 72A is somewhat over-prescriptive; the same may well apply to other amendments in this group. In Committee, I advanced the case in which a young person might not at the time of his offence be known to a probation officer or a social worker. Therefore, in order to get a sensible report, the Secretary of State might need to have recourse to some other person, whom he would designate. I have not really shifted from that position. I hope that the Government agree with me.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, briefly but sincerely, I support the noble Baroness's amendment. However, I am at variance with my noble friend Lord Hylton, who I believe is too much of an innocent in advising that the Government should take into account his reservations. With all due respect to him, I do not think that he understands the sheer villainy of paramilitary organisations on both sides of the divide or their ability further to deepen the penetration by terrorist organisations into all of our various communities throughout Northern Ireland. As the Bill is drafted, we have the right respectfully to ask the Government: what guarantee can they give that such orders as have been mentioned in this regard will not be used to, one might say, "contract out" court-imposed penalties to those who exercise community control cynically by operating on the fringes of the law?
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I very much support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The approach is over-prescriptive. I understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who speaks from his own experience; he suggested that we may perhaps be unduly naive in this regard. The Bill must be presented with a degree of optimism and against all the odds. There is a case for giving Northern Ireland the chance to develop a mature judicial system.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise in the context of a mild paradox as regards Amendment No. 75C. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Park for not having given her warning that I was going to make an observation. I am not absolutely confident that that amendment makes sense in the context of the Bill. I believe that it has been included in a particular list on the grounds that the amendments were all the same. Amendment 75C relates to a matter which I raised at the end of Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
The Minister said in response to me that it really was not a matter of great importance as it was only the rendering of a notice. I retreated abashed from the field and I acknowledge that his point is right. However, the original words in the Bill,
"such as the Secretary of State may designate"
were the same as those which occur in the other cases. The Minister, in responding to the other amendments of this kind in Grand Committee, had explained that,
"such person as the Secretary of State may designate"
would refer to people from particular statutory organisations, which is the theme of the amendments to which my noble friend Lady Park has spoken. The case that I am citing relating to the passage in Amendment No. 75C did not matter at all. The problem is that if the wording is the same between the amendments which matter and those which do not, the man on the Clapham omnibus might have the impression that they are the same and that the meaning which the Minister has given to,
"such person as the Secretary of State may designate"
is not carried if the same words are being used in a much more nominal place somewhere else in the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as noble Lords have indicated, we discussed this matter quite fully at Committee. I am speaking to the amendments helpfully enumerated by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, grouped in this section.
They seek to cover the same area and therefore perhaps I should deal with one by way of example, which is Clause 53, page 32, line 15. It refers to Clause 53(4) which states,
"Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by—

(a) a probation officer

(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or

(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".

369
The noble Baroness's amendments would limit the designation to statutory organisations. That is the point of these amendments.
We need to remember that before the court makes a reparation order, it must obtain a report on the requirements it might impose as part of that order. So a court has a duty to obtain a report but, rightly, it has the judicial discretion to decide the source of that report. I agree that in the majority of cases the report writers will be either a probation officer or a social worker.
But to take up and echo the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hylton, and Lord Smith, there are those who can give extremely valuable assistance who are not statutory bodies, for instance, Extern, the YMCA, and other bodies which we have spoken about. They do work and they have vast experience with marginalised and vulnerable children. What we do not want to do is to exclude the possibility of those bodies providing such assistance to the court if it considers that they have an important contribution to make.
The noble Baroness's amendment would exclude all those extremely valuable and worthy voluntary organisations. I understand the fears which have been expressed, but these amendments do not cure that real or imagined mischief. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right. If one is dealing with the needs of victims and offenders one needs a decent amount of flexibility. I remind noble Lords that not any body or person would be eligible for a mandatory report. It has to be, according to subsection 4(c),
"such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
So it has to be a designated organisation. Therefore, the only difference is whether some voluntary organisations are rightly to be considered as worthy of designation. I can go through all the amendments, but the approach is similar. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, we do not want to be unduly prescriptive. We want to have flexibility, stressing as I do that any such organisation in any of the relevant contexts referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, would first have to be designated by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I seek a little clarification. I see the point about Amendment 75C for which I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for identification. That is in a different category and I entirely accept that my amendment is not appropriate in that case.
However, do I understand that the Minister is unable to accept all the other amendments that I propose or not? I am not perfectly clear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is my position. I am quite happy to go through them all, but my point is a common one although it has to be varied according to the amendments; namely, that one requires the flexibility referred to. It is a mistake to exclude from the possibility of assistance voluntary organisations because the noble Baroness limits
370
everything to statutory organisations and does not allow the Secretary of State even to consider the most worthy, experienced and well regarded of voluntary organisations.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
4.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 72A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Higgins, L

Ampthill, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Holdemess, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Blaker, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Boardman, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Bowness, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Kingsland, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Laird, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monson, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Montrose, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Norton of Louth, L.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Reay, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rees, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elles, B.

Rogan, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Ferrers, E.

Selsdon, L.

Fookes, B.

Strange, B.

Fowler, L.

Swinfen, L.

Freeman, L.

Tebbit, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Glentoran, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Goschen, V.

Vivian, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Barker, B.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Andrews, B.

Berkeley, L.

Archer of Sandwell L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L

371

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borne, L.

Levy, L.

Bragg, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

[Teller]

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Carter, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Chandos, V.

McNally, L.

Chorley, L.

Maddock, B.

Christopher, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clement-Jones. L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pendry, L.

Dubs, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falkland, V.

Rennard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Filkin, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Roper, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Russell, E.

Gale, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gavron, L.

St John of Bletso, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sandberg, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Golding, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Goodhart, L.

Serota, B.

Goudie, B.

Sham of Guildford B

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Greaves, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harrison, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Uddin, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walmsley, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Wilkins, B.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jones, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Judd, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Layard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
[Amendments Nos.73 and 73A not moved.]
Clause 54 [Community responsibility orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 74A not moved]
Clause 55 [Custody care orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 75C not moved.]
Clause 56 [Youth conferences and youth conference plans]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 76:
Page 43, line 42, at end insert"; or
() the probation board of Northern Ireland"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 76 returns to my questions and suggestions on the inclusion of the Probation Board of Northern Ireland in this issue. In Grand Committee the Minister explained that existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for youth conference coordinators will be welcome to apply for such posts. I refer noble Lords to col. CWH 146 of Hansard of 18th June 2002. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and I understand why the probation board does not appear on the face of the Bill.
However, I am concerned that such people may not be aware that they are able to apply for posts as youth conference co-ordinators. The board was anxious for us to raise the issue. It believes that existing probation officers are some of the best people to carry out the role of conference co-ordinators. The Minister suggested that our proceedings are scrutinised carefully in Northern Ireland. I agree with him. Perhaps the issue could be explained again on the Floor of the House and we could flag it up to ensure that people in the Northern Ireland probation service understand that they are qualified to play that role and know how to set about it. If the Government could give me some indication that through the administration a letter or pamphlet would go to members of the board informing them that they would be welcome and qualified to play that role, I would be happy. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has been modest in his requirement. He knows that if one were to ask the proverbial man in the street which body would be best qualified to deal with this delicate matter, the name that would automatically come to his tongue would be the Northern Ireland Probation Board. It is respected throughout the entire community. It is seen and held to be impartial and I cannot think of any body better qualified to deal with the matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord put his amendment. I hope that I can say unambiguously words that will assist his purpose. As noble Lords will know, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on 25th June and copied the letter to all noble Lords who had shown an interest in our earlier proceedings, but I am happy to make the matter plain on the record again.

373
Existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for youth conference co-ordinators will be most welcome to apply for posts. If successful, they will then—as the Bill indicates—become civil servants within the youth conferencing agency. Recruitment will be by means of public advertisement. Everyone who is qualified—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that that may include a large number of probation officers, some of whom may not wish to apply and some of whom will—may apply. To assist further the House, and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I will undertake that the Northern Ireland Office will write formally to the head of the probation service in Northern Ireland indicating what I have just said. I hope that that is of assistance.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his patience and for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 77A not moved.]
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 45, line 17, at end insert—
"() No youth conference may be convened until the rules specified in subsection (1) have come into effect."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to clarify through the amendment a careful explanation from the Minister, who in Grand Committee said that Amendment No. 78 would ensure that youth conference co-ordinators are equipped with guidelines and rules of procedure before convening.
The Minister explained that conference coordinators will have such guidelines and that they will be published in due course. All the conferences will be unfamiliar. I therefore think it would be wise to place that information in the Bill with the added provision that youth conferences may not be convened prior to the circulation of guidelines.
The Bill specifies that the Secretary of State will provide a code of practice or guidelines as to how the conferences will work. Clause 86 allows the date of devolution to be flexible for different parts of the Bill. We support that. I should like to feel that this part of the Bill will not be devolved until the Secretary of State and his staff have had time to put together the guidelines so that conferences are not called and coordinators asked to do a job before the Government's guidelines for their management have been laid down. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to offer the clarification to which the noble Lord alluded. As he rightly said, in new Article 3B(1), the Secretary of State may make rules governing the procedure of youth conferences. I confirm that it is
374
the clear intention that such rules will be made. Without such rules, the proposed system will not be able to operate.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that confirmation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 46, line 12, at end insert—
"(8) The Secretary of State may make procedural rules about youth conference plans which may (in particular) include provision about the period within which functions of persons required to monitor compliance with youth conference plans must be performed.
(9) Rules under paragraph (8) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and, accordingly, section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies to such rules."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80. New Article 3B(1) provides that the Secretary of State may make rules—to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred in the previous amendment—governing the procedure of youth conferences. It is expected that the rules will be used to set time limits for the various stages of the process and for the performance of the functions of the coordinator.
They cannot be used to make provision about youth conference plans, in particular to set a time limit within which the person monitoring compliance with a plan arising from a diversionary conference must submit the final report to the director.
Since the director may, having received a report on compliance or non-compliance, still instigate proceedings against a child if he is of the view that the plan has not been complied with to a significant extent, it must be right to set a time limit for that stage of the process. Without it, the child might wrongly and unfairly have the threat of prosecution hanging over him for an indefinite period.
Amendment No. 79 therefore empowers the Secretary of State to make rules establishing a time limit for the submission of the report to the director. Since we intend to specify a time limit, it is not appropriate for the Bill to have the words relating to the making of the report,
"as soon as reasonably practicable",
which Amendment No. 80 deletes. I hope that your Lordships will feel that that is a tightening up and improvement of the protection for a possible child defendant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Diversionary youth conferences]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 49, line 35, leave out ", as soon as reasonably practicable,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Court-ordered youth conferences]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 81:
Page 52, line 5, leave out from beginning to "unless" in line 7 and insert "A court must not make a reference under Article 33A"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, new Article 33C(1) provides that a child may be referred to a conference only if he lives in an area where the new system is in place, so that we can pilot the new arrangements and, if necessary, stagger the subsequent roll out of the conferencing system. The amendment is simply to clarify that that applies equally to mandatory referrals to a conference—provided for at new Article 33A(1)—and to discretionary referrals, provided for at 33A(3) and (4). It is a tidying-up clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Display of Royal Arms at courts]:
Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 82:
Page 58, line 8, leave out "not"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85.
The question of display or lack of display of royal arms at courts is the first of—and indeed, exemplifies—the measures in the Bill we believe to be wrong. I imagined that the clause heading would give an indication of the purpose of that clause. However, these headings are more than misleading. The heading of Clause 65 is,
"Display of Royal Arms at courts";
yet its purpose is not to encourage but indeed to discourage the use of royal arms at courts by largely prohibiting them. The amendments standing in my name and that of my colleagues are designed to change the purpose of this clause to one more in keeping with its heading, and in a sense to uphold the continued use or display of the coat of arms in the courts in Northern Ireland.
The purpose of the royal coat of arms is to represent the state—or, more accurately, the Crown. Courts throughout the kingdom display the coat of arms both inside the court and on exterior buildings. Therefore why should one part of the kingdom be treated differently from the remainder?
This is a matter, as with the issue of flags, of treating Northern Ireland in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom. As some noble Lords may be aware, the flags regulations were tested for their compatibility with the Belfast agreement. As my noble friend Lord Magginis of Drumglass mentioned in Grand Committee, a High Court decision was delivered by Mr Justice Kerr on 4th October 2001. It had been claimed that regulations pertaining to flags were incompatible with the Belfast agreement. But Mr Justice Kerr upheld that the regulations were indeed compatible with the agreement. He said:
"That approach seems to me to exemplify a proper regard for partnership, equality and mutual respect and to fulfil the Government's undertaking that its jurisdiction in Northern Ireland shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions".
376
Therefore the correct balance and acting with rigorous impartiality was not to be compromised with treating Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the kingdom on an issue that acknowledged, and therefore reflected, Northern Ireland's constitutional position.
My next point has been mentioned in this House before but I shall repeat it. The Belfast agreement, and more importantly those of us who endorsed the agreement,
"acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".
I emphasise,
"symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".
The agreement does not prohibit the use of symbols. I suggest that the approach taken by this Government goes against the spirit of that agreement, which accepted that symbols, and symbols of state, would remain in post-agreement Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, in Grand Committee I spoke at some length on the contradictions that exist in relation to this clause. I am afraid that that seems to have been misunderstood. If it was not understood, then it was totally ignored, for nothing has been done in the interim to resolve those contradictions.
Perhaps I may, as briefly as I can—I do not want to detain the House to an undue extent by repeating what I said in Grand Committee but it is important—remind the House of my arguments. Clause 65(1) suggests that,
"The Royal Arms must not be displayed in any courtroom".
But Clause 65(2) then goes on to list a number of courtrooms to which that rule does not apply. They include the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast, the courthouses in Armagh, Banbridge, Magherafelt, Omagh, and Court No. 1 in the courthouse in Downpatrick. Why do we have that contradiction? Simply because the IRA have not managed to blow up those courtrooms. The courts are still there; the coats of arms are still on the walls and it has been decided that it would not be the wisest thing in the world to deface those courtrooms by hauling down the coats of arms that exist there.
That leads me to ask the question: if the Government are intent on being so political; if the Government believe that those who object to the coats of arms are right to the extent that they can be offended by their presence; and if in recognising that they repudiate to some extent the very source through which justice is administered—that power that devolves from the sovereign, from the Crown—then it is a sad day not just for Northern Ireland, but for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, if the Government accept that people will be offended, are they telling me that they should not be offended in any new courtrooms, but it is all right for them to continue

377
to be offended in existing courtrooms where the royal coat of arms is displayed? That is the ridiculous depths to which this argument descends.
The problem is that the contradiction does not confine itself to the courtrooms; it extends to courthouses as a whole. In Clause 65(3) we are told that:
"The Royal Coat of Arms must not be displayed … on the exterior of an existing court-house … unless they were displayed there immediately before the coming into force of this section".
There is a huge vacuum in terms of information relating to new courthouses. I raised this matter in Grand Committee and it was acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who indicated that the Bill, as she put it,
"is silent in the placing of royal arms on the exterior of new courthouses".—[Official Report, 19/06/02; col. CWH 174.]
So every time a courthouse is repaired or rebuilt, or newly built, there will be a political argument which impacts on the whole judicial and legal process in Northern Ireland; an ongoing source of conflict in an area where for 30 awful years there was no conflict.
I cannot believe that the Government intend to continue to behave in such a naïve and illogical manner in relation to Clause 65. Either it is right to acknowledge where the source of justice exists, and what is acknowledged in one courtroom should be acknowledged in another, or it is right—"and" it is right, perhaps—to acknowledge the symbol so far as concerns the exterior of the courthouses.
I raised the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, about the new courthouse in Dungannon. I posed the question that since the old courthouse had a coat of arms on its exterior what would happen to the new courthouse? She whetted my appetite by suggesting that there might be a precedent. But nothing has come forward between Grand Committee and this Report stage which indicates that a source of resentment, of conflict, and of ongoing turmoil will be addressed in a sensible and dignified manner by your Lordships' House. That is wrong. I support the noble Lord, Lord Rogan.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I support these four amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, that the title of Clause 65 is misleading. It is entitled, "Display of Royal Arms at courts". But that is not what the clause is about; it is about the lack of display of coats of arms at courts. There is a bit of government spin here. But the people of Northern Ireland see through that.
My colleagues and I raised the issue in Grand Committee. I am disappointed that on this issue we do not have a listening government. This is an important matter back home in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister is there today in order to attend a serious conference on the future—or lack of it—of the Belfast agreement. The Government could make a political decision, a political gesture, and they could listen to the voices from Northern Ireland. But there has been no positive response.
378
The clause states that the royal coat of arms will be displayed on the exterior of some courthouses and not outside others. That is totally contrary to the recommendation of the review committee on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It recommended that the coat of arms should be displayed externally on all courthouses in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government must explain why they have gone against the review body's recommendation and why they have decided that these coats of arms should be on the external parts of some courthouses and not on others.
Such confusion sends a message to the IRA. We know how they think. "We will now blow up the courthouses that still have the coats of arms outside" is the message being sent. The Government are in a state of confusion because they have rejected the recommendation of the review committee. I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter.
The situation in relation to the courtrooms is even more confusing. In some courthouses the coat of arms will be in the courtrooms; in others it will not; and in a third type of courthouse it will be in one courtroom but not in the courtroom next door or down the corridor. That is totally confusing. The Government should pay attention to a recommendation made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, a body not noted for its favourable comments on royal coats of arms and Union flags. It stated:
"If Parliament determines that the display of the Royal Arms … is indeed consistent with equality, impartiality and independence, then it ought to consider adopting an approach that is consistent across the region. It ought not to allow the perception, however unfounded, that some court-houses or courtrooms are more British or more monarchist than others administering the same laws".
There is consistency from the human rights commission. I appeal to the Government—please listen to the voices from Northern Ireland.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I rise to speak on Amendments Nos. 82 to 85. In one respect I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Kilclooney and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, about the need for consistency in the way we approach these matters. Although tonight I shall be supporting the Government on the issue, I believe that the clause sends out contradictory messages. In some courthouses we shall have one set of symbols and in others we shall have a different set, even to the point where the Belfast courthouse, which is due to be completed this summer, will have the coat of arms, whereas others will not.
That will cause problems for the future in showing what we mean by the administration of justice. It starts to look as though we have one system of justice in one part of the Province and a different system of justice in the other. We either go for an "all" or for a "nothing" solution. Personally, I would go for the "nothing" solution. That is where I disagree with the noble Lords. I believe that signs and symbols have bedevilled the past 70 years of Northern Ireland's history. The more

379
one can remove signs and symbols that can be an affront to any member of the community perhaps the better.
However, if the "nothing" solution is not to be adopted then the "all" solution surely would be that it is legitimate to show both our coat of arms and the insignia of the Irish Parliament. That may be provocative. Noble Lords ask the question: what is the source of justice—that surely is the key issue—for the defeat of terrorism and for the defeat of those who would destroy our institutions? Surely the source is, "Yes, the monarchy in the United Kingdom, but our Parliament which sits under Her Majesty the Queen, and in Ireland, the Dail, the elected Parliament of that democracy". Is it so unreasonable to think that if we are to have symbols and signs that we should show precisely where the power of our judiciary comes from? It is from an elected parliamentary process in both countries. If we are to have symbols I believe that that would he a better way to go about it.
I remind your Lordships of the review and what it had to say. Four matters struck me. The first was that we should seek to,
"create an environment in which all those attending court can feel comfortable".
The review pointed out that all parties to the agreement acknowledged the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purpose and the need to ensure that they were used in a manner that promoted mutual respect. That is the key for me—the idea of mutual respect from both sides of the divide. The review might also be recalled for the guarantee it gives of just and equal treatment and parity of esteem for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
I know that the noble Lords who have just contributed to the debate would agree that the key, surely, for long-term stability and peace in Northern Ireland is to draw the minority community into our processes, if we fail to do that, the agreement will never work. Until that becomes a reality, and there is a real belief in civil society, its institutions, the upholding of the law, and government by democracy, then we cannot succeed in our objectives, however many agreements we sign or however much legislation we pass. I believe that sometimes we pass too much legislation and do not give it a chance to bed down and allow relationships to prosper. However much we act in these areas, whatever is produced will not be worth the paper it is written on unless we draw into the processes the minority community in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the review draws down on the issue of identity. I remind your Lordships of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on National Minorities which said that the agreement does not merely protect identity, or should not protect identity, which is, I think, construed quite narrowly by the framework convention, but also aspirations which, in the context of Northern Ireland, plainly refers to national aspirations. That is why the agreement says that the people should be able to identify themselves "and be accepted as" British or Irish or both. So the
380
review's neutral approach to this question should be observed as regards all national symbols. We must get this right. Incidentally, I am also dubious about the rationale for flying flags on designated days because they are days on which flags are flown on government buildings. The courts are a separate organ of government from the executive and the rules for the one should not necessarily apply to the other.
Thirdly—to cite the review again—
"in time it may be more fitting to move towards symbols that emphasise the separation of the courts from the Executive".
I hope that the Minister will explain how it is envisaged that that recommendation will be implemented.
Finally, the review recommended that the interior of courtrooms be free of any symbol. But the Bill outlaws only the royal coat of arms. Other symbols are not affected. What is the Government's thinking here? How will they deal with that contradiction, which my noble friend rightly pointed out?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I have been watching and listening to the news bulletins emanating from Northern Ireland today. It is obvious that a great crisis is emerging in relation to the Good Friday agreement. Brave politicians have given their opinion and political commentators all consider a dangerous period now to exist in relation to the Northern Ireland agreement—the Belfast agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that he would like symbols to be created that would include the minority community in Northern Ireland. But what is happening now? In the course of trying to bring in the minority community, the majority community is being totally excluded. It is that majority which at present is in absolute crisis. The legislation passing through this House in so many aspects appears to be driving the Northern Ireland process in the direction of joint authority. Joint authority will never be the answer to Northern Ireland's problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that there could be two sets of insignia: one royal and one depicting the involvement of the Irish Government. If that were to happen, it would cause an awful uproar in Northern Ireland. That would be seen as joint authority. Joint authority would not be acceptable even to the IRA. It does not want joint authority either; it wants to have its input into the political processes in Northern Ireland.
I rise only to support what has been said from Northern Ireland. Here, we are a million light years away from what is happening at Hillsborough this afternoon. We are entering the month of July. There is a real danger. I am not sure how many people will read or hear reports of this debate. Anyone who does so will be further alienated from the so-called peace process of Northern Ireland.
On the question of which courts are designated, it appears from careful reading of the provision that the Government are in danger of having particular insignia in Catholic areas and different insignia in Protestant areas. That is not the way to bring about

381
cohesion and support for the agreement. It will only further alienate the communities in Northern Ireland. That is the last thing we want at this time.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord replies, perhaps he will tell the House what nation in the civilised world does not display either in or on its courts its national symbol.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. My support for the amendments springs from my objection to the greater part of the Bill. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, another one-way street of legislation. It is in danger of alienating the majority community. On Monday, I said:
"The more the Government talk about the peace process, the normalisation of affairs in Northern Ireland and the end of emergency, the more frequently we find them legislating to make permanent a different standard of justice in the two parts of the kingdom".—[Official Report, 1/7/02; col. 90.]
Here we are again. The symbols of justice will be different in the two parts of the kingdom. That does not bring communities together; it drives communities apart. We shall even have the ultimate absurdity of having two standards in Northern Ireland itself. That cannot make sense.
My feelings about these matters are unchanged. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, asked the Government to listen to the voices of the people of Northern Ireland. I think that that was also the message of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The trouble is that all too often the Government do not listen to people's voices. They listen to the gunfire, react even to the clicking of a safety catch and run to offer more concessions to those with the guns and to alienate further those who would walk the path of peace.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Alton on a wide variety of subjects, but I am bound to say that I find his suggestion bizarre in the extreme. One might as well recommend that courtrooms south of the border should be obliged to display royal symbols as well as republican ones.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, is it not surprising that the British Government are proposing to remove the royal coat of arms from the external walls of Northern Ireland court houses when, 80 years after independence in the Republic it remains on the external walls of courthouses south of the border?
Lord Monson: My Lords, that is an interesting piece of news. I did not know that. However, I do not think that there is any suggestion that new coats of arms be erected when new courthouses are built. In any case, it is impossible to imagine that the French would ever allow the symbols of the French state to be removed from the exterior or interior of courthouses in Corsica, whatever the pressure from a terrorist minority on that island.
382
Once again, as on the matter of the judicial oath, the Government appear to be capitulating to a hardline minority—to be precise, not simply a minority but a minority of a minority, amounting to no more than 12 to 13 per cent of the population of the Province.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, ever since the Belfast agreement—indeed, since the run-up to it—there have had to be compromises in Northern Ireland. Every Secretary of State has said so and has said that each community must make concessions, that no one can have everything that they want, but that by achieving a compromise—compromises are necessary—we can move forward on the basis of some sort of consent. That has been the basis of the agreement.
As I have said previously, I regret that the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the main voice of nationalism in Northern Ireland, is not heard in this House. Our debates are the poorer for the lack of that voice. I cannot possibly speak for one side or the other in Northern Ireland; I make no claim to do so. But no one else in this House can do so either. There is therefore a weakness in that we do not reflect the many views in Northern Ireland.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord has previously made this point about the lack of representatives of the SDLP and a legitimate view in Northern Ireland. Last time, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, put him right. He told him: they have been offered the chance; they refused it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, I remind your Lordships that we are on Report and that we have different rules and conventions on Report from those in Committee.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I make that point simply because I am trying to get a sense of the views expressed in the House and to balance them against other views held by many people—not the majority—in Northern Ireland. It is on that basis that we must decide whether the Government have got it right in the Bill and therefore whether the amendments are appropriate. I contend that the Government have had to compromise. It is not possible to move forward in any way other than by compromise. I fully understand the strength of view on the unionist side; I understand the views on the nationalist side.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind the House that noble Lords may speak only once on each amendment on Report. No one may speak after the Minister has spoken.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two. I contend that the Government have sought to achieve a compromise on the difficult issue of the royal coat of arms. They have

383
achieved a worthwhile compromise, which, with good will, could be accepted by all people in Northern Ireland.
It is not a matter of making concessions to one side or the other; it is a matter of saying, "Let's have a compromise because that is the best way forward". In the end, the most important issue relating to the courts in Northern Ireland is the quality of the justice that they dispense.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, we have been over this ground a good many times. Nevertheless, I want to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. In Committee, I mentioned the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly had chosen the flax flower as its shared symbol. I commended that as a highly sensible and constructive decision on what we all acknowledge to be a deeply divided society.
I have been listening to the debate, and it has just occurred to me that, here in London, on the outside of the Old Bailey, there is a large figure of Justice holding the scales evenly balanced. Could that be a suitable symbol for the exterior—or even the interior—of courts in Northern Ireland?
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the matter is simple. It is a fundamental part of the agreement that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom and will remain as such, so long as the majority desires that. It is fundamental that, in part of the United Kingdom, the courts of justice are the courts under the Crown, and it is only proper to show that that is so. It should show people that the courts have nothing to do with politics and administer justice under the Crown. So far as I am aware, no one has ever objected to having the crown on a courthouse as such.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the noble Lord has, essentially, said what I was going to say. However, it bears saying again.
We arc frequently reminded of the sanctity of the Belfast agreement and the importance of the peace process. That agreement states clearly that, while,
"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union",
that shall be the position. Why are we trying to anticipate what may—or may not—happen after May 2003 or later? We are treating an important matter as a political football and ignoring the words used by the Government themselves when they remind us—as they do frequently—how sacred the Belfast agreement is.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has said, one could say that it is precisely because the agreement acknowledges that, for the time being and until there is a vote the other way, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, that there must be concessions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested. That is why there must be a compromise. That is why the two communities must adjust and acknowledge the outcome of the Belfast agreement, which is that there
384
must be some form of compromise. That is implicit in the overall principle that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until the citizens of Northern Ireland decide otherwise.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have had a long debate on the subject, and it might be appropriate if, with the agreement of your Lordships, I were to speak to Amendment No. 86, which would leave out Clause 65, even though it is not in this group of amendments.
Many views have been expressed in the House. I have listened many times to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and have done so with admiration for the sincerity of what he said. I still admire his sincerity, but, today, I feel that he is, perhaps, not quite in the real world on these matters.
My reason for tabling an amendment to leave out the whole clause goes back to the theme of the arguments that I have made throughout the passage of the Bill. First, as has been said, Northern Ireland is wholly and integrally a part of the United Kingdom. There is no question about its sovereignty or about where that sovereignty lies. Secondly, the Good Friday agreement is, as the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Dubs, said, a compromise agreement. It is full of compromises. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Monday night, we should congratulate the Government on setting it up and getting it to where they got it. However, this Bill is about the judicial system of a part of the United Kingdom. Political compromise should be no part of a judicial system, for goodness' sake.
The judges do not take their authority from Mr Trimble or Mr Adams or whoever the First Minister or Deputy First Minister is. Where do they take it from? They take it from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom. If the judges take their authority from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, everybody who lives in Northern Ireland—of whatever persuasion—is bound by the law of Northern Ireland. That law is operated under the authority of our Sovereign. If that is the situation—leaving aside the objections of those who refuse to accept the authority of the legal system in Northern Ireland, of whom there are a few—what is wrong with having Her Majesty's coat of arms displayed where it has always been and where it is to be found in every courthouse in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I have also criticised the Government for raising hares that should not have been raised. They have raised the temperature unnecessarily on some matters. In the agreement, it was accepted by all parties that there were flags, symbols and emblems that were sensitive matters for all parties to the agreement and that, where possible, they should not be removed or banned. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, spoke just now about the fact that the coat of arms can be found on courthouses in the Republic. I asked Jonathan Caine, who works for us in Central Office, to find out for me how often the royal title is used in the Republic of Ireland. He found, I think, two pages of ''Royal This", "Royal That" and "Royal The Other" in the

385
Yellow Pages. What is more, if noble Lords go to Leinster House, they will see the shamrock well painted on the gates: they will also still see the crown. If the Government of the Republic of Ireland are content to operate in and around the crowns, thistles and other symbols of the United Kingdom and of the Ireland of the old days, why must we be so destructive in this way? It is not necessary to raise these hares.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as it is, apparently, in order to speak to Amendment No. 86, I shall make the contribution that I was waiting to make to that debate.
I hope that I do not need to be told that it is necessary to look for compromises. My mind goes back to the agreement of 1993, the framework documents and other instruments over which we laboured for months and—it sometimes seemed—for years, seeking the kind of compromise that would help matters forward. So, I trust that I do not need to be reminded of the need for give and take. But it does not follow from the need to give and take that this part of the legislature has to accept in total the compromise that has been put forward either by the review body or, as is the case here in a rather rare instance, where the Government have departed from the strict letter of that compromise.
The review body was infinitely earnest, hardworking and admirable, but it has come to a view and, in turn, we are entitled to come to a view. The difference between us and the membership of the review body is that we are vested with a legislative right and a legislative duty. It is for us to make up our own minds. While there is much in the review that is quite admirable, here I believe the membership has gone wrong.
I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord who is to reply whether the Government are acting in pursuit of a principle here. I do not know what that principle could be, but if there is one then I should be glad to learn it. I think that the answer is more likely to be that the proposal is based on expedience. There is nothing wrong with expedience, so long as it turns out to be expedient.
What appears to have been balanced here by the review body is the virtual certainty that the provision in the Bill seeking to deny the royal coat of arms to be displayed in certain courts is going to cause deep affront to those who support the Union and its continuance. It will do so because, as has been made clear during our previous discussions, it will seem to confirm the notion that there is something incompatible with neutrality and impartiality in the court system if the royal arms are displayed.
We know what will cause affront, so let us look at what will be the benefit. It will be the avoidance of what the review body states at paragraph 8.61 as follows,
"we are conscious that the presence of the Royal Coat of Arms in a prominent position in the courtroom could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".
386
The review body is perfectly entitled to take that view, although it is difficult to understand how anyone appearing in court could be put off by seeing the royal coat of arms, or that the body seriously thinks that the royal coat of arms might detract from the neutrality of the court environment. I say that because, as has already been pointed out, judges owe their duty not to the government of the day but to the Sovereign. In that regard, the presence of the royal coat of arms serves as a reminder of that impartiality rather than a kind of allusion to partiality or detraction from neutrality.
We have to ask the question: must we accept the package and every item in it simply because it is a package? I advance the view earnestly that we would be failing in our duty as legislators if we delegated to the review body, distinguished as it is, that duty. We have to think about each and every component of the package, as well as considering the influence of each item on the package as a whole.
Along with other noble Lords and, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench, I have listened with great care to the debate. Certain aspects of the proposals in this Bill, if they were not so serious, could be described as ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has alluded to them. Other aspects are not ludicrous; they are very grave indeed. I shall not go over them because that would detain the House unjustifiably. However, when he looks at the end of his brief and sees the word "Resist" printed there, I urge the Minster to add, in his mind's eye, a further amendment which does not appear on the Marshalled List. It would read as follows: "Delete `Resist' and insert 'Think again'".
5.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I tabled amendments in Grand Committee which proposed the exact opposite of what has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. For various reasons I did not move them. However, I should like to echo the remark of my noble friend Lord Dubs: there is another view. That other view has to be presented. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, we should not pretend—at least not in Northern Ireland and in the context of the Belfast agreement—that certain symbols are neutral. We all know that there are very few neutral symbols in Northern Ireland.
I should like to respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about the Republic of Ireland. If the Republic can display symbols that go against its principles but not be bothered by them, that is because justice is conducted according to the law of the land. What do symbols matter when that is the case? Symbols are not important and the fewer of them we have on either side, the better it shall be.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, in many ways this has been a somewhat sad and troubled debate. I should like first to respond to some of the comments made in rather trenchant terms by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. I think it was he who said

387
that this legislation is a "one-way street"; that it listens to gunfire and the clicking of the safety catch; and that it alienates those who walk the path of peace. I wish to say to noble Lords that the reverse is true. I have said this before, but I shall repeat it. It took the courage of the good people of Northern Ireland, from both communities, to lend their voice to peace. It is their courage that we celebrate and it is their courage that we now seek to reinforce.
The judicial system in Northern Ireland has operated well and Her Majesty's Government will jealously protect it, both now and in the future. I have also said this before, but I shall repeat it. Only when the institutions of Northern Ireland are ready will the system enable devolution of justice and its administration to be transferred. Symbols are just that: symbols. If we consider the reality of the Northern Irish courts, they have dispensed justice with integrity for a great many years. Nothing is about to change.
I am aware that this is a vitally important issue. It was closely debated in another place and then debated in detail by noble Lords in Grand Committee. Those debates were exhaustive, but some would say that they were not exhaustive enough because many of the arguments have been rehearsed again this afternoon.
My noble friend Lord Desai mentioned that two sets of amendments were tabled in Grand Committee. Those two groups of amendments sought to achieve the opposite effect. If no other proof were needed, that alone demonstrates the difficulty of striking the right balance in this area. Again, as I have remarked before, balance is the key to this clause. We seek to strike a balance between the sensitivities of the various communities in Northern Ireland and the constitutional position of the courts. We seek to strike a balance between the exterior and the interior of courtrooms, as well as a balance regarding a neutral environment and courthouses of historical and architectural merit.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 require the royal coat of arms to be displayed in all courtrooms. Amendment No. 85 requires the royal coat of arms to be displayed outside all courthouses and removes the prohibition on their display on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are not already displayed. These amendments fly in the face of the balance which has been struck and I urge the House to resist any challenges.
We have to recognise that the reality in Northern Ireland is that at present there is a variation from court to court as to the symbols displayed. Contrary to what was asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, it does not appear that this is dependent upon whether it is a Catholic area or a Protestant area. They vary. The noble Lord is shaking his head. If it was not he, I apologise to him. It may have been another noble Lord who made that point. In fact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fitt.
388
So we already have to deal with a variation. Perhaps I may give an example. There are coats of arms in Newry, but not in Ballymena. So we already have a degree of inconsistency with which Northern Ireland has lived in a relatively contented way.
We should remind ourselves of what was said in the review. I know that the noble and learned Lord made reference to paragraph 8.61, but that paragraph should be read in its entirety because it first refers to the Belfast agreement. It also has to be read in conjunction with what the review said about the way it would deal with the past.
Noble Lords will know that the review met for the first time on 1st July 1998; it had 45 days of plenary meetings; it issued more than 5,000 copies of its consultation paper; it held more than 70 meetings with interested groups and organisations; it received 90 written submissions; and it spoke to many, many ordinary men and women on the ground to seek their views—not only legislators' views, not only interested parties' views, but the views of the ordinary men and women of Northern Ireland—of what they thought should happen. A series of nine seminars were held across Northern Ireland in May and June 1999, to which more than 3,000 individuals, groups and organisations were invited and more than:300 attended.
What did the review say after all this? It talked about the past and about the future. I draw your Lordships' attention to what is said at paragraph 1.19 on page 6 and 1.20 on page 7. At paragraph 1.19 the review states:
"we heard some suggestions that, if the system was working, change should not be introduced for the sake of it … There was, of course, a range of opinions between these positions and there was much discussion about the workings of particular parts of the criminal justice system".
At paragraph 1.20 it continues:
"But we did listen carefully to genuinely and strongly held views, from differing perspectives, about past events. It was important for us to understand these points of view if we were to develop recommendations for arrangements most likely to inspire the confidence of all parts of the community in the future. We do not express any opinion about the validity of the views about past events and wish to stress that where we suggest change, this should not in itself be taken as implying criticism of what has gone before".
So the changes in the review were recommended to create the prospect of a happier future for all the people of Northern Ireland, from both sides of the community.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we are not delegating the duty to this body, but we believe that its work deserves our attention and that we should listen. We are listening.
The review clearly states that it makes these recommendations because the presence of the royal coat of arms,
"could be regarded by some as off-putting and inconsistent with the need for court proceedings to take place in a neutral environment".

389
The Government also acknowledge that there are those who may feel that way. We seek therefore to minimise those sensitivities, consistent as far as possible with the sensitivities of others. It is a fine balance.
Many noble Lords have in other debates rightly and eloquently supported the outstanding contribution of the Northern Ireland judiciary to the justice system. We cannot allow this one narrow issue to cloud that system, which has so much to commend it. That is why the review made that recommendation and that is why the Government have accepted it.
This is the history and the background to the clause. As I have said from the outset, I am aware of the sensitivities surrounding this matter, but the review is persuasive. This clause should be seen in the context of the Belfast agreement's adherence to the principle of mutual respect which forms the basis of the new Northern Ireland.
By way of conclusion, I say again that the review struck a balance, and this clause reflects that balance. As recommended by the review, it prohibits the display of royal arms within courtrooms, though with the exception of those courthouses which are architecturally or historically important. Royal arms will continue to be displayed on the exterior of existing courthouses where they are already displayed.
I hope that your Lordships will feel that the Government have striven, honestly and with integrity, to chart a path with which both parts of the community in Northern Ireland will be content, but also making clear that justice will never be subservient to mere symbols.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I am far from content but there will be an opportunity to test the opinion of the House on this wide-ranging debate on Amendment No. 86. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 86:
Leave out Clause 65.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not persuaded. I have a slightly different argument. I believe that we should maintain the status quo. It was quite unnecessary to raise this hare and the Bill would be considerably better without this clause. This would leave some courthouses in certain parts of the Province with coats of arms and other courthouses in other parts without them. As the noble Baroness said, they do not necessarily reflect the persuasions of the communities, so why do we have to interfere? The Bill will be considerably better without this clause. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
5.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 86) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 88; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Blaker, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Boardman, L.

Laird, L.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Marlesford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bumham, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Byford, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Chadlington, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chalfont, L.

Noakes, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Rawlings, B.

Craigavon, V.

Reay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Rees, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elton, L.

Rogan, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Fitt, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fowler, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Freyberg, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selsdon, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Hambro, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Higgins, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Vivian, L.

Holderness, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hooper, B.

Wilcox. B.

Howe, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Addington, L.

Brookman, L.

Ahmed, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Alli, L.

Carter, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Chandos, V.

Amos, B.

Christopher, L.

Andrews, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Clement-Jones. L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Avebury, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Barker, B.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Berkeley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dholakia, L.

Borrie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bragg, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brennan, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Elder, L.

Briggs, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

391

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Newby, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Finlay of Llandaff.B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Pendry, L.

Gavron, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Golding, B.

Razzall L

Goodhart, L.

Rea, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rennard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Richard, L.

Greaves, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Grenfell, L.

Roper, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sawyer, L.

Harrison, L.

Scotland of Asthal. B.

Haskel, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hayman, B.

Serota, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stern, B.

Hylton. L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jones, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Layard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lipsey, L.

Tope, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Turnberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Walmsley. B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Warner, L.

McNally, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Maddock, B.

Whitaker, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitty. L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilkins, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord privy seal)

Morgan, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Clause 67 [Information about discharge and temporary release of prisoners]:
Baroness Park of Monmouthmoved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 59, line 9, at end insert—
"() A victim information scheme must also apply in respect of persons in the category of OTRs ("on the runs") who, after due process, may be released into the community."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope to persuade the Government to make specific provision for the right of members of the community who have lost friends or family because of the terrorist activities of those persons known as "on the runs" to be informed in advance of those persons' impending return to the community.
392
The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed with Sinn Fein at the Weston Park talks in July to do something to enable such fugitives, who have never been brought to justice, to return to their communities. The Prime Minister has recently given assurances that there was no offer of amnesty nor was one asked for. The Prime Minister nevertheless considers himself committed to finding a solution.
The OTRs include those who have planted the Enniskillen bomb. Their identities and the crimes for which they were responsible are already well known to the community, and the fact that they have fled and never dared to return suggests at least a recognition of guilt.
Since the intention to allow them to return became known, there has been widespread grief and rage in both the Unionist and the republican communities. That grief and rage are all the greater since there are no plans for the return of the many families exiled to the mainland under threat of death if they return. They are exiles solely because they displeased the violent and armed paramilitaries who still rule the streets in Belfast, four years after the Belfast agreement. These victims dare not testify against their oppressors and the police cannot act. So the innocent must remain exiles, while the OTRs, each with a record of crime, violence and murder, are to return and be welcomed home by their paramilitary community.
That is why I have tabled this amendment. I believe that the victims of the OTRs are entitled to be consulted and warned. The Government may well say that of course the scheme will cover them. Without explicit provision on the face of the Bill of the kind that I have proposed, it will not.
First, the present scheme refers to released prisoners. We still do not know whether the OTRs are to serve any prison term. Secondly, the existing early release information scheme states that the scheme does not apply to,
"a person convicted who may not have served a prison sentence",
or,
"a prisoner who has not received a sentence of five years or more".
Finally, the scheme lays down that,
"for the protection of some of the individuals involved, specific information may not be provided".
We do not know what formula will be invoked to fulfil the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that they would,
"take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdiction to resolve the difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued"—
although I welcome the Prime Minister's intention, as I understand it, to bring those proposals to Parliament.
The Government have argued that,
"Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit by early release",
and,
"it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued".

393
On all those counts, it seems certain that under the provisions of the present early release scheme which I have cited, and perhaps particularly under the provision for,
"the protection of the individuals involved",
the victims of the crimes of the OTRs would not be entitled at present to have advance warning of their triumphant reappearance on the streets where their victims live.
I believe that we owe it to the victims of the OTRs to ensure on the face of the Bill that their rights are expressly preserved. I have considerable faith that the noble and learned Lord will recognise the justice and the timeliness of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. The noble and learned Lord may tell us that it is not necessary and that the point is covered. But we do not believe that it is adequately covered in the Bill as it stands. I know of the noble and learned Lord's concern for victims and I have personal knowledge of similar happenings, with violent people being released from prison without their release being made known to their victims. In Grand Committee we heard the story about the happening in Wales.
This would not be a difficult provision to include in the Bill. It is not political in any way. It would merely provide a good safeguard to ensure that the "awful happening" did not in fact happen—by that, I mean, for example, the mother, father, husband or wife of a victim of the Omagh bombing running into the person who is known to have committed that atrocity in the street without having been warned that it might happen. I strongly support the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the amendment and with the sentiments behind it. As I have said previously, we on these Benches would not support a fudge. We believe that true democratic parliamentarians should abide by two cardinal rules: first, that elections are free and fair; and, secondly, that the rule of law is upheld. So we should not be party to any sort of fudge or amnesty declared before due process.
That said, I understand that such terms as "OTRs" are not appropriate in the Bill and that the amendment would need to be better drafted. I understand also that the amendment as drafted is slightly contradictory and is not quite what the noble Baroness intends.
We shall listen to what the Minister has to say. But unless there is satisfaction here, we should support such a proposal at Third Reading if the noble Baroness were to redraft her amendment and if we were not satisfied with the Government's response.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful in dealing with the noble Baroness's amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to return to the Bill itself, and to page 59. This part of the Bill deals with information about
394
discharge and the temporary release of prisoners. So one has the two possibly damaging circumstances: either a temporary release—which has historically been more liberally used in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales—or the discharge at the end of the sentence.
Clause 67(1) states:
"The Secretary of State must make a victim information scheme and may from time to time make a new scheme or alterations to a scheme".
We need to inform our minds about what a victim information scheme is. It is:
"a scheme requiring the Secretary of State to make available information about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment in Northern Ireland imposed in respect of the commission of offences … to victims of the offences who wish to receive it".
So first of all it is available to those who wish to receive it—many do not—but it is about the discharge or temporary release of persons serving sentences of imprisonment. If those to whom the noble Baroness refers are sentenced after due process, to use the words in the amendment, they are covered anyway.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. There is no definition of "OTRs"—"on the runs". I agree that we have all used the term as our own shorthand, but there is no legal definition known to me, and I do not believe that it would be possible to find one. After all, I know what the noble Baroness is referring to. I think she means those who have committed offences which might generally be described as "terrorist" or might be scheduled offences. But the departed burglar is "on the run" in the same way as the departed terrorist is.
I am saying that, first, the amendment is flawed. I appreciate that that does not go to the substance of the matter, but it would be quite improper—I hope I use that word without offence—to include a term as flawed as that in a Bill of any sort. But, in any event, if these prisoners are discharged or are temporarily released, they are covered in any event by Clause 67(2).
As a further assistance to your Lordships, one needs to look at Clause 67(9). I take the point that is implicit in the noble Baroness's approach and, I believe, that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: what about someone who has been convicted but perhaps not sentenced because he escaped, as some did, before being sentenced? That is dealt with in Clause 67(9) which states:
"A scheme may make different provision in relation to…imprisoned offenders convicted or sentenced at different times".
I would make two points. The first may be thought by the noble Baroness to be an ignoble lawyer's point, but it is an important one when dealing with any statute, especially with a Bill of this importance. Secondly, if offenders have been imprisoned or discharged on temporary release, they are covered in any event.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, with gratitude and appreciation. It was extremely helpful.

395
Will the Minister clarify whether he is considering the possibility that I might come back at Third Reading with an amendment related to subsection (9)? I agree that that would be a more appropriate place, but the problem remains. Those OTRs are likely to be released by the time the Bill becomes law. Therefore, I am concerned that the legislation should provide for that. Will the noble and learned Lord consider the issue further and advise me with his admirable expertise how I might bring into the Bill—possibly at Clause 67(9)—an amendment that would have that effect? I believe that I would have the House with me on that, as well as the noble and learned Lord. Will he clarify the issue?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not encouraging the noble Baroness to come back at Third Reading. I am perfectly happy for the sense of the House to be taken this evening.
I return to the fundamental point, which is not about drafting, as the noble Baroness concedes. If OTRs, as they are known, though not in law, are sentenced to imprisonment, discharged or temporarily released, they are covered by the Act in any event. They are no different from any other criminal.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, may I be allowed to pursue the question further? I really do not understand.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we never pay attention to them when the noble Baroness is speaking.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall try not to take advantage of that.
I am seeking help in finding a way to ensure that the victims are notified when those people are about to be returned to the streets precisely because it seems quite possible that they will not be convicted and will not therefore be discharged. Nevertheless they will be known to have committed those crimes and would not have stayed away for 15 years had they not committed them.
We need a formula to cover that. I recognise that the Minister has quoted exclusions in the Bill that will exclude them, but how can we include them?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if the noble Baroness intends to withdraw her amendment, as I suspect, I must not detain the House too much longer. I take her point that what she wants cannot be achieved in this way. I am more than willing to speak to her informally if she so wishes, but I cannot assist in the drafting at this stage. I should make it plain that no decision has been made in respect of those who are fugitive from the jurisdiction.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, since I understand from those remarks that there is no possibility of returning to the issue at Third Reading, I should like to test the opinion of the House, if only to make the point.
6.25 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Division called.
6.28 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 86A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content".
Noble Lords: Not content.
The Deputy Speaker: The Not-Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
6.32 p.m.
Clause 71 [Local community safety partnerships]:
Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 87:
Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
"() No local community safety partnership may be established until the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance about the way in which local community safety partnerships will operate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise Ito noble Lords for that disturbance. It was clearly demonstrated by the chairman when he started speaking that the loudspeaker was not on. By the time he finished it was. I wear hearing aids and link into the loop. If the loop is not on, I do not hear. I apologise for the failure to follow through the Division that was intended.
Amendment No. 87 would ensure that no local community safety partnership is established until practical guidance has been issued by the Secretary of State. I return to the point that practical guidance should accompany new introductions to the criminal justice system. I remain unsure as to how the new local community safety partnerships will sit alongside existing community safety structures and DPPs in Northern Ireland. My noble friends the Ulster Unionists have some points to make on that matter. Therefore, I shall not expound, except to say that it is not clear as it stands how those responsible for implementing the partnerships are supposed to proceed within the existing framework.
The amendment is similar to one that I moved on a different subject earlier today. I am not suggesting that we do not want to see community safety partnerships operating satisfactorily and well. However, the legislation needs to be tidied up so that the necessary codes of practice or guidance notes are in place before any particular partnership, or the partnership scheme as a whole, gets under way. I beg to move.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, intends with Amendment No. 87, I doubt he is other than optimistic in proposing it. Not setting up or

397
establishing local community safety partnerships until such times as the Secretary of State has issued practical guidance is no guarantee that safeguards will be forthcoming. When we move to the next group of amendments I shall illustrate the futility of depending on any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or on the Northern Ireland Office, for practical guidance.
Although I support, in principle, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I believe this amendment will not achieve his proposals.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I understand the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Maginnis. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has served a purpose in highlighting the problem. Speaking to people who will be involved in those partnerships, it is apparent that there is a need for real clarity before we go too far down that road. It is important that the partnerships start on a firm footing, with no confusion over exactly what their role will be, and before we think about nominations.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. I, too, support my noble friend Lord Glentoran. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, implied that it was impossible for a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever to come forward with a practical solution to one of the problems of the Province. We Secretaries of State must stick together. I must dissent from him in that. I shall not rehearse again the 29 months since the Secretary of State made a preliminary Statement in January 2000 about these matters. An enormous amount of printer's ink has been spilt on those issues in the ensuing 29 months.
If anyone has taken the trouble to read through all that has been said, there is some lack of clarity—partly because of changes in policy direction during the 29 months. I believe my noble friend has done the House a considerable service by tabling a preliminary and cautionary amendment to ensure that when we move into active mode there will be a hymn sheet from which everyone can sing.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall remind your Lordships that we have made a number of order-making powers in the clause subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, we have further parliamentary scrutiny and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has approved that. A number of voluntary partnerships have already been established in district council areas. More partnerships are being developed by the statutory organisations.
Certain guidelines have already been issued and are in place—for instance, how to perform a community audit. Others will be produced as needs are identified—for example, the steps to go through in setting up a partnership. Guidelines are a source of
398
advice, but they are not compulsory. That is going to develop incrementally. The amendment would delay progress without any ascertainable benefit.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I believe that he understands the point I am trying to make. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglassmoved Amendment No. 87ZA:
Page 61, line 15, leave out from "State" to "a" in line 16 and insert "within each district council area establish"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is important to give some background on how local community safety partnerships have developed. The process has been without order or logic. To some extent. what we are doing today is belated and out of time.
The consultative document, which I hold in my hand, was produced on 16th April this year. I shall not go through it in detail. Despite that document arriving on our desks only on or after that date, one month later—on 17th May—a letter from the Northern Ireland Office was delivered to district councils, stating the Government's intention to encourage the formation of local community safety partnerships. The letter advised district councils of the availability of funding for the post of community safety coordinators for the local partnerships. It went on:
"We are taking this step in advance of the completion of the consultation on the strategy because we have been asked by a number of existing and prospective partnerships to make it available now".
I ask your Lordships to ponder on that sequence of events and on that letter, which shows that whatever bona fide consultees may have contributed and irrespective of what may be decided in your Lordships' House and in another place, decisions have already been implemented. The letter that I have in my hand goes on to say that £30,000 is immediately available towards administrative support and to the post of community safety co-ordinator for local partnerships.
Your Lordships will understand if I, as a borough councillor and as a Member of your Lordships' House, begin to wonder what my role and that of your Lordships is. I have no indication of which existing or prospective people have been so pressuring the Government that money is already being thrown at district councils.
After Grand Committee, I went to a meeting to be addressed by some of those responsible for explaining the role of community safety partnerships. After I had heard some detail, I pointed out that we were creating but another talking shop. Northern Ireland already has more than 600 councillors, 108 Members of the Assembly, 18 Members of Parliament and three MEPs, not to mention those from Northern Ireland who sit in your Lordships' House or the innumerable multitude of quangos, committees, sub-committees and amalgams of committees.

399
It is only fair that your Lordships understand that we are being told that these groups coming together will have funds and will contribute funds to make something positive happen for community safety. I asked officers of the housing executive and found that they have no money. They have less money for ordinary maintenance this year than they had last year. When I asked any of the statutory bodies that have been mentioned about providing money to local community safety partnerships, they said that maybe the Government would give them money. Bluntly, a lot of them are going to be there, simply because they think that more money might be thrown at the problem. We do not know.
We do not even know what role in society the local community safety partnerships may have. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal was good enough to write to us on 20th June, sending us a briefing paper prepared by the Northern Ireland Office on community safety and community safety partnerships. Paragraph 11 of that paper said that the functions of community safety partnerships and district policing partnerships are very different. It went on to say that the district policing partnerships,
"are established as an accountability body for the police at local level".
Section 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 contains no provision to delegate accountability—I emphasise that word—for police at local level to DPPs.
It is worth pondering Section 16 of that Act a little further. It lists the functions of a district policing partnership. I shall not bore the House with that information in detail—noble Lords can find it themselves—but within the functions of district policing partnerships are the same duties as are now being delegated to community safety partnerships. The two lists are not identical in every detail, but there are many similarities. For example, district policing partnerships have to make arrangements,
"to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the district".
That duty is being imposed on community safety partnerships. Section 16(1)(e) of that Act says that a DPP can make arrangements for obtaining various things and,
"such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".
So we did not have to have duplication; I draw that firmly to the attention of noble Lords.
I must enter a caveat at this stage. I do not want it to be interpreted that somehow I am against community safety endeavours, just as it was somehow interpreted earlier—I was about to intervene—that because I have certain opinions about symbols, I do not know how to compromise with those who differ from me. I do not want to digress, but I thought that in that regard it was fully understood that the compromise was the Belfast agreement 1998 and that whatever happened should happen within the context of that agreement and should not be outside it, embellishing it or eroding it.
400
I return to community safety partnerships. There was a meeting yesterday, I am led to believe, of the Policing Board, at which the SDLP, the DUP., Ulster Unionists and independents joined together to say that they did not want community safety partnerships. That conveys the difficulty—the conflict—that many of us have to face up to. Do we take the adamant view that we do not want community safety partnerships because they duplicate the responsibilities that are already vested in the DPPs—they divert essential members of other statutory bodies away from the work that they know and do best—or do I try to seek some sort of compromise, so that we give some sort of acquiescence to community safety partnerships but ensure that those community safety partnerships work under and are subordinate to DPPs?
There are other considerations in this regard. The areas of responsibility of DPPs are coterminous with district council areas. The local police areas of command are coterminous—
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, for clarity, is the noble Lord speaking to Amendments Nos. 89B. 89C and 90A, which refer to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and DPPs, as well as to Amendment No. 87ZA?
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: Yes, my Lords. I am trying, without impinging on the time of noble Lords, to paint the overall picture of how all of these matters impinge on each other.
I was saying that district council areas are coterminous with police areas of command and with DPPs but that there has been no clarity about whether they are coterminous with the proposed community safety partnerships. We must now look critically at the whole concept and discover whether we can put in place an arrangement that will benefit society, that will secure value for money and which will not be exploited—that has been the huge difficulty that we have had so far.
I was diverted for a moment by the noble Lord. Lord Glentoran, who asked whether I was speaking to Amendment No. 89. I thought that we had moved on to Amendments Nos. 89B and 89C.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I can help; I think that there is some confusion. We are actually dealing with Amendments Nos. 87ZA and 89A. I think that the noble Lord has not been speaking to those amendments, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, courteously inquired whether the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, had perhaps misheard the Deputy Speaker call the amendments. Amendments Nos. 87ZA and 89A are both limited amendments. With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord is speaking to the amendments that have been called.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I apologise to noble Lords. I did mishear. Although I have strayed beyond the scope of those amendments, my comments apply very much to Amendment No. 87ZA. I obviously cannot withdraw the points that I have

401
made. However, they are pertinent to the whole question of whether we should establish community safety partnerships—if they are established—within the context of existing boundaries where other agencies and partnerships are coterminous with the district council area.
I turn to Amendment No. 89A. I have rightly, if accidentally, indicated our problems. My proposal in Amendment No. 89A is that if there is to be a community safety partnership, that must be vested in local government membership. We have had a couple of unfortunate instances of amalgams and partnerships that did not have clarity about who had primacy and which ran into financial difficulty in terms of accountability. If we have an area that is coterminous with all of those various agencies and if we have a district council controlling whatever amount of money may be become available if the partnerships are established, those of us who are publicly accountable will know exactly what is happening. One reason why that should be the case is that, otherwise, pressure will be put on civil servants, who have no chance to answer back when certain responsibilities are imposed on them which are outside the spirit of what I believe is intended to be achieved in this regard.
I apologise to noble Lords for moving beyond the scope of the amendment. But that saves the House from having to listen to me at greater length later on. I am grateful.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it would help me if he could indicate whether he wishes to move Amendment No. 87ZA and speak to Amendment Nos. 89A, 89B, 89C and 90A. I believe that it would assist the House were he to agree that in effect that is what he has done and then we can have one debate.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that it would always be my intention to try to assist the House. I may, in error, have managed to bring together five amendments. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has exhibited his usual charm in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for the sensible way forward that she has suggested. He is quite right in saying that the amendments in the second group which have been referred to touch on the same subject.
The reason why, on balance, I disagree with my noble friend is that certainly from my own experience of local government on Merseyside where partnerships were established, they were enriched by other statutory organisations becoming involved in them. If they become too local government focused and orientated, I do not believe that that would necessarily be to the advantage of the partnership.
402
I believe that the noble Lord is well aware that membership of the partnerships is designed to include health and social services boards, education, library and probation boards, the police, the Northern Ireland housing executive and other statutory organisations. When the Minister replies perhaps he will be able to confirm that the problem is that with the review of public administration which is currently under way by the executive, it is necessary in the meantime to reserve power to the Secretary of State because until the review has been concluded we do not know exactly who the statutory agencies are.
The effect of Amendment No. 89A, were it to be passed by your Lordships this evening, reserving, for instance, the chairmanship and the administration in the local government membership of that partnership, would stunt and limit it. By reserving power to people who are elected representatives in local government would make the position far too narrow. It is right to trust the Secretary of State in this matter. I believe that the partnerships will be to the advantage of Northern Ireland if they work out as they have done in other urban areas in England. I know how passionate and committed is the noble Lord to the upholding of law and ensuring that the policing agencies get the public support to which they are entitled and that those responsible for breaking the law are brought to justice.
If he were right in any sense that people not committed to upholding the law were able to infiltrate these partnerships and take them over, I am certain that in those circumstances the Secretary of State would remove those members from the partnerships who behaved in that way. It would help if the Minister were able to confirm that to be the case when he replies. In any event, knowing the noble and learned Lord and the Secretary of State, it is pretty unlikely that the people about whom all of us would have deep fears and reservations would be appointed to such bodies in the first place.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Maginnis and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said about the Safer Merseyside Partnership. I am sure that he is aware, as I am, that the chairperson of that partnership is a member of the Merseyside Police Authority. The chief constable is also a member.
When I come to speak to Amendment No. 91, I shall refer to the question of whether they can be amalgamated to a certain extent or whether they should work together. Because Merseyside is one of the best practice examples in this country, it is absolutely clear that it is not the case that the safety partnerships cannot be linked with DPPs.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is correct. There is a need for the work of the community safety partnerships. What is that work? It is to assist in the reduction of crime and to bring about a reduction in the level of fear of crime to the people in the community and enhance community safety. But some of these things can also be carried out by the district policing partnerships.

403
People believe that there is now duplication. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said, there are already far too many quango organisations being created right across Northern Ireland in each district council area. In the council area of Moyle there are only 15,000 voters and yet massive community organisations are being created.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, fairly often points out that there is no one here from the SDLP. He very often speaks in a way which presents their case. I can say to the noble Lord that I can speak on behalf of the SDLP today because there is only one party in Northern Ireland which supports the Government as regards community safety partnerships and that is Sinn Fein.
If the Government are up to speed, they will know that yesterday, at a meeting of the policing board, which I attended, the SDLP, the Unionists, the DUP and the independent members which the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, mentioned, unanimously rejected the idea of the community safety partnerships. What is more, they instructed the chairman of the policing board to contact the Northern Ireland Office immediately and request that a Minister come before the policing board to explain what he is doing. That is the position of the SDLP on this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, just to remind ourselves, following on the very helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am now speaking to Amendments Nos. 87ZA, 89A, which was in the original group, also Amendments Nos. 89B, 89C and 90A, which was the response of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I start with Amendment No. 87ZA.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right. He quite rightly reminds us that the Northern Ireland Executive has launched a comprehensive review of local public administration in Northern Ireland. It may well impact on many statutory organisations, not least the district councils. The noble Lord is further correct in indicating that the only purpose of the clause in the Bill is to allow the Secretary of State flexibility to take account of any changes when he comes to place the CSPs on a statutory footing. There is no more to it than that.
As regards Amendment No. 89A, the chairmanship and administration of the local CSP shall be vested in the local government membership of the CSP, which, I suppose, in a Sinn Fein-controlled district council would inevitably give Sinn Fein the chairmanship and administration. I am not sure that the law of unintended consequences always works quite so ironically. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord wants.
However, more fundamental than that, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has vast experience, is absolutely right. We do not want to nominate a lead partner. We want a partnership of equals with every one having a degree of moral ownership of the work of the partnership. That deals with the first two amendments.
404
The next group is Amendments Nos. 89B, 89C and 90A. It will be remembered that in Grand Committee I accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the Secretary of State should be required to publish the reports. Therefore, there is no purpose in having the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other organisations specified in Amendment No 89B receiving the reports directly because I have accepted the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that they be published. The reports will be available in any event.
Amendment No. 89C requires the CSP to have regard to the statutory functions of the DPP. But to echo the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the CSP will have to have regard to the statutory functions of all its members. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that Amendment No. 89C is inappropriate. Amendment No. 90A defines a district police partnership, and I say nothing further about it.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, when we come to debate Amendment No. 91 we shall have an opportunity further to develop the argument in the light of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord. On those grounds, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment 87A:
Page 61, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) A local community safety partnership is to consist of such number of persons nominated by such organisations exercising statutory functions as the Secretary of State may by order specify; and "statutory functions" means functions conferred or imposed by or by virtue of any enactment."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87B not moved.]
Lord Glentoranhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 88:
Page 61, line 24, leave out from "be" to end of line 25 and insert "made up of the statutory organisations responsible for the delivery of various different services; and membership will include—

(a) social services,

(b) health authorities,

(c) education authorities,

(d) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive,

(e) the police service for Northern Ireland,

(f) the probation service for Northern Ireland, and

(g) district councils"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 87A tabled by the noble and learned Lord does considerably better the job which I intended. In the light of that, I shall not move Amendment No. 88.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved].
[Amendment No. 89C not moved].
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 62, line 9, leave out "shall" and insert "must"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have written to all noble Lords to explain why we decided to change "shall" to "must". I know that your Lordships will accept that that is a technical point to achieve consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]
Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 71.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are grateful for the amendment on the composition of the safety partnerships. However, I am still unhappy about the fact that two separate bodies deal with one issue; that is, crime. Therefore, I tabled Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. First, I declare an interest. Like my noble friend Lord Kilclooney, I serve on the Policing Board. I serve also on the sub-committee for community affairs, which deals with DPPs. My support for a measure which provides community safety is absolute. There is no question of that. However, I believe that the partnership should be much closer to, or even part of, district policing partnerships.
However, there are two misconceptions. The first is that DPPs are police. No members of DPPs are policemen; they are councillors and independent members not chosen by but approved by the Policing Board. There will be very few grounds for disapproving. DPPs are put before the board for approval. The partnerships could better be called "district partnerships on policing matters". The idea of a district policing partnership automatically leads one to believe that it is a policing institute. However, that is beside the point. The police attend only to discuss issues and to put forward their local policing plan. They are not in attendance the whole time.
The second misconception is that the Government know what they are talking about and no one else does. That is not always true, as a number of noble Lords believe is the case here. In his consultation document, the Secretary of State said:
"The development of this strategy is one of the key recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review".
Development of the strategy is, but not into separate bodies. That is clearly stated in paragraph 11.11. The Government take the review and spill it out. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, who is not in her place, said a great deal about how wonderful the review was—when it suited her. It obviously did not suit the Government on this occasion. The Secretary of State failed to state that that was in the review. However, a letter from the private secretary to Des Browne, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, stated that
406
Ministers were conscious that DPPs were established as a mechanism to hold the police to account. That is wrong.
As my noble friend Lord Maginnis said, that is not stated in the Act. Unlike my noble friend, I shall go through the functions because I am speaking to the right amendment, and cannot be interrupted. Section 16(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states:
"(a) to provide views to the district commander…
(b) to monitor the performance of the police…
(c) to make arrangements for obtaining—
(i) the views of the public…
(d) to act as a general forum…".
Those tasks are set out in the 2000 Act. However, they are amazingly similar to the tasks for safety partnerships outlined in Clause 71. We have heard about the measure for the provision of finance.
In the minutes of a meeting with the Community Affairs Committee of the Policing Board, the head of the Criminal Justice Services Division stated that community safety partnerships could become a subcommittee of DPPs. I heard him say that; he said it relatively freely. However, I accept that when he returned to the office he had second thoughts. He wrote a letter which states:
"While I did agree, in response to a question, that it might be possible to develop a model involving a sub-committee of the DPP as suggested, I fear that your letter rather misrepresents my position on this. I would not advocate such an arrangement. Our legal advice is that taking a direct role in relation to community safety would be outside the vires of the DPP".
He continues:
"You suggest that I might be able to explain to the Committee how a sub-group of the DPP might work. I am afraid that I would not be qualified to do this. I have only a basic understanding of the DPP, limited to their role and function".
If he has such a basic understanding of it, what serious right has he to say that it should not be? I fail to see that.
The examples I have quoted show a total lack of understanding and a lack of joined-up government and thinking. How on earth can the two departments in the Northern Ireland Office, one involved in the policing Bill and the other in this Bill, not understand what each is doing, and argue the point? I cannot discover why the NIO is so determined to keep these two bodies separate. It is flying in the face of overwhelming opposition against its strategy for two separate bodies.
Unlike the NIO, the conclusions of those against the strategy came about as a result of well-informed, thoroughly consulted and well-justified research of both sides of the argument. One has to know who the bodies are and why they are doing this, and then ask why the Government are hell bent on their course. Perhaps it is jobs for the boys; I do not know. People have been working on this for a long time.

407
We have heard about the consultative document. However, the closing date for responses was 3rd July; that is, midnight last night, and that has been extended. Yet here we are debating the Bill. That is brilliant. In his foreword, the Secretary of State says,
"I will carefully take into account all the views".
He has done well since midnight. At the end of the document, the following questions are asked:
"Is the strategy structured correctly? Is the scope relevant?"
Before the Minister states that the consultation affects only issues outside the Bill, we must realise that that is not so, as the questions show. Structure and strategy are what the Bill is about. It is not about the detail. We do not have the codes of conduct or the suggestions for how they will operate. Therefore, this concerns the Bill.
Clearly, in order to justify separation of the two bodies, their tasks must be separate. However, the nine key issues for community safety as laid out by our friends, the Community Justice Service Division, not by me, are car crime; domestic burglary; business and retail crime; offences against women; youth offending; offences of prejudice and hatred—sectarianism and racism; fear of crime; drugs and alcohol; and street violence. Is the prevention of any of those not connected closely with the police? The answer is not one; not even the fear of crime, which is not a crime in itself. If one looks in the police documents, which should be available to the Minister, it says clearly that they have to come back to fear of crime in the coming years. Therefore, although it is not a crime, it is included.
Only this department of the NIO, which admits that it knows virtually nothing about DPPs—it said so, not me—after working on it for three years, is supporting it. That is the core of the problem. It is not about parties, political beliefs, sectarianism, Roman Catholics, Protestants or ethnic minorities. It is straightforward management of one's affairs in the correct and proper way.
Who is against the strategy? The Criminal Justice Review Group is against having two different bodies. The Government fly in the face of that. At least 25 out of 26 councils are against it and have stated so. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is against having two parties. It is not against community safety; it has community safety officers. Are we about to appoint them? The big political term is community policing. Are we about to say that it has no role because we have community safety partnerships? No.
Your Lordships have just heard that the Policing Board is against the provisions across the political divide. There are other consultees. If one looks at the list of consultees—I am not going to go through it—some will support the implementation plan. But like the Criminal Justice Services Division of the NIO, they will know little about the tasks of DPPs. So I would expect them to be pro a safety plan, as I am, but when one knows a little more about DPPs, one realises that they should not accept it.
408
The question is not if, but how. I have already detailed the response of the Criminal Justice Review Group and I do not have to say any more. My noble friend Lord Maginnis mentioned most of the points about the councils. The Policing Board has come through to us with several additional problems.
What is the legal status of the bodies? Non-statutory. Who indemnifies the bodies? The councils are worried about that. They are being provided with £30,000 for staffing. They do not have indemnity cover. If many councils over here are not strapped for cash, I assure your Lordships that ours are. Who indemnifies the members? That is a problem. Who has the responsibility for audit and to whom are they accountable?
The DPP is a statutory nominated body, but this is not. For example, Belfast has said that it cannot staff its four bodies. How will it be done? They will be run as a group of committees together with the DPP. Another noble Lord has dealt with the issue of the chairman.
The Safer Merseyside Partnership, to which my noble friend Lord Alton referred, is a classic example of how to do it, but it does not have DPF's with the strength of ours. That Is probably why the police are on it. But the police have to be there. It is pie in the sky that someone can deal with safety in one corner of the town without the police knowing. It is no good saying that the bodies will talk to one another. Our police are strapped. They will have to attend DPPs by law. If they are pushed for staff they will not attend the community safety partnerships; they do not have to and why should they? They are accountable through the Policing Board, not the DPP.
The Police Service's response was luckily submitted before midnight or the later date, so the Secretary of State should have it. It says that the information about the commonality of the issues dealt with by DPPs and safety partnerships is,
"further evidence of the need for the work of DPP's and community safety partnership to be integrated as far as possible".
The police are accountable to the Policing Board through the Northern Ireland policing plan. They are not accountable to the DPPs. The DPPs monitor, ask questions and make suggestions.
Paragraph 4.51 of the consultative document refers to key relationships. It says on safety partnerships,
"It will be important that policing plans also reflect the Government objectives for the reduction of crime …It will be vital therefore for the Car to establish an effective working relationship with the Policing Board, in view of that body's direct responsibility for policing",
which is fine, but we are talking about the local level. That is why we have the safety partnerships. It continues,
"most critically, for local CSP's to have close links with the District Policing Partnership established in their area to hold the police to account".
That is their phraseology, but it is incorrect.
It is all about linking closer together, yet the Government are trying to push the bodies apart. I am sorry that this is taking a while but it is about how this is meant to work. The board is under a statutory

409
obligation to produce a draft code of practice. It has done so, and in paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4—I shall not read them to your Lordships—it says that the DPPs would have to have a close working relationship with the community safety partnerships and all local bodies statutory and otherwise.
When the document was presented to the Northern Ireland Office, it said, "take it out". The provision was taken out, which is amazing. Ultimately the Policing Board through the police is responsible for the nine key issues we discussed, at present laid down for safety partnerships. As it stands, DPPs and safety partnerships are separate bodies, but they are doing the same thing: studying and getting returns on causes and deterrents; solving crimes. There are bound to be differences in their surveys.
The safety partnerships could and should be part of DPPs or much more closely linked; as a subcommittee, for example. Yet the legal advice to the Criminal Justice Service Division seems to be incorrect. The head of that division said in his letter:
"Our legal advice is that taking a direct role in relation to community safety would be outside the vires of the DPP…in comments on an early draft of your code on the DPP functions".
Section 16(1)(e) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 states in relation to the functions of the DPP—and it was left wide open for precisely this purpose,
"such other functions as are conferred on it by any other statutory provision".
So we could do it now. It would be easy; a quick amendment and it would be done.
Immediately the response will be that subcommittees are not allowed. So Section 21, which is significantly in relation to Belfast but easily amended, permits sub-committees and people from outside who are not in the partnership in the beginning. There is no problem with including statutory bodies, so what is the problem?
I turn to the funding of £2.5 million per year. It is said that there will be Lottery money, peace and reconciliation money, and so on. Between 26 partnerships, £2.5 million is not a great deal of money; I wish there was more. Do any noble Lords have an idea how much CCTV cost in North Belfast in the past month? I believe it was £1.25 million. We need more money.
With reference to the Lottery and other cross-border funds, are noble Lords aware that in Northern Ireland they hate joint funding? They like to fund things straight off. If the NIO is funding around the corner to the safety partnerships and if it is a reserve function such as security, there should be joint security through the DPPs. If not, why are they funding at the bottom level within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, department of housing and so on? I suggest that it is bypassing the Assembly. I support the amendment and I should like the Government to propose something in its stead.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am as strongly opposed to unnecessary bureaucracy and redundant organisations as anybody else in your Lordships' House. Having made that point, perhaps I can make just one point about policing and one point on community safety.
I know that over the years in Northern Ireland bodies called police and public liaison committees were set up. They existed in the worst of times and in face of considerable hostility to the police from a number of different quarters. Some of them, for example the one in Derry, still managed to do good work. I hope that the work of those bodies will not be lost sight of but will be carried forward into such district policing partnerships as may occur in future.
On the matter of community safety, for many years some very good work has been done on crime prevention by, for example, Extern, which was mentioned earlier, by NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, and by quite a variety and range of youth organisations and other voluntary bodies. I hope that that work will not be lost in the sand but will be carried forward into this wider concept of community safety, which has quite a lot going for it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, briefly I too should like to speak on Clause 71 and oppose its removal from the Bill. Though I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Brookehorough this afternoon, I disagree with him about the need to take out this clause, not least because it is extremely flexible, on any reading.
The power in the clause can be exercised only after discussion with the executive and the best way forward determined. It also recognises that bodies like the police could and should be involved in the local community safety partnerships and the Secretary of State is given the right in subsection (3) to specify, by order, who the membership of those bodies should be. So here is the opportunity to involve the police and I am certain that, given the experience of the Mersey partnership—referred to several times this evening—that is the way to do it.
Five years ago, when I had the honour to become a Member of your Lordships' House, I made my maiden speech on the subject of punishment beatings and the continued anarchy that reigned in many parts of Northern Ireland. Even to this day we know that there are people from both sides of the divide who have no respect for the law, who are not working with the police to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and who ride roughshod over the wishes of the people in the community. But any of us who travel in Northern Ireland and meet people from both sides of the divide know that there is a common wish to see law and order established; the removal of the no-go areas; the drug barons dealt with; and an end to the kind of tensions there have been, especially involving youth crime. I am certain that the tools of local community and safety partnerships are a useful part of the armoury in dealing with those issues.

411
Noble Lords today have warned about the dangers of unrest during this month and in the month that will follow in various parts of Northern Ireland. I understand in the context of the earlier debate on flags and symbols that in some parts of Northern Ireland the Palestinian flag is being flown in the nationalist communities and the Israeli flag in the unionist community, entrenching even further division. That is not a good example on which to build if we want hope for Northern Ireland. This enabling clause is one way forward. The Government have shown some imagination in the way they have drafted this Bill. It will be a great tragedy now to remove this clause.
Though I recognise the arguments about creating too many quangos and appointed bodies, the Secretary of State has the power in this clause to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication and replication. I am sure that he will take into account the need to have clear lines established, with authority given to perhaps just one body dealing with those issues. I hope that that will be vested in something like a local community and safety partnership rather than just a policing partnership.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I rise simply to say that we are privileged to have heard the views of two distinguished members of the Policing Board, who have expressed to your Lordships not just their own views but the views of all the parties across the board who serve on the Policing Board. With respect I say that your Lordships and the Government would be unwise to disregard those views.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, when I first came to this Bill, I felt that Clause 71 should not be part of it. I did not feel it was a part of the total judicial process. As the Bill has progressed I have changed my opinion.
I agree, and am delighted to do so, with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. On the other hand, what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, had to say was both extremely interesting and worrying. On this side of the House we have been seriously concerned about the DPPs per se; about the potential conflicts of interest and over-bureaucratic management in such a small community and in particular—small items but they will be important at the time—the time that the police force will have to give to servicing those different groups when they could probably be spending their time in a more worthwhile way.
Without making a long speech I simply say that, on this side of the Chamber, we do not believe it is right to attempt to remove Clause 71 tonight. But we shall continue to chase the Government to tidy up their act in regard to the relationships between district policing partnerships, local authorities, community safety partnerships and so forth. There are too many local authorities—we hope Stormont will tackle that. As a result of there being too many local authorities there will be too many DPPs; as a result of that there will also be too many community and safety partnerships. In general, too much money will be wasted and there will be too many people going round in circles to
412
achieve what we all want to see achieved; that is, a clearing of the decks and a clear strategy for improving community safety in Northern Ireland involving the people of all communities.
It is with regret that I say to noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber that we will not be supporting the removal of Clause 71.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, before the Lord Privy Seal rises to respond, I must indicate that such is my concern—I hope I spelt it out in general terms earlier in previous amendments; my noble friend Lord Brookeborough spelt it out in detail—that I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal in terms of his response that he does not, as he did with me on the last group of amendments, ridicule by implication what has been said here this evening.
The Lord Privy Seal suggested that, by asking that the chairmanship should be vested in district councils, I was somehow promoting Sinn Fein, which may well have chairmen on some district councils. But the Lord Privy Seal well knows that there are members of Sinn Fein in many organisations. I sought to have district councils in the forefront because, irrespective of who may be the chairman or who may be in control, they are open to public accountability and to public scrutiny in a way that statutory bodies cannot be without further huge costs to the Exchequer and individual departments.
The Lord Privy Seal did not address the issues that were raised in relation to the precipitate way in which things were being put into place before there were any fundamental ground rules. I hope that on this occasion he will take the opportunity to enlarge on some of the points he may have missed earlier in the evening.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the frustration of the noble Lord. Lord Maginnis, and my noble kinsman the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on the details of Clause 71. I much admire the calm and good sense of the Minister in continuously bringing us back to the text of the Bill and its relationship to the amendments. One of the problems which those noble Lords trying to deal with this Bill have is that we are dealing with a real-time process on the Government's side which is operating in parallel to the examination and scrutiny of the Bill.
Perhaps I may give a tiny example in order to make the point. On Monday, the noble and learned Lord the Minister resented the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that the Government's conduct was tardy in an area of the consultative process relating to a particular list of organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Browne—whom I greatly admire—said on 5th September in Committee in the other place that he hoped he would be able to complete the process that we are discussing by Report stage in the House of Lords. We now know from the noble and learned Lord's statement on Monday on Report. that Mr Browne did not actually write until 28th February to consult the bodies involved in the exercise. That was only six days before the Report stage in the Commons.

413
I realise that that was not necessarily tardiness, but inevitably the two processes are not proceeding at the same pace. That places us all in some difficulty.
In this instance the consultative document was not sent out until the middle of April, which is a full six weeks after the Bill had its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Just as we are doing our best to sympathise with the noble and learned Lord the Minister, I hope that he will have some sympathy with our difficulty in following the detail of the Bill.
The Minister perfectly properly picked up my noble friend Lady Park on the definition of OTRs and the difficulty of putting such individuals in the Bill. We have a similar difficulty in terms of how the detail will work when the process is going on in parallel and, if anything, a little behind the progress of the Bill.
When the Secretary of State published his foreword to the consultative document he said:
"I am pleased to present this consultation paper setting out our ideas on a new inclusive partnership approach to creating a safer Northern Ireland.
The development of this strategy was one of the key recommendations of the Criminal Justice Review".
What he did not do was to specify which recommendation in the criminal justice review he was referring to. He may have been referring to paragraph 11.51, which was obviously a strategic statement, because the Government immediately resisted and rejected the criminal justice review's recommendation in paragraph 11.61. The Minister courteously explained to me in a letter between Grand Committee and Report stage why it was not possible to consider the criminal justice review's recommendation in paragraph 11.61, which underlies some of the frustration expressed from the Cross-Benches in terms of the relationships between district police partnerships and community safety partnerships.
I confess that I am not wholly clear where the Government are going, or even whether the Government know where they are going. If one does not know where one is trying to get to, any road will get one there.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may say something further on this issue. I quote from the noble and learned Lord's helpful letter of 3rd July about Amendment No. 87A. He said:
"As I explained, the Northern Ireland Executive has launched a Review of Public Administration, which is likely to result in significant changes to existing roles and responsibilities across organisations that could be expected to contribute to community safety. It would not be sensible to fix long-term arrangements now until the future shape of public administration in Northern Ireland becomes clearer".
That seems to me to support what my noble friend Lord Brooke has just said.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall just do as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, commended me for doing and go to the text of the amendment, which I know may be wearisome. The amendment simply states:
414
"Leave out Clause 71".
So, if noble Lords are minded to have local community safety partnerships they would vote against the amendment and if noble Lords thought that there was no purpose in them they would vote for the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said that I was ridiculing his earlier proposition. I was not. I was demonstrating that if one set out prescriptive rules in statute in some local authorities one would actually vest the administration and the chairmanship of a relevant body with Sinn Fein. That is one of the dangers of having over-prescriptive legislation.
I do not think that I can put the Government's approach better than the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Glentoran, have. Both said exactly what I have said: if noble Lords are in favour of these partnerships, which have a role to play, they should vote against the amendment.
There is a difference between these partnerships and the policing partnerships, the DPPs. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is quite right to say that all their functions are set out in Section 16(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. They are not the same functions as one finds in Clause 71 of the Bill. I believe that the experience referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Merseyside offers an opportunity for local community safety partnerships to do work which is quite different from the work of the district policing partnership. I shall not read out Section 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, but I just remind your Lordships of its existence and its contents.
The local community safety partnerships have various duties which are clearly set out in Clause 71(4). I shall not read them out. They are on pages 61 and 62 of the Bill. The cautionary note that was sounded by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is one that the Government ought to pay attention to. Other noble Lords quite reasonably spoke of the possibility of over-bureaucratic solutions and a duplication of effort.
The Police Service for Northern Ireland will be represented on the community safety partnerships, but the primary focus of the DPP is on policing issues. The CSP has a much wider remit. One has only to look at Clause 71(4)(c) and (d). That duty is utterly different from that which a policing authority would normally be carrying out.
This is an opportunity for flexible systems for a divided community. I cannot assist further. I believe that Clause 71 is perfectly straightforward. If one supports it, one votes against the amendment; if one thinks there is no purpose in having them one votes for the amendment.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I wish to give him time perhaps to speak and consider the matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that we can return to this at a later date. But at this stage I wish to withdraw our amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 120. line 21, leave out from beginning to "(reserved" and insert—
"62 The Northern Ireland Act 1998 has effect subject to the following amendments.
62A In section 75(3) (duty on public authorities to have regard to need to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups), after paragraph (cd) (inserted by section (Equality and non-discrimination) of this Act) insert—
"(ce) the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland;
(cf) the Northern Ireland Law Commission;".
62B In section 76(7) (discrimination by public authorities), after "Probation Board for Northern Ireland;" insert—
"(fa) the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland;
(fb) the Northern Ireland Law Commission;".
62C (1) Schedule 3"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are two new institutions under the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which are set out in Part 3. They are the criminal justice inspectorate and the law commission. The amendment designates them for the purposes of Sections 75 and 76 of the Northern Ireland Act. Your Lordships responded with approval on Monday when we did the same with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that we have been responsive to the mood of your Lordships. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 129, line 23, column 2, leave out "entry relating to" and insert "entries relating to the Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland) and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. It seeks to omit the reference to the,
"Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland)",
from the list of public authorities prescribed by Part 7, Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Lay Panel (Northern Ireland) members is rendered obsolete by the new arrangements for lay magistrates. Therefore, we do not need the reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Transitionals and savings]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 69, line 25, leave out from "to" to end of line 29 and insert "take over the conduct of all proceedings of the description specified in that subsection, he is under a duty to take over the conduct of only such proceedings of that description as it is reasonably practicable for him to conduct until the earlier of—

(a) the time when it is first reasonably practicable for him to take over the conduct of all proceedings of that description, and

416

(b) the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which that subsection comes into force."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is again not grouped. I think that there must be some slight error here with which I shall amuse your Lordships, because it is an amendment in my name but my instructions are to "resist everything". I am sure that that was placed there to make sure that I was carefully following my instructions.
When my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General made the proposals for the expansion of the existing department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, your Lordships were grateful for his great care. We listened carefully to various questions and thoughts offered by your Lordships. I hope that your Lordships regard this as a response to concerns expressed, but we did not think that the timescale to establish the new service should be left open-ended. My noble and learned friend has therefore agreed that we should include a sunset clause in the Bill that would set a time limit of five years for that establishment—although I think that every Member of the House would hope that the actual timescale would he shorter.
We have therefore accepted—I do not say this with any sense of self-congratulation—that there ought to be a sunset clause provision of five years. But I ought to say that the updated implementation plan will give further detail on timescale as events develop. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to

Tax Credits Bill
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

Tax Credits Bill
  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 52 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT 1
  1 After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "Annual report to Parliament
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the Board that shall include—

  (a) the accounts of the Board;

  (b) an estimate of the take-up of the working tax credit;

  (c) an estimate of the take-up of the child tax credit;

  (d) data on the number of investigations carried out into fraud, the number of prosecutions and the number of convictions; and

  (e) an estimate of the cost to employers of operating tax credits."

  The Commons disagreed to the amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu:
  1A Insert the following new clause—
  "Annual reports
  (1) The Board must make to the Treasury an annual report about—

  (a) the matters required by section 2(5) to be set forth in the accounts mentioned in section 13 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 (c. 21),

  (b) the number of awards of child tax credit and of working tax credit,

  (c) the number of enquiries conducted under section 18,

  (d) the number of penalties imposed under this Part, and

  (e) the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences connected with tax credits.

  (2) The Treasury must publish each annual report made to it under subsection (1) and lay a copy before each House of Parliament."
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.
  The Government have listened sympathetically to the view of this House that an annual report on tax credits would be a useful vehicle to ensure effective scrutiny of the operation of the new tax credit system. As noble Lords will recall, I explained on Report that most of the information required for the annual report is already published—much of it in the Board of the Inland Revenue's annual report, which is laid before both Houses. But we want to ensure transparency in the operation of tax credits and to enable proper scrutiny.
  So, although we still believe that a requirement for an annual report is strictly unnecessary, we have listened sympathetically to your Lordships' view that it would be useful for the relevant information to be contained in a single document focused specifically on tax credits. I am therefore pleased to speak to the government amendment moved in the other place in lieu of the Lords amendment. Please, my Lords, no jokes about scissors and paste or cutting and gluing.
  The government amendment covers much the same ground as the amendment made by your Lordships. Much of the difference is due to a tidying up of the drafting—a matter that I know is close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It may be helpful to the House if I explain the drafting changes. First, a report such as this is properly for the Board of the Inland Revenue to produce and present to the Treasury, rather than for my right honourable friend the Chancellor to produce himself. As the House is well aware, the Inland Revenue reports to Treasury Ministers, which is why subsection (2) of the new clause imposes on the Treasury the requirement to lay the report before both Houses.
  Secondly, I believe that the intention behind paragraph (a) of the noble Lord's amendment was that the report should include the amount of tax credit paid out each year, as reported in the Inland Revenue's departmental accounts. That was not clear in the
  418
  drafting of the Lords amendment, and subsection (1)(a) of the new clause in the government amendment sets that out in detail. I hope that that is helpful.
  I turn to the other items. Subsection (1)(b) makes clear that the report will set out the number of awards of each tax credit made in a year. As the House will know, we normally publish statistical reports of the awards of working families' tax credit and disabled person's tax credit on a quarterly basis, but we understand the value of including information about awards in an annual report on tax credits. That will be a useful set of data to assess whether the credits are reaching the right families.
  Subsections (1)(c), (d) and (e) cover information relating to compliance inquiries, penalties and prosecutions. Of course, there must be the greatest transparency in the reporting of the Inland Revenue's compliance activity. Much of that information is already provided in relation to WFTC and DPTC as part of the Inland Revenue's annual report. But again, we acknowledge the convenience of bringing together that information in a single report. Indeed, the government amendment goes further in that respect than the amendment passed by your Lordships' House. The Government's amendment will cover not only details of prosecutions—as noble Lords intended—but details of the number of compliance inquiries undertaken and the number of penalties imposed. That is an important and I hope helpful addition.
  There was concern in another place that the number of prosecutions for tax credit fraud currently carried by the Inland Revenue was low and showed a lack of determination on its part to tackle fraud. That is not true. The Inland Revenue is serious in its efforts to tackle fraud both in respect of tax credits and in the tax system more generally. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that information will be useful to them.
  Finally, the House will no doubt be aware that the new clause moved by the Government in another place does not include reference to the cost to employers of paying out working tax credit. As I made clear to noble Lords on Report, it is inappropriate to provide an estimate of employers' costs in an annual report. That matter is properly and comprehensively addressed by the regulatory impact assessment. The RIA is being revised in the light of announcements made in the Budget. The revised assessment will be made available to Members of both Houses.
  However, if your Lordships would find it helpful, I can give an undertaking that the information carried by the RIA will be included in the report—in other words, bringing together all of the information in one place. Given that a new RIA is made not every year but only as, when and if the financial assessment changes, it would not make sense to promise to review it each year. But I am happy to include the RIA assessment, keep it in the annual report and then change it as and when appropriate, thus bringing even that information into the body of the one report.
  I hope that your Lordships will agree that we have clarified the drafting. We have gone even further than your Lordships wanted in producing additional

  419
  information about fraud and prosecution. We have addressed the substance of concern about employers—that the information be available—without accepting that it is the job of the Inland Revenue to continue to make regular, annual reports on that. That is a matter for employers. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have taken account of the will of this House and are seeking to be helpful; that we have amended the Opposition amendment to embody it in the Bill; and that honour is served.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I think that it is true to say that one's view of another place is rather different from this end of the building than when one is in the other place. Even after 33 years in the other place, having chaired the Procedure Committee on various occasions and so on, I read with some surprise the report of the Commons debates on 26th June, when the amendments were discussed. Curiously, when I read Hansard, the amendment in lieu does not appear anywhere. It is therefore extraordinarily difficult to follow what the subsequent debate is all about. The Minister failed to move the amendment in lieu at either the beginning or the end of her speech, but let us leave that on one side. It is in front of us now so I suppose that it is here by some process of osmosis.
  On the point that the noble Baroness has explained about the Inland Revenue being responsible rather than the Chancellor, which we fully understand, the Minister in another place said:
  "That is why subsection (3) of the new clause imposes"— [Official Report, Commons, 26/6.02; col. 892.],
  the Treasury requirement, and so on. In fact, as your Lordships will see from the amendment before us, there is no subsection (3). It gets worse, because later on in the debate there is further confusion about what is in the amendment and on the Order Paper. The Minister refers to subsection (f), which also does not exist. None the less, one struggled through it all, but it makes life a little more difficult when we come to consider the Commons amendments.
  There is another point that deserves some consideration. The amendment before us relates to the Bill as it first arrived in your Lordships' House. We do not have a re-print that shows the amendments made by your Lordships and agreed to by the Commons. That is of no consequence for this evening's debate, but, given the utter chaos that accompanied the government amendments that were accepted in this House and in another place, it would have been incredibly difficult to know what the amendment was, had it been of a more technical nature. Dozens of amendments were made here and accepted in another place, but this version of the Bill makes no reference to them. It would be terribly difficult to juggle all the papers.
  420
  I now turn to the points of substance. We raised the matter of employers' costs in earlier debates. This evening, the Minister—who has, I think, been sympathetic throughout to the idea of an annual report—gave a further undertaking on that issue. We understand the difficulty, but, despite what was said in another place, the costs will vary over time, and the regulatory impact assessment that we have now will be out of date by a later stage. If I understood the Minister correctly, she said that, if there were a significant change, she would take steps to ensure that we are aware of what is going on.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall clarify the matter. The regulatory impact assessment happens when legislation is changed, as part of that process. At that point the revised figures would be incorporated into the annual report.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is very welcome. In the light of the Minister's helpful reply, we can leave that aspect to one side.
  The second issue is take-up. Although it is not entirely clear, the Minister in another place seemed to be under the impression that the Government's amendment in lieu somehow covered the points that our amendment made about the take-up of working tax credit and the estimate of the take-up of child tax credit. My understanding is that that is not the case, although I am open to correction. With the Government's amendment in lieu, we will not get an estimate of take-up; we will get the number of awards of working tax credit and so on. That is something different.
  Take-up is an important issue. We must know to what extent the tax credits are taken up. We need a comparison of the number of people who might be entitled to them and the number of people who actually receive them. The Minister in another place seemed to think that that was covered in the amendment in lieu, but that is not my understanding. Perhaps the Minister can correct me on that.
  The third matter with which we are concerned is fraud and prosecution. Again, the amendment in lieu goes somewhat further than we had anticipated, as the Minister said. We asked for data on the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions, whereas the Government's amendment in lieu goes somewhat further. It was explained in another place that that was because the Inland Revenue penalties were different from—and, I suppose, more extensive than—the penalties normally available to the Department for Work and Pensions. In that respect, we can say that the amendment is further progress.
  I am not saying that everything that we would have liked is there. The point about take-up is important. However, the principle of an annual report has been accepted, and that is to be welcomed. Although the amendment is not a whole loaf, it is a significant improvement, made as a result of the debates in this House and the Government's undertaking to consider

  421
  and react to the points raised. It would not be right to reject the amendment and go any further, not least because of the technical point, which the Minister made, that it is for the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, not the Chancellor, to make the report. We welcome the Government's flexible attitude, even though they have not met all the points we made.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, the proceedings on the amendment do credit to a bicameral parliamentary system. Occasionally, people, fearing that Parliament may become more truly bicameral, express fears of deadlock. They do not realise how lucky they are. They should consider the constitution of the 17th century Dutch republic. It was a union of seven autonomous provinces, each sending delegates to a federal states general. Those delegates were mandated, so, whenever the seven provinces' delegates disagreed, they all had to go back for further instructions. Executive power rested with the stadtholder, who had little, if any, formal legal authority. Anything of importance needed the assent of the chief burgomaster of Amsterdam, who would be largely responsible for funding it. One would have thought that nothing could have worked under such a system: in fact, it was the best governed country in 17th century Europe.
  The amendment illustrates that, when people want to reach a compromise, they can do it extremely well. Before listening to the Minister, I was going to say that two thirds of a loaf was better than no bread. However, having listened to what the Minister said about the regulatory impact assessment, the costs to business and the possibility of including that information in the annual report, I think that we have just about the whole loaf. The amendment is rather better drafted than it was in the form in which we originally left it. The Minister and those responsible in another place deserve our thanks for what they have done.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a point about take-up. It is worth attention. I assume that it will be possible to discover how many people were eligible for the tax credit and did not apply for it and that, were that information to be available, it would be included in a report. The Government are as interested in that information as we are.
  The reference to Clause 18 clarifies a good deal. The distinction between prosecutions and convictions is valuable. Generally, the amendment has had a wash and brush-up, which has done it nothing but good. I thank the Minister warmly for her part in the story, and I welcome the amendment before us now.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm response from noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised one major concern. Although he welcomed the clarification of what we were going to cover, including the incorporation of information that was in the regulatory impact assessment, he again raised the question of take-up.
  422
  There is an ambiguity in the original amendment, which, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, picked up. The amendment refers to,
  "an estimate of the take-up".
  Take-up is something that has happened. If the credit has been taken up, we need not give an estimate; we can give actual numbers. Had the amendment referred to "an estimate of entitlement", it would have picked up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that the other place did not seem to understand what we were getting at. I do not want to sound picky, but it may be that the amendment, as originally drafted, laid itself open to two readings. The other place took the view that take-up was something that had been taken up, as opposed to an estimate of entitlement.
  There is, in any case, an issue about entitlement. We have a good idea what the entitlement ought to be for families with children because we can extrapolate from the figures for those currently in the system. However, there is a new group—we think about 300,000—of adults over 25 who are without children whose incomes are sufficiently modest. We do not know whether it is 300,000, or 200,000, or 400,000 or whether circumstances will change. It is very flaky. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. We want the system to succeed, and we will track things as far as we can. There will be the sort of outreach work and information provision to encourage take-up that there was for the pension credit—the minimum income guarantee. We have no reason not to wish for people to take this up. Therefore the noble Lord need not worry that we shall not actively pursue it.
  With that information, I am glad that noble Lords have been able to welcome the amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Statement and Budget Report
8.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move to resolve, That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, each year the Government report information to the European Commission on our main economic policy measures. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the European Communities Treaty, which relate to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure.
The objective is to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty: non-inflationary economic growth; respect for the environment; a high level of employment and social protection; and raising the standard of living and quality of life for citizens across the UK and the

423
entire European Union. Those goals are consistent with the Government's own approach to economic policy.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act. requires Parliament to approve the government information sent to the Commission for this purpose. The Government's strategy for economic policy is set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Financial Statement and Budget Report, brought together in "Budget 2002". This material will form the basis of the information that we send to the European Commission.
Sharing the information in the Budget document with our European partners allows us to influence the development of the European Union, bringing enhanced employment and growth to Britain and other member states.
Five years ago this Government's first Budget set out long-term objectives and far-reaching reforms to achieve economic stability and higher levels of employment. In the last year, Britain has experienced the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates since the 1960s; for the first time for half a century, unemployment in Britain is lower than in America, Japan and Europe.
In this Budget, the first of the new Parliament, our task is to address, through modernisation and reform, three long-term challenges: the challenge of enterprise, with new incentives to raise investment and reward entrepreneurship; the challenge of family prosperity for all, with extra support for hard-working families, in the Tax Credits Bill which in the past five minutes has completed its passage through Parliament; and the challenge of renewing our public services, with a secure long-term financial foundation for a reformed National Health Service. The Budget sets out the Government's strategy to raise Britain's national economic potential and achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment, with rising living standards for all.
Last autumn, in the wake of September 11th, the world saw a fall in business confidence, declining markets and volatile oil prices, which posed major and simultaneous challenges to the stability and continued growth of the British economy. In the past, when the world suffered a downturn, it was Britain that usually entered weaker and suffered longer. Successive governments were unable to sustain economic growth, constrained by high inflation and high borrowing.
This time, from a platform of low inflation and fiscal discipline, both delivered through the new monetary and fiscal framework, we have been able to steer a steady course. The Bank of England has been able to adjust policy at the right time and in the right way, last year cutting interest rates seven times. Monetary policy has been supported by fiscal policy and we have, despite the difficulties, safeguarded both stability and growth.
The underlying state of our public finances remains strong. From 1997 we tightened fiscal policy by 4.5 per cent of national income. As a result we have been able
424
to reduce net debt well below 40 per cent, not just in one year but across the economic cycle. With debt and debt interest payments down it has been possible, even with lower than expected revenues, to maintain our three-year spending plans for hospitals, schools, transport and public services, and to respond to the challenges since September 11th at home and abroad, all the while still meeting our fiscal rules.
The envelope for public spending for the years to 2006 has been set. Current public spending will increase from £390 billion this year to £420 billion next year, to £;444 billion in 2004–05 and £471 billion by 2005–06. Historically low levels of net public investment, which languished at 0.6 per cent of GDP in 1997, will be raised to 2 per cent of GDP by 2005–06.
The Wanless report states that the NHS needs a long-term sustainable financial framework in support of reform and modernisation. It sets out the financial needs for the next two decades, starting with a five-year period of high and sustained growth. UK health spending will rise from 6.7 per cent of national income in 1997 and 7.7 per cent of national income this year, to 8.7 per cent by 2005–06 and to 9.4 per cent by 2007–08.
One of the main long-term challenges facing the Government is to build a more prosperous Britain. That means higher productivity, higher investment and a strong national consensus on the importance of enterprise. As we press ahead with supply-side reforms to remove barriers to growth, the focus of the Budget is on two further sets of measures: encouraging higher levels of innovation and investment; and helping small and growing businesses. A productive Britain is also an inclusive Britain. Moving people from welfare to work and making work pay is at the centre of our strategy. Compared to 1997, there are now 1.5 million more people in work, giving Britain the best unemployment figures for 25 years. In the mid-1980s, 350,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 had been unemployed for more than a year. Today the figure is just 4,900.
As we pursue our goals, all families will receive more support for bringing up their children. In the Budget we announced £2.5 billion of extra support for families, a family tax cut that will help nearly 6 million families. As a result, the direct tax burden on a family on average earnings with two children will be below 20 per cent. That is lower than it was in 1997 or any previous year since 1979.
Public policy is all about choices. We have made ours. We have chosen in favour of a stable economy, low inflation and low interest rates. We have chosen in favour of an enterprise society: low levels of taxation, support for small business and reductions in red tape. We have chosen in favour of a fair society: extra help for children, for families and for pensioners, policies that make work pay. And we have chosen in favour of a healthier society with extra investment in a reformed NHS, funded through general taxation.
That is the programme set out in the Budget and that, if the House approves, is the programme we will report to the European Commission. We are fulfilling our commitment under the Maastricht Act to report

425
on our main economic policy measures and maintaining our position, developed by this Government, at the heart of the European Union policy process. I commend the resolution to the House.
Moved, That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Motion to resolve in the masterly way that we have come to expect of him on these occasions. The noble Lord is very practised in such debates and probably he can anticipate what each of us is going to say. Our viewpoints on the state of the British economy and its prospects are well known and range from the Chancellor's one of being "cautiously optimistic", a phrase he used again in his Mansion House speech on 26th June, to my own rather more pessimistic but still hopeful stance, which is shared by many on both sides of the Atlantic.
That comment reminds me that today is 4th July. Were it not for this debate, some of us might be helping the American Ambassador to celebrate the independence of his great country and the liberty that accompanied it. But, whatever else the Americans will be celebrating today, they will not be celebrating the state of the New York stock market, which is a fair but gloomy indicator of investors' assessment of the mighty economy of the United States and its prospects. The current depressed mood of the market appears to be very reluctant to change for the better in spite of low interest rates, and of course we see that mood reflected in the ebb tide of share prices in our own stock market and in other markets across the world. The FTSE 100 was at its lowest yesterday since April 1997. This has knocked on the head the Prime Minister's claim of 19th June that the market is,
"massively up on where it was five years ago".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/02; col. 272.]
Of course markets are volatile and sentiment variable, but they do tell us something about the economies of the world in which we live.
I do not need to belabour the inter-dependence of the United States economy and our own, and, indeed, that of the euro zone. The euro zone, too, seems to catch cold when the American economy sneezes. That is not surprising bearing in mind the importance of the American export market to the euro zone as well as to the UK.
The economic clouds over us all have darkened even since April when the Budget Report was published. Economic growth is proving very elusive. We all hope that growth will pick up as the year progresses, but it is clearly possible that the slow-down will continue and that the Government's target of 2 to 2.5 per cent growth for this year may not be achieved.
426
The questions that arise in that event are obvious, but they must still be asked. If government revenue falls below the Chancellor's expectations and cautious optimism is dashed, how will the situation be remedied? Will the spending plans to which the Minister referred be curtailed, or borrowing and/or taxation increased? I suspect the latter alternatives will be favoured. The increase in national insurance contributions is still to come. I hope that the Government do not forget that a rising tax burden will retard economic growth still further.
The Budget Report is disarming in its assurance that,
"with sound public finances and low inflation, policy is well placed to respond to continuing risks".
Exactly how well placed is policy, one wonders, to deal with the worst case scenario.
If the current economic doldrums persist, they must affect the Government's thinking about joining the euro. The unemployment rates in the euro zone are not enticing. Nor are the spats between Italy, France and Germany and the European Commission over their lack of respect for the budget deficit constraints of the stability pact. Incidentally, can the Minister say whether the Government have to make a separate submission to the Commission under the pact?
While the major countries appear able to resist the Commission's strictures, smaller countries such as Portugal are not so fortunate. My understanding is that Portugal faces austerity measures imposed by Brussels under threat of punitive sanctions, so becoming the first country to lose control over tax and spending policy as a result of joining the euro. That must give the Government pause.
It was reported in February this year that the United Kingdom, too, has come under fire from the Commission for its spending plans. That was before the budget report and even though we have not yet joined the euro.
I accept that this is an extremely difficult time to make an economic assessment which carries the hallmark of certainty. It is a time of global instability, disappointing corporate earnings, accounting scandals and uncertainties and continuing terrorist threats. Nevertheless, so far as the Official Opposition are concerned, we are content to take note of the Government's Motion.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, I hope that the House will not know exactly what I am going to say. We shall see.
The financial statement in April in the Budget Report was bold. It expected the economy to grow by 2 to 2.5 per cent a year. This now looks a fairly heroic assumption after two consecutive quarters when GDP grew by only 0.1 per cent. Certainly very few independent forecasters, in the City or elsewhere, now look through the same rose-tinted spectacles as the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this central forecast, the one on which his public spending plans will stand or fall.

427
No economy is an island. I agree with both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that we could be vulnerable to another slow-down in the United States. But the international economic outlook is far from being all black. Confidence and activity across much of the euro zone have turned up noticeably since budget time. We must face the hard fact that many of our economic problems are home made and getting worse.
What an impossible decision the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England had to face today in trying to set a one-size-fits-all interest rate for our two-speed economy. The Bank's latest estimates of consumer lending show that it is now back to its late 1980s peak as a proportion of gross disposable income. I received two letters pushing unsolicited new credit cards on me this morning, and we must have had 20 aggressive letters pushing credit through our letterbox over the past month. Is the Minister surprised that we have a debt-financed consumer boom, with both the main house price indices showing this week that over the whole of the UK—not only the South East—house prices have risen by 19 per cent over the past 12 months and are showing a dangerous acceleration, with prices up 11 per cent in the first half of this year and 2.3 per cent in the single month of June?
Meanwhile, we have a massive balance of payments deficit, with most of manufacturing in deep recession and manufacturing employment down from almost 4.2 million when the Government took office to 3.7 million today. The Minister is right that unemployment in total remains low, but that is only because of rising employment in two sectors—building and the public sector—which has been masking job losses everywhere else over the past year.
So imprudent economic policy is producing a lopsided economy. With so much of industry and the service sector sluggish or in decline, how can the few remaining pockets of growth make the Chancellor's growth and spending forecasts add up? Someone or something substantial will have to ride to the rescue soon. Can the Minister see help on the horizon?
This inevitably has been rather a mouse of a debate. The Budget and the economic and fiscal strategy reports are old news by now. But next year will be different. The Economic Affairs Select Committee of the House will be able for the first time to examine the Finance Bill in detail. We look forward to constructive discussion and informed debate with, dare we hope, the Treasury taking some notice of the improvements and amendments that our committee will propose. We will not roar; we will not have teeth; but we will speak with authority and relevant practical experience, and we will he heard.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both speakers for their responses. There are different views about the United Kingdom economy, although I have shown that the views of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, are in the outer range of most
428
forecasts and informed opinion. Apart from the general observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, three particular points deserve attention.
As to the stock market, of course we must remain vigilant but the facts underlying the UK economy are the same. It has low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and low tax burdens for business. Whatever the view of the markets in this country—the situation is more serious in other western countries—we have the right conditions in place to ensure that the impact of turbulence on equity markets is limited.
The noble Lord asked whether we have to submit evidence for the stability and growth pact. Member states in the single currency must submit stability programmes while non-participating members submit convergence programmes for annual examination by ECOFIN. They outline the country's medium-term fiscal strategy. The UK submitted its last convergence programme based on the contents of the pre-Budget report in December 2001.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked also about the convergence programme early warning system. In the last round of stability and convergence programmes, the Commission recommended that Germany and Portugal should receive early warning letters and formal recommendations advising the member state concerned to take prompt measures to prevent divergence of its budgetary position from one close to balance or in surplus, which is the requirement. The council decided at its last meeting that such early warnings would be inappropriate. The German and Portuguese Governments instead issued statements expressing their commitment to fiscal discipline over the coming years. No early warning letters have been issued.
I find it more difficult to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, because although he casts general gloom he does so in general terms and is somewhat at the edge of informed opinion. The growth assumptions underlying the budget forecasts were cautious and realistic. Government forecasting recently has an excellent record—rather better than the average of independent forecasters, against 'which we constantly compare it.
Our statistics are that following the latest revisions, the level of GDP in the first quarter of this year is higher than anticipated. We made upward revisions to growth in 1999–2000 and the last two quarters, which more than offset the downward revisions of growth in 2001. We made upward revisions to GDP growth in 2000 and the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year show more momentum in the economy than was previously estimated.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred to the problems of manufacturing industry. We recognise the difficulties being experienced because of the slowdown in the world economy. The noble Lord did not make a point on this occasion about interest rates and the weak euro—so often a theme of debates in your Lordships' House. The most important thing for manufacturers and other businesses is that the Budget maintains economic stability and Lakes action to

429
encourage enterprise. Manufacturers will benefit from the research and development tax credit; the new zero corporation tax rate; the cut to 19 per cent in corporation tax for small firms; and the measures to boost training and skills.
I can only disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. Independent forecasts have been too pessimistic. Our forecasting record is good. We are conscious that the outturn for the past year of
430
2.25 per cent was in line with our pre-Budget reports and Budget statements on every occasion since 1999. That is a good record and we are confident that the forecasts contained in the Budget reports that are to he submitted to the European Commission in conformity with Section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 are valid and realistic.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Adoption and Children Bill
  Thursday, 4th July 2002.
  Adoption and Children Bill

    The Committee met at four of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): Perhaps I may remind the Committee that if a Division is called in the main Chamber, this Committee adjourns for 10 minutes to enable noble Lords to vote.
    Clause 29 [General prohibitions on removal]:
    Lord Clement-Jonesmoved Amendment No. 67A:
    Page 19, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
    "() a child is subject to a placement order,"
    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 67A and speak to Amendments Nos. 67B, 67C and 67D, and in fact the clause stand-part debate following will also be relevant. These amendments follow closely, and indeed could have been grouped with, Amendments Nos. 51A, 52A, 54, 54A, 54B, 54C and 53A, which we spoke to when the Grand Committee previously met. They are, like those amendments, based on the premise that there should be a placement order in every case, even where consent to placement is forthcoming.
    The aim of the amendments, and indeed of the clause stand part debates on Clauses 30, 31 and 33, is to ensure that once a placement order is made following judicial scrutiny, the placement should not be disrupted without the leave of the court, or the consent of the agency.
    The advantage of this for the adopters is that they will know if a child is placed with them under a placement order, even if it was made by consent, but the placement cannot be disrupted by a parent who has changed his or her mind without the court being satisfied that there is sufficient change in circumstances to merit sanctioning a change. Conversely, a parent consenting to placement should do so only having taken into account that he or she cannot change his or her mind later without good cause.
    As the proponents of the earlier amendments explained, the whole purpose of this is designed to reach some kind of certainty early in the day, but to avoid finality where parents give their consent to a placement without a court order. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the concept of this amendment in the hope that it could perhaps commend itself to Government.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have concerns because the provision follows on the making of a
    CWH 182
    placement order in each circumstance. I am not convinced that is necessarily in the best interests of all adoptive families, and indeed of ordinary families, and certainly all children.
    I believe the placement order should be in place to ensure that when a parent might change his or her mind, where there are difficult circumstances, the child is secure. There are circumstances in which families simply want to place their child for adoption, and social workers will say that one of the things that delays the progress of adoption is the time waiting for court hearings. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that we should make time available if we pass this legislation. However, I was simply referring to waiting times at the moment for urgent issues, including criminal cases where children are witnesses and where they are supposed to be a priority. There is still a great difficulty about court time. I should prefer to see a situation where we have placement orders in circumstances that have been assessed as needing placement orders, and not have placement orders in other circumstances. Then, if you like, we would not need this convoluted process with which I was struggling—though I believe I have got my mind around it now—during the last debate.
    Baroness Andrews: As the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, has said, these amendments take us back to earlier amendments when we explored the differences in concept and application between placement with consent and the application for a placement order. The overall intention of the Bill, as I described it on Tuesday of this week, is to try to redistribute the power available to prospective adopters and birth parents, so that there is a more equal opportunity for birth parents to be fully informed and involved at an earlier stage so that irrevocable decisions are not taken. The noble Baroness described it as the "High Noon" situation at the point when the application for adoption is made.
    I shall address the amendments in some detail because they are rather complex, although I appreciate the brevity with which the noble Lord introduced them. As part of these changes, the Bill must inevitably reflect those changed parameters when it comes to removing children from placement with consent. It has to ensure that the rights that are available to families involved are also matched by the security afforded at different stages of the process.
    At the moment, through a combination of Clauses 18 and 51, the Bill ensures that in consent cases the parents can change their mind about placing the child for adoption at any stage up to the point at which an application for the final adoption order is made. It is worth emphasising this point. Although the birth families will have support to understand and explore the implications of what they are doing, we have gone to some pains to ensure that they can change their mind at any point.
    Under Clause 41, there must be a minimum of 10 weeks between the child being placed with prospective adopters before they are able to make an application for adoption. So the Bill provides for parents to change

    CWH 183
    their mind in consent cases and to have their children returned. That being so, we have attempted to provide within the range of options both care and flexibility in Clause 29.
    Perhaps I may briefly outline what the clause is intended to do. Clauses 29 to 34 place restrictions on removing children subject to the placement provisions. Clause 29 sets out the general rules and Clauses 30 to 34 expand on those to cover placements both with consent under Clause 18 and under placement orders.
    Clause 29 provides, first, that where a child has been placed for adoption with consent, or where the child is under six weeks of age—we have dispensed with the parent having to give consent for that period—it is an offence for anyone other than the adoption agency, whether that is a local authority or a voluntary agency, to remove the child from the prospective adopters. It also provides for the alternative situation; namely, Where the child is still waiting to be placed with prospective adopters and is being accommodated by the adoption agency, whether it be in a children's home or with foster parents. But, again, only the agency can remove the child. The same rule—that only the agency can remove the child from the placement—also applies where the parents withdraw their consent to placement under Clause 18. Clauses 30 to 32 set out what happens in those circumstances.
    Where the parents have consented, it is only the adoption agency that can act to remove the child. Where the parents have withdrawn their consent, it is still the adoption agency that would remove the child and oversee the return to the parents. In addition, the adoption agency is able to remove the child from the placement at any point, regardless of whether the parents have requested the return of the child. For example, we are thinking of situations where the agency was concerned that the wrong judgment had been made and the placement was failing. In that situation the agency would be able to step in and remove the child.
    The removal provisions work broadly as follows. Where a child is placed for adoption by consent and that consent is withdrawn, the child must be returned to the parent within 14 days. If consent is withdrawn before the child has been placed, the child must be returned to the family within the week. I should point out that we made that concession: we reduced the period from 14 to seven days after representations from the agencies involved in adoption.
    The clause gives parents substantial rights to have the child returned if they change their minds. We obviously have to provide for those situations where the local authority does not think that that is the right thing to do, even where the parents have withdrawn their consent. Where that is the case, and provided that the authority considers that the significant-harm threshold is met, under Clause 21, the authority is under a duty to apply for a placement order.
    Under Clause 29(2), once the authority has applied for the placement order, the child may be removed only with the leave of the court. Again, for consistency,
    CWH 184
    depending on whether the child is placed or waiting for a placement, the local authority must make that application within the seven-day or the 14-day period. Once the application is made, until the issue is resolved, the child may be removed only with the court's leave. This is to minimise the disruption for the child, otherwise, the child might be returned to the parents and removed again if a placement order is made. I take to heart what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said not only about the court time involved, but the processes and how they may affect the child.
    I now turn to the placement order. The restrictions on removal, once a placement order has been made, are dealt with in Clause 33. Again, only the local authority may remove the child, and it can do so at any point. However, unlike a placement with consent under Clause 18, where a child is under a placement order, there is no provision for the parents to have their child returned to them as of right at their request. Their only option would be to apply to the court to have the placement order discharged. They would hope that in doing so, the court would provide that the child should be returned to them. Under the noble Lord's amendments, that would be the position in every case, because related to the discussion we had on Tuesday, there would be a placement order in every case.
    I have described how the removal provisions work. The main point is that only the adoption agency may physically remove the child, but there is a caveat in the Bill. Subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 29 have made it clear that none of the provisions in Clauses 29 to 32 prevent the removal of a child who, for example, is arrested or removed as a result of a local authority or any other persons exercising a power conferred by any enactment. It is important to ensure that the removal provisions do not cut across local authority child protection powers under the Children Act. While these clauses reflect the right of parents to request the return of their child from placement with consent, at every stage up to the application of the final adoption order, they place the power of making the physical removal with the adoption agency.
    We have done this because placement for adoption is a serious undertaking. It is of a different nature from a temporary foster placement or temporary respite in care homes. Given the different nature of placement for adoption, it is right to provide that where the parents ask for the return of the child, the parents simply cannot walk in and remove the child at will. Removal in whatever circumstances, whether from an actual adoptive placement or a pre-adoptive placement, has to be handled sensitively and consistently. We believe that the adoption agencies are right organisations to do that.
    In the light of that, the Government believe that the process of preparing them to be returned to their parents, and the actual process of return, should be handled by the adoption agency. As a consequence, where consent has been given to place a child for adoption where the local authority has applied for a placement order, the clauses have the effect of

    CWH 185
    restricting parents under the Children Act to remove children who were voluntarily accommodated under Clause 20 of the Act.
    Where such children are in voluntary accommodation and their parents have consented to place them for adoption, if consent is withdrawn, they no longer as now have the right to remove those children themselves. In those cases, too, it has to be the adoption agency which removes the child within the defined period. I want to stress that the removal of those rights applies only where the child has been placed for adoption or where applications for placement orders have been made. The wider rights of parents to recover children accommodated under the Children Act, not in connection with adoption, are not affected.
    Finally, subsection (9) of Clause 29 imposes a penalty of three months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £5,000, or both, for breach of the removal provision.
    I turn now to the details of the amendments. I understand that the motivation behind the amendments is to simplify the provisions. One consequence of removing the option for placement with parental consent under Clause 18, in favour of placement orders in relation to every child in every family, is that the placement order removal restrictions would obviously apply to all adoptive parents. That is reflected in the amendment. The overall effect of the amendment is that once the placement order is made, the child should be removed from the placement only by the decision of the local authority, and physically removed by the local authority. The parents would have no right to request removal of the child or to have the child returned to them within a set period, as they currently do in placement with consent under Clause 18.
    We believe that where a placement order is necessary, that is broadly right. However, as the Committee will by now appreciate, we believe that there should be this alternative route for parents. The difficulty is that the amendments would not allow that. They would not allow parents the opportunity to change their minds before the point of application for the final adoption order. Even if the placement order were made with the consent of parents, once the placement order was made, that would be it—parents could not change their minds; they could not ask for their child's return. The only option would be to apply to the court under Clause 23 to discharge the placement order.
    That is a major change from the current position whereby children voluntarily accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act are placed for adoption. At the moment, parents can exercise their right to have the children back. Yet, those placements generally proceed very successfully on this voluntary basis. Under the proposed amendment, all such cases would be under placement orders and parents would lose their ability to secure the return of the child without going to court. The Government believe that it is worth keeping open the voluntary option.
    CWH 186
    To reiterate, under our proposed provisions, when parents have given consent to placement and decide to withdraw, they can have their child returned without needing to go to court within the seven or 14-day period, depending on the situation of the child. The only exception is where the local authority has applied for a placement order. Although we do not think that that is complex, as we shall see when we come to look at the amendments in detail, a degree of complexity has certainly crept in.
    Taking Amendments Nos. 67A, 67B and 67E together, part of the problem we seem to have uncovered is that Amendment No. 67E risks undermining the intentions of Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B. It is a rather complex matter. Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B amend subsection (1) of Clause 29, to remove references to Clause 18 and to provide that the restrictions on removal in Clause 29 apply to all placements. Although it is not entirely clear, I presume that that means placements whether the child is placed or awaiting a placement. I am not sure that the word "placement" itself actually delivers that.
    I anticipate that this amendment needs to be read in the context of the proposal that Clause 33 should not stand part of the Bill. I am, as I said, therefore assuming that it is intended to apply in all cases. The intended effect is that only the adoption agency may remove a child from placement. As I said, that would leave an application to the court to discharge the placement order as the only recourse for parents in consent cases who have changed their mind.
    However—if I am right and the amendments are intended to reflect the position whereby the parents of a child under a placement order who want the child back may not remove him without going to court to discharge the order—Amendment No. 67E seems to cut across this objective. The reason for that is that Amendment No. 67E amends subsection (6). As I said, the purpose of subsection (6) as drafted is to ensure that the removal provisions do not block removal by local authorities in relation to arrest or child protection powers.
    However, the effect of Amendment No. 67E would be to restore parents' rights under the Children Act, so that they themselves could at any point remove a child voluntarily accommodated under Section 20 of that Act. Therefore, the adoption agency would not be the only one that could remove the child. The effect of the amendment would be that, where the child has been voluntarily accommodated before being placed, the child's parents could at any time turn up and remove the child from the placement. I think that that would undermine the intention behind Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B. We do not think that the amendment is desirable, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may agree with us.
    In addition, where a child has been voluntarily accommodated but the local authority then decides that the child should be adopted and applies for a placement order, as currently drafted, subsection (2) of Clause 29 would prevent the parent or anyone else from removing the child without the leave of the court.

    CWH 187
    One effect of Amendment No. 67E would be that, in such situations, the parents would be able to remove the child at any point. We do not think that that would be appropriate. When an application for a placement order has been made, the issue should be determined by the court. Pending resolution of the application, the court should have a say over whether the child is moved. Of course, the parents would be able to exercise their Section 20 removal rights unfettered at any time before the point at which an application for a placement order was made.
    The matter is not straightforward, unlike those dealt with in the remaining amendments. Amendment No. 67C would delete subsection (3) which covers restrictions on removing children where an agency was authorised to place the child under Clause 18, but the child had not yet been placed with prospective adopters. The subsection would clearly not be necessary if there were no Clause 18 placements.
    Amendment No. 67D reflects the forthcoming debate on stand part by deleting references to Clauses 31 and 32 from subsection (4), which provides that the general removal restrictions in Clause 29 are qualified by the specific provisions in the following clauses.
    These amendments essentially flow from our earlier debates. If that point is accepted, then the thrust of the changes proposed by the amendments would be sensible. As I said, however, it could be argued that the restrictions on removing a child may be somewhat "rigid" for what is supposed to be a consensual, voluntary placement—which is our objective in Clauses 17 to 24—arrived at, we were assured earlier, after the briefest of court hearings. That indeed was part of the case that was made. However, there seems to be little scope for parents to change their minds under these proposals. We argue that Clause 18 is valuable and that the route it offers should be retained. Consequently, in all logic, the provisions in Clause 29 and later clauses need to be retained.
    I have made it clear why we oppose in principle the thrust of the amendments. I have also set out why, regardless of our difficulties in principle, we have some concerns about their detailed operation. I am also conscious that we have necessarily dealt with this matter in a rather technical way. I should therefore be happy to provide to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to any other noble Lords, a detailed explanation in writing or in a briefing which we could organise. If that would be helpful I should be very happy to do it. I hope that the essence of the argument and the Government's position, as expressed in the clauses themselves, are clear.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that extremely concise, precise and explicit explanation of the effect of these provisions. I have a vision of lawyers in the future poring over the noble Baroness's speech, because it will probably be the best gloss available, if this part of the Bill stands, on precisely what effect the provisions are designed to have.
    CWH 188
    In many ways the length to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, had to go in explaining how this part of the Bill would operate demonstrates its convoluted nature, and the reason why so many stakeholders believe that this is not the best way of proceeding. That is why, although it may appear to be slightly harsh in some cases, the placement order which goes to court—which then does not have Clauses 30, 31 and 33 involved, but simply requires one to apply to court, or the agency comes back and removes in those circumstances—is preferable as a much clearer way forward.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth—whose speech I found very interesting—described this part of the Bill as convoluted. Having done a fair amount of reading between our previous Sitting and today, she has clearly come to grips with it. It is very difficult. We on these Benches would much prefer to see something clearer which gave that certainty. The agency would have powers of removal if it applied to the court and the order was made. However, the point at which discussions truly occurred would be in court when the placement order was dealt with.
    There may well be issues about resources and about whether access to court is available and so on. However, when this House legislates, we assume that the resources will be made available to implement that legislation. We do that in relation to our NHS reform Bills every day of the week. If Bills are passed but resources are not available, we want to know why. The same would be true if we passed legislation simplifying the process so that placement orders had in each case to be dealt with in the court.
    Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think that much of the complexity attaches to the amendment rather than to the clauses themselves. We are dealing with three steps here. Under the clauses on placement by consent, one can ask for the child back. If one does, the agency must return the child within seven or 14 days depending on whether the child is placed or waiting to be placed. The only exception is if the local authority has to seek an adoption placement order. That is the essence of the clauses. However, I am grateful to him for describing what I thought was a complicated matter as he did. Nevertheless, I believe that it is simpler than he thinks.
    Lord Clement-Jones: Clearly we have a philosophical difference as to whether it is the Government's scheme or the scheme proposed in our amendments that is complicated. I should think it self-evident that we would make progress on simplification if we removed three clauses from the Bill. As the Minister is shaking his head, we clearly have a different philosophy of regulation, too.
    I do not think that we are going to get much further on the matter; this is the second stage of debate on it. I shall read very carefully what the Minister had to say. Nevertheless, there is still quite broad disagreement on this part of the Bill. I shall take on board what she said about Amendment No. 67E, and about its interaction with the 1989 Act. It may well be that there is a drafting

    CWH 189
    flaw. Although we on these Benches are not always known for the precision of our amendments, we have at least had a useful debate on this broad point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 67B to 67E not moved.]
    Clause 29 agreed to.
    Clause 30 agreed to.
    Clause 31 agreed to.
    Clause 32 agreed to.
    Clause 33 agreed to.
    Clause 34 [Return of child in other cases]:
    [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
    Clause 34 agreed to.
    Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.
    4.30 p.m.
    Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 69:
    After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
    "REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS
    For section 69 of the 1989 Act (power to prohibit private fostering) there is substituted—
    "REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTER PARENTS

    (1) Every local authority shall keep a register of persons who act as private foster parents within their area.

    (2) A local authority shall not register any person as a private foster parent unless it is satisfied that he is fit to act as a private foster parent.

    (3) The Secretary of State shall make provision, pursuant to section 1(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, as to the considerations to which a local authority is to have regard in reaching a decision as to whether to register a person as a private foster parent.

    (4) A local authority shall cancel the registration of any person under section (1) if—

    (a) it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person as a private foster parent;

    (b) the care provided by that person for any privately fostered child is, in the opinion of the authority, inadequate having regard to the needs of that child; or

    (c) the premises in which any privately fostered child is or would be accommodated are not suitable for that purpose.

    (5) No person shall act as a private foster parent unless he is registered under subsection (1).

    (6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) shall be guilty of an offence.

    (7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

    (8) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to register him as a private foster parent may appeal to the court in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to this Act.""

    The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 69 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Chan. At the outset, I pass on to the Committee the apology of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, for not being able to be here today.
    The amendment deals with a very important and much overlooked subject; namely, that of private fostering. My interest in, and my entire knowledge of, this subject were sparked when I started to read the Bill; I was previously unaware that private fostering arrangements are permissible. I suppose that that was because I had missed one very small but significant fact; that Victoria Climbié was a privately fostered child. In the months since her death, there has been a great deal written and discussed, principally in the social work journals, about private fostering.
    Many people are genuinely unaware that certainly since 1989 there has been a legal duty upon anybody who privately fosters a child to notify his or her local authority. In fact and in practice, very few people do so.
    It may help Members of the Committee if I explain to them, as it was explained to me, what the term "private fostering" really means. It means a wholly private arrangement between birth parents and any private individual to look after a child for a length of time. Such arrangements are fairly common. It is impossible to be more precise because nobody knows how many private fostering arrangements there are.
    This issue has been the subject of study over many years. In 1973, Mr Bob Holman produced a report entitled Trading in Children. In it he talked about the fact that there were any number of children in these long-term but wholly unregulated relationships. He concluded, at that time, that they were perhaps some of the most vulnerable children in our society. Interestingly, in 1973 he called for a system of registration. His findings were ignored then; and hence earlier on last year, in the wake of the Victoria Climbié case, he was back on television saying exactly the same things that he had said in 1973.
    In 1997, BAAF—the British Association for Adoption and Fostering—did some work with the African Family Advisory Service and, as a result, it produced its report entitled A Very Private Practice. It is perhaps the most comprehensive study of this subject in this country, and it makes for some rather horrifying reading. Its main finding was that, although local authorities have a duty to look after any child who they may have reason to believe is in a private fostering arrangement, in practice very few can do it. It is impossible to find many local authorities which know how many children are in such arrangements. If these children are not known about, they are quite often extremely vulnerable.
    What A Very Private Practice did discover and talked about were the different types of arrangements which exist. It is not uncommon in this country for children who have been here all their lives to hit adolescence, with all the horrors that that brings for them and their families, and to go off and live with another member of the family for a period of time. That is not really what we are talking about here. We are talking about a large number of children, many from particular minority communities, whose birth families remain in their country of origin but who are sent to this country by their parents in the belief that in this country they will have a better life.
    There is also another subset of children; the children of people in this country who are often students — medical students and so on—who come from a culture where it is normal and accepted practice to send children to extend members of the family to be looked after for quite long periods of time. Therefore, there are not only the matters of children's vulnerability, about which we have spoken so far, but there are also, for some of them, acute issues about culture and distance from their parents.
    It is the case that notification is supposed to be given to local authorities. It is also the case that that rarely happens. That is not because people are defying the law; in most cases, it is because they simply do not know that they have to. Most people just do not know; they have come to a working arrangement that may exist within their family, so why should they tell anybody about it?
    There are also, however, arrangements which are commercial transactions.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.37 to 4.47 p.m.]
    Baroness Barker: Noble Lords may well remember the period when The Times newspaper was not published for a year. On the first day after the end of the dispute when the paper reappeared, Bernard Levin started his column with the words, "As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted".
    Before the Division was called I was setting out some of the background to some of the studies that have been done on the subject of private fostering. It is important to look at the Government's response. In 1998 the Department of Health, responding to publications by BAAF, said that at that time the Government did not consider that a new system of regulation was necessary as there was already a wide range of regulations associated with the offences which might occur in relation to private fostering and adoption.
    In 1999 the Department of Health said that the Government would take steps to enforce current regulations on private fostering more effectively and that legislation would also be introduced to target private fostering regulations and placements lasting more than 42 days. That legislation has not been forthcoming. However, two things did happen. One was that a leaflet was produced for professional staff, principally for teachers, to make them aware of the existing provisions surrounding private fostering. A leaflet was produced which was intended to inform private fosterers of their responsibilities but, as far as I have been able to determine, the leaflet appeared only on the Department of Health website and, therefore, did not have much currency within the general population.
    CWH 192
    It is also worth noting that, over this period of time, all other forms of childcare, with the exception of nannies, have come under increasing regulation and this is the one remaining area where children may be away from their parents for an extended period of time without any supervision or inspection by anybody.
    One of the categories of children who frequently are mentioned in relation to private fostering regulations are children who come to this country to stay in language schools. However—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—I believe that language schools now come within the Ofsted provisions and, indeed, in some cases under the provisions of the Care Standards Act.
    The reason for moving the amendment, which I fully accept may be deficient in some respects, is to highlight the need to update the law in this respect. The Social Services Inspectorate has produced a document, By Private Arrangement, which is a consultation document setting out inspection arrangements for supervising children in private foster care. It is a document which draws upon much of the earlier work about which I have spoken. The deficiencies of the existing regulatory framework are highlighted quite graphically in that. When the Social Services Inspectorate set out to do this work, it set itself a target of finding eight local authorities that it could examine in detail—it found only five. Therefore, it had to find others and make some extrapolations. The fact that the SSI was unable to find eight local authorities which could provide it with the information that it needed speaks volumes.
    There is one other reason which is fairly compelling for considering this matter now. As I said, all other forms of childcare have been increasingly regulated over the past few years; private fostering has not. Sir William Utting, in his report in 1997 entitled, People Like Us, referred to private fostering as a potential honey-pot for paedophiles and people who seek to do harm to children. It is the sincere belief of many of the organisations working in this field that, as regulation is increasingly effective in all other forms of childcare, the potential for abuse within private fostering is increasing. As someone who believes passionately that anyone who wishes to be considered fit to assume care and responsibility of a child has a duty to prove that that is so, I believe that that is a loophole which should be closed, and should be closed now.
    I anticipate that in his reply, the Minister will put forward the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is currently conducting an inquiry and, although that inquiry has been delayed yet again, it will come to public view probably in the latter part of this year.
    That report will inevitably appear after we have completed deliberations of the Bill, and I suspect, after it has been further reviewed in another place. If the Committee does not take this step now, when will there be another opportunity in the legislative timetable to address the issue?

    CWH 193
    I suspect that I will be accused of being somewhat premature in raising the issue now in the light of the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, I contend that the issues surrounding private fostering have not changed since the 1973 report was put forward; that many of those issues remain to be addressed; that whatever the outcome of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming—a report which cannot and will not be ignored—there exists a loophole which enables children to be placed in the most vulnerable of situations. Therefore, it is not premature to consider the issue now. I beg to move.
    Earl Howe: I rise briefly to support this amendment which seems to fill a serious and longstanding gap in the law relating to fostering. The problem with private fostering, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, indicated is that we do not know how big the problem is. That there is a problem is not in doubt. Five years ago, the Utting report flagged up some serious concerns about the risks to children who have been privately fostered. While it is perfectly true that local authorities have some powers that they can deploy where necessary, not many do so with any degree of energy.
    Even if one sets aside the obvious risks of private foster carers abusing the children in their charge, and such people are obviously wholly unsuitable to act as surrogate parents, there are other, perhaps less visible, risks.
    In 1988, the African Family Advisory Service found that local authorities and private foster carers had little or no knowledge of the children's medical histories, particularly crucial sometimes in West African children who may have sickle cell disorders, for example. It is estimated that between 80 and 90 per cent of private foster placements involve West African children. Privately fostered children were often passed around like parcels from one set of foster parents to another, without any control whatever. There was no formal system to enable local authorities to keep track of where children were, and not a few children disappeared altogether.
    Children suffered behavioural and other problems due to unsatisfactory placements, and where West African children were with white foster parents, their cultural and racial identity was not respected or understood. There is no reason to believe that if a similar survey were carried out today, the results would not be identical. One has to ask what possible reason the Government could have for not following the recommendation of Utting that private foster carers, like all other foster carers, should be subject to a system of approval and registration. Even childminders are subject to registration.
    There is a vast difference between a situation where a child is entrusted to the care of a friend or a neighbour for a day or two, and the situation where a child is handed over indefinitely to the care of strangers without any prior investigation into the suitability of those people to look after the child. The risks are huge. Indeed, Utting stated that privately fostered children appear to be more vulnerable to
    CWH 194
    abuse and neglect than children in local authority foster care. Signposts, the report of the 1993 Social Services Inspectorate Inspections, referred to,
    "very real concerns about the welfare of the children".
    Against that background, the existing law is weak. It seems crazy that a local authority which wants to remove a child from the home of a private foster carer can do so only if it applies to the court. If an authority wants to remove a child from one of its own foster carers, there are emergency procedures that it can trigger, and the child can be removed without delay. However, a private foster parent, unapproved and unregulated, is in this sense legally on a par with birth parents, and that has to be a huge anomaly.
    The status quo should not, I believe, be an option for the Government, and I hope that they will look with favour on this amendment.
    5 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for bringing this matter to our attention.
    When we debated the passage of the Care Standards Act we had a long discussion on the whole area of private fostering, and I recognise it is an important area of concern. As both the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have suggested, it raises concerns about the welfare of children who are privately fostered.
    At the moment, private fostering is an agreement where a child under the age of 16, or under 18 if disabled, is cared for by someone who is not a parent, step parent, or has parental responsibility, or is a close relative, for a significant length of time; in other words, 28 days or more. The Children Act 1989 provides a legal framework for notification that requires the private foster carer, and the person with parental responsibility, to notify the local council of the proposed private foster care arrangement.
    Once the local authority knows about the impending arrangement, the Children Act requires the local authority to satisfy itself that the welfare of the child is being satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted by others by supervising, regulating and advising it in respect of the private placement. The local authority is then required to visit at specified intervals and to report on those visits. The local authority must satisfy itself that the foster parents' household and accommodation are satisfactory, and it has the power to impose requirements, or if there are serious concerns, to prohibit the fostering arrangement.
    As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested, there are very different circumstances under which private fostering takes place. We know that common types of private fostering arrangements include the practice of African children being sent to England in order to benefit from a good education; or, as the noble Baroness suggested, many teenagers move in with the parents of boyfriends or girlfriends following family rifts, and others stay with school friends, or neighbours following family disagreements, separations, or indeed divorce.

    CWH 195
    Clearly this is a legislative framework intended to provide adequate protection, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, suggested, and as the recently published SSI report confirmed, there are issues of concern. The noble Baroness is right that only five out of eight councils which in a sample survey were asked for information were able to provide a significant sample of children and carers. As a result, a further five authorities were then asked to provide some basic information in order to supplement the inspection task.
    This report confirmed the lack of awareness by carers to notify the arrangement to local authorities, and also highlighted the lack of awareness by local authority social services departments of their responsibilities to privately fostered children. I well understand the importance of this issue. I accept that Amendment No. 69 would require local councils to keep a register of private foster carers in their area. It would also require the council to be satisfied that the premises are suitable and that the person,
    "is fit to act as a private foster parent",
    in order to register him or her.
    Under this proposed new clause, potential private foster carers would be required to register with local councils prior to entering a private foster arrangement. Private foster carers failing to register would commit a criminal offence. This matter was discussed not only during the debates on the Care Standards Act, but also during the Report stage of this Bill in another place.
    I should outline the Government's position on a registration scheme. We are looking most carefully at it, although it is fair to say that we remain to be convinced that a scheme as proposed by the noble Baroness would solve all the problems that currently exist. Some of the discussion that is taking place is essentially as follows. If a heavy-handed regulatory approach were adopted, it might succeed only in pushing private fostering further underground. It would not solve the significant obstacle of the lack of notification of private foster arrangements, which is one of the key issues that we face at the moment. Nor does it seek to overcome the problem that private foster carers do not currently see any benefits themselves in registration and, therefore, would probably continue to operate without telling the local authority.
    A blanket approach to registration may not work as successfully as suggested by the noble Baroness. However, I readily acknowledge that there is no doubt that the current arrangements are unsatisfactory. That is why my honourable friend Jacqui Smith announced a government review of the situation earlier in the year. There is a wide range of stakeholders involved, including Members of Parliament and private foster carers. The review is focusing on the existing arrangements within Part IX of the Children Act, and will consider whether they are robust enough to protect vulnerable children while they are living away from their parents.
    CWH 196
    We have had meetings involving the major stakeholders, and other government departments, covering issues such as notification of private arrangements, and standards and thresholds of involvement in private fostering arrangements. Private foster carers, those who are being cared for privately, and their parents, are being interviewed. An account of their experiences will be used to further the process of reaching conclusions in terms of the review.
    In addition, as the noble Baroness suggested, we anticipate that the findings from the Climbié inquiry in the autumn will also be very relevant to our deliberations as to how we should take the process forward. I understand why the noble Baroness presses us on legislation at the moment; that is entirely consistent with what she has been saying over the past two years. However, it would be unwise to rush into legislation without knowing the conclusions of the review, or, indeed, of the review of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. As I said, that inquiry is due to report in the autumn.
    As I promised during the passage of the Care Standards Act, we have taken this opportunity to send reminders to local authorities as regards their responsibility. As the noble Baroness suggested, we have produced leaflets in order to raise public awareness about this issue. The leaflet went wider than the Department of Health website, though I recognise that there is always more that can be done. In the light of the noble Baroness's comments, I shall look into how effective we are being and consider whether we need to improve our efforts in that direction. I also recognise the point that she made about language schools. I understand that language schools are not classed as schools and therefore are not regulated by the DfES or Ofsted. We are trying to encourage a voluntary accreditation scheme as one way forward.
    I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of the contrast between the regulation of private fostering and regulation in other areas such as child minding. I fully acknowledge that child minding has been treated differently and that was the subject of our debate during the Care Standards Bill. It reflects to some extent the differing circumstances in which child minding operates. Child minders tend to undertake their duties on a self-employed basis in expectation of regular payment. That is significantly not the case in the vast majority of private foster care arrangements. I can assure noble Lords that as part of the current review of private fostering, we will examine the arrangements surrounding the child minding registration scheme in order to evaluate how effective it is and whether elements of the scheme could usefully be applied to private foster care.
    On the point raised by the noble Baroness as to whether there will be another opportunity to legislate on private foster care, she knows that I cannot anticipate future legislative opportunities. However, in my four years or so with a remit in health and social care, we have already taken two Acts through the legislative process. The Adoption and Children Bill

    CWH 197
    will be the third if it is enacted. Without giving any commitments, I am sure that there will be further opportunities for legislation in the future.
    I can assure the noble Baroness that the points she makes the Government accept are important. We accept that the current situation is unsatisfactory. We do not think that a blanket registration scheme is necessarily the answer, but we will, of course, look at that carefully in the light of the current review and the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
    Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits clown, I should like to make one fairly obvious point that is too often ignored. It is no good our sitting here making laws unless the resources are made available to carry out the obligations that they impose. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that at present some social services departments are so overstretched they do not know whether they are coming or going.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord takes us back to a debate last week about the willingness and capability of local authorities to take on responsibilities when we were discussing adoption support services. He makes an important point that it relies on local authorities doing the job properly. That is, of course, partly to do with funding and the spending review settlement for local authorities' social services departments in the future was a very good one, with an average of 6 per cent. real growth over a three-year period. However, it is also to do with the effectiveness of management within local authorities. The chief inspector's letter to local authorities was intended to remind them of their responsibilities, but it is clear from the SSI survey that more needs to be done in that direction.
    Baroness David: Is there bound to be legislation to take effective action about private fostering?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my noble friend cannot draw me. She knows that I cannot give future commitment to legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was concerned that if we miss the opportunity of legislating on private foster care in the Bill, we would be passing up the chance of doing so for a number of years to come. My point was that in fact this was the third Bill relating to social care issues that we have taken through the House in the past two or three years. I was saying that I am sure that there will be opportunities in the future for further legislation.
    Baroness David: But surely legislation will be required at some point, will it not?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There is no doubt that if, for instance, one wanted to introduce a statutory registration scheme in part or in whole, which is being suggested, legislation would be required.
    Baroness Barker: With some difficulty I resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on one of my favourite subjects; the funding of social services departments. I thank the Minister for his reply. There are, however, a couple of
    CWH 198
    points that need to be made. The noble Lord talked about the great fear when childminding legislation was introduced that childminding would go underground. The evidence is that it has not and that the registration process has worked extremely well. Both parents as users, and single people who operate as childminders, value registration as being important. I cannot see why childminding, in which a child is very rarely with a childminder overnight, should be more strictly regulated than private fostering.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making is that there are differing circumstances. Unlike childminders, many adults who engage in private fostering do not receive remuneration for it. Therefore, the circumstances are different in relation to whether those private foster carers would wholeheartedly embrace a regulatory system. I also said that as part of the review we will look at how the registration for childminders is working, and indeed if there are good things about that which we could relate to the area of private fosterers, we will certainly look to do that.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for the clarification and I welcome it. However, on the basis of some of the evidence I have read so far, I am not sure that he is wholly correct about the nature of the relationship between birth parents and private fosterers. In a great many cases, a financial transaction takes place. However, we will not dwell on that.
    The point I wish to make is about timing. I do not see why, in the light of 30 years of research and experience, it is not possible to draw from that some of the clear points which recur time and time again. However, I accept that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will be a very important piece of this particular jigsaw.
    One of the problems I have with the process the Minister has outlined is this. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a good point about what we say here and laws that we make have only limited effect; what happens on the ground is more important. It is quite clear that thousands of people are in breach of the existing regulations simply because they do not know about them. It is getting the information out to people and making them aware that causes the problem.
    When the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is produced and when the Government produce their response, a great deal of attention will be focused on this matter. It would be sad if the Government were deemed to be reactive to one particular incident, when all this work has been going on ahead. In withdrawing my amendment and accepting what the Minister says, I would at some further stage like to seek an assurance from him that the provisions of the existing law will be used by the department later this year—when there will be increased attention on this subject—to get the message across about the need to notify private fostering arrangements. Furthermore, there should be

    CWH 199
    more targeted messages for communities among whom this is a bigger issue than it is in regard to the general public. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.
    Clause 43 [Notice of intention to adopt]:
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heathmoved Amendment No. 69A:
    Page 27, line 12, leave out from first "the" to second "the" and insert "investigation must, so far as practicable, include"
    The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment which completes a change to the Bill, the substance of which was made in another place.
    Where an adoption is not happening through an adoption agency—so-called "non-agency cases"— Clause 43 provides that the adoptive applicant has to give notice to the local authority in which he has his home. The local authority then has to arrange for an investigation and report to the court on the case and the suitability of the adopters—an important safeguard for children in cases where an adoption agency has not been involved in selecting and matching the adopters for the child.
    At Report stage in another place we introduced amendments to reshape subsection (9) to cover cases where an applicant fulfils the domicile requirements in Clause 47 but does not in law currently have his home in a local authority in England and Wales, perhaps because he is a member of the Armed Forces or a diplomat temporarily stationed abroad. We did not want to block those individuals from adopting under British law simply on those grounds. Therefore, subsection (9) was amended to allow in those cases for us to prescribe in regulations which should be the appropriate local authority where the applicant did not currently have his home in the United Kingdom.
    We further amended subsection (5) to make it clear that while the report to the court and the investigation are the responsibility of the local authority, it could arrange for elements of them to be carried out by other suitable organisations. For example, in the case of step parent adoption applications by service families stationed overseas, we would envisage that the Service Families Adoption Agency—a registered voluntary adoption agency—would conduct the investigation and visit the family, as required by Clause 41(7), and would pass the results to the relevant local authority. If the authority was satisfied, it would then submit the report to the court.
    Amendment No. 69A completes this change by amending subsection (6), which sets out what the report to the court should cover, to remove the reference to the local authority. This makes it consistent with the position in subsection (5). So the local authority must arrange for the report but may delegate the actual preparation to another body. But whoever does it, the report must as far as practicable cover the suitability of the adopters and any other
    CWH 200
    matters relevant to the operation of Clause 1, for example, the range of issues set out in the welfare checklist.
    I hope that on that basis Members of the Committee will support this minor amendment which completes a change we introduced in another place, which was welcomed as a useful additional flexibility for those British families temporarily stationed overseas such as service families and diplomats. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 44 [Suitability of adopters]:
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 70:
    Page 27, line 39, at end insert—
    "() A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
    The noble Earl said: I come now to an amendment which enables us to debate another critically important clause in the Bill, Clause 44. This clause relates to the regulations to be made covering the suitability of persons wishing to adopt a child. It is for me a rather depressing state of affairs that the Bill could consign a matter of such central relevance as this to mere secondary legislation.
    I shall not anticipate the debate that we shall have shortly on whether unmarried as well as married couples should be able to become adoptive parents. That is a debate on its own. There is a whole range of other issues which are of the utmost significance for any assessment of whether two particular people are, or are not, fit to become adopters. Clause 44(2) specifies that proper regard should be had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship.
    Stability and permanence are, of course, indispensable qualities in any adoptive placement, but how are they to be determined? What are the indicators of likely stability and permanence, and who will be the judge of them? What other qualities should there be alongside those? Surely, for example, there should be an ability to provide a loving and safe home for the child; an ability to provide the wherewithal for the child's upbringing; an understanding of the individual needs and difficulties of the child; a commitment by the partners to each other as well as to the child; an absence of criminal background or any unsuitable domestic history; and many other qualities besides.
    I do not suggest that the face of the Bill should carry every element of the checklist that an adoption agency will be charged with filling out when reaching its conclusions, but we surely ought to have some idea of, and be able to debate, those which the Government regard as being of central importance.
    Unfortunately, Clause 44 gives us almost no pointers. That is why I suggest, once again, that the regulations to be placed before us under the clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure in order to guarantee both Houses of Parliament the right to debate them.

    CWH 201
    I fully concede that this is not something that the Delegated Powers Committee of your Lordships' House felt was necessary. However, this Committee is entitled to take a different view from the Select Committee. It may do so in the light of issues of policy which of course the Select Committee is not empowered to take into account. Bearing in mind that no draft regulations are before this Committee, and that we are not in a position to consider these matters in any depth, I submit that this suggestion is not unreasonable.
    I am aware that in their White Paper the Government committed themselves to carrying out a fundamental review of the adoption assessment process, and no doubt we shall have to await the outcome of that exercise. The regulations will, of course, take the results of the review into account.
    Meanwhile, however, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has made a very creative and considered attempt to point Ministers in the right direction on these regulations. I will let him speak to them in his own way. I very much support the thrust of what he proposes which represents a distillation of the matters that we discussed on the first day in Committee. I beg to move.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support Amendment No. 70. The presentation of these three grouped amendments to Clause 44 which bear my name starts with Amendment No. 7OZC. That is the trigger clause in primary legislation which determines the legal efficacy of the subordinate legislation under Amendments Nos. 70ZA and 70ZB. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 70ZB as it is in the next grouping. I support it. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
    The subordinate legislation under Amendment Nos. 70ZA and 70ZB has to be approved after Royal Assent as proposed in Amendment No. 70. Having considered that, Members of the Committee have been considering this matter with a short reference to the true effect on enforcement of judicial review, which is the only effective means. At the outset, for reasons that are already wholly apparent, perhaps I may make a formal request, which could herald a formal Motion, that Clause 44 should be committed with Clause 4 and Clauses 48 to 51 for debate on the Floor of the House, to which some reference has already been made on Second Reading.
    Amendment No. 70ZC is a DIY effort to crystallise a principle; there is no form of hubris about whether it is totally correct. I am seeking to convey the suggestion that the principle is correct, and this could serve as a vehicle for implementing that principle.
    The purpose is to limit the exercise of discretion, which is a wholly exceptional circumstance, and to exclude financial constraints. That is in accordance with a precedent that has already been set by the courts on misuse of assessment for special educational needs to curtail expenditure, and the courts have stamped on that.
    CWH 202
    It serves as a useful precedent for the situation with which we are faced; that is, the matter to which the Minister referred at col. 80 of the Official Report on 27th June, albeit in context with Amendment No. 16 to Clause 4, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe. Again, in a way and in another context it runs parallel with this. Of course, both seek to establish in primary legislation the parameters in the case of Clause 4, so that there shall be no exercise of discretion beyond what is stated on the face of the Bill—in this case the parameters.
    As my noble friend Lord Howe said, it is wholly apparent now that no draft of these implementing regulations, statutory guidance, will be available for your Lordships' consideration before Royal Assent. Is it not wholly requisite that the nature and extent of the exercise of discretion should be considered by your Lordships and establish that in these situations by primary legislation to define and clarify the status of the legal efficacy of the subordinate legislation, which is on its way? Would it not also enhance the due process of parliamentary approval when we come to approve under Amendment No. 70, which is the ultimate safeguard, save for the courts on judicial review to which I shall turn shortly.
    This is a very emotive subject and I try to keep it non-emotive. On an objective analysis, I ask whether it is not consistent with the intent of this Bill that these abandoned children should be entitled to some priority—I stress that and it involves financial priority on resources—for their own sakes and for the interests of society.
    One then comes to Amendment No. 70ZA. It seeks merely to reflect the substance of the Committee's debate on Amendment No. 7, other than on subsection (5). Again, the opinion of the Committee is sought; this is a probing amendment. I have kept off the turf on subsection (5) because that now lies squarely within the province of the Minister. He has his letters of 20th and 21st June and it would not be appropriate for me at this stage to seek to anticipate. At least I thought it not proper to do so and I trust that the Minister in due course will give his attention to this.
    Perhaps I may mop up a few cross-references, because the patchwork is getting very complex and it may help. To a limited extent, paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 70ZA, which is to do with representation and caring for the child, is considered in Amendment No. 66. At some stage, and assuredly not today—or I shall not deal with it—Members of the Committee will have to consider Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the United Nations convention.
    Today we have Amendments Nos. 115A and 116ZA as supplementary to the Marshalled list, which I support. I prefer my drafting in paragraph (a) on this issue. It is expressed to ensure that the child is heard but I commend the concept of Amendment No. 116ZA as amending primary legislation and affecting children of general application and putting it on the face of the Bill. That is one way in which one removes oneself from the dilemma of not seeing the drafts of

    CWH 203
    regulations before Royal Assent. So this is an important amendment, albeit that it has come in at the last moment.
    The structure of the Bill in Clause 44(1) and (2) has been followed in this amendment, subject to Amendment No. 70ZC which affords a qualified duty as regards exercise of discretion. I draw the distinction, which is firm, that there is no absolute duty as proposed by the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Howe, as supported by many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and myself, on the grounds that, when discretion has already been exercised on an assessment, there really should be no further discretion to decline to implement the assessment.
    On the question of judicial review, there is a considerable measure of misunderstanding as to its effect. First, it is a branch of administrative law, in which "unreasonable" has a wholly technical meaning that is not generally understood. It is a purely discretionary remedy within the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. It may set aside an exercise of discretion if it is contrary to construction—that is, construction of these regulations or statutory guidance—as applicable to the facts of each particular case, but it is does not, and never can, substitute its own opinion on the merits for those of others who made the decision.
    Although the court would have decided otherwise—and, on many occasions, had said so—I have had the conduct of a case on more than one occasion where I have been told, "It's all very well Mr Campbell, we think you're quite right on the merits, but we're not concerned with merits; we're concerned with something quite different." What the courts are concerned with is whether anybody in the same position as the local authority, or provider of services, and so on, or anybody properly directing himself, could—I repeat, could—have made this decision; it is not "would" have made it. If anybody could have made it, they do not say that it is unreasonable, and they do not set it aside. They will only set it aside as unreasonable in the technical sense if they conclude that nobody could have made it.
    As must be quite apparent, it is not a wholly effective mechanism. I have conducted more than 50 cases in judicial review, and we all know that it is not an effective mechanism. It is effective as far as it goes, but it is not a review of the merits on appeal by way of a rehearing; and so it is of limited consequence. It may also set aside a decision for unfairness in the administrative process, because it is an administrative jurisdiction, on bias, on the grounds that it was unreasonable in the strict sense to which I referred, or on grounds of error of law as a matter of construction where the devil lies in the detail of the drafting. If challenged, an objective exercise of discretion under Amendment No. 70ZC would be upheld, so on that there would be no problem.
    The question of whether deviation from statutory guidance is permissible—the Minister was good enough to write to me about this—is entirely
    CWH 204
    dependent on the construction of the document. The noble Lord wrote on 26th June to draw my attention to a certain authority of 16th March 1996, in which the reasoning, wholly related to the circumstances of that case, was in effect somewhat elliptical.
    The importance of mentioning this at this stage is that that decision did not reach the Court of Appeal; it did not reach the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House; and it has not the status of a leading authority of general application. It is respectfully suggested that it could not be relied upon as a safe or satisfactory precedent for the drafting of statutory guidance under this Bill. I am grateful, and I apologise for having taken some time.
    5.45 p.m.
    Baroness Blatch: I should like first to support very strongly the notion of using the affirmative resolution procedure. Probably the most critical part of the whole adoption process is making the match between those who are adopting and the child. I cannot think of anything more important than that. I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, refer to the fact that we shall not see the draft regulations, guidance or papers regarding the information which will serve as the criteria on which judgments on suitable adoptive placements will be based.
    The suitability of any person in regard to adoption, and having regard to the need for, in the first place, stability and permanence of relationship, can mean many things to many people. What we know is that, in the past and in the present, there has been much subjectivity and not enough objectivity. Some prejudicial views have been applied by some involved in the adoption process. So the more we know and the more clearly we can ascertain the criteria laid down to make these judgments, the better it will be. It is so important to know against what criteria those judgments will be made. This should be a matter for the House. That is particularly true if we are not able to see the draft regulations during the Bill's passage.
    I should like to comment very briefly on the issue of recommitment. I have enormous sympathy for the notion of recommitting important parts of the Bill. My difficulty is that I do not approve of the Grand Committee process at all. Many do not attend our Sittings in Committee but would be interested in some of our debates. If we went round the Table, I suspect that we would all have a different view on what is important in the Bill, and that other parts of the Bill would be thought appropriate for recommitment. It is a great pity that, when the Bill is considered on the Floor of the House, those rather stricter procedures will kick in. In the Chamber we shall not have this valuable iterative process. That will be lost, and I believe that it is a great pity.
    Therefore, I start from the business of saying that the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are appropriate for opposing the whole Grand Committee system itself. I have more difficulty

    CWH 205
    in saying that little parts of the Bill should be recommitted. However, that is a matter for the Committee to consider.
    I believe that we should strive for the greatest possible objectivity and the greatest possible clarity. If we really intend that adoption processes are to work, and if we are to make the most suitable matches between adoptive parents and the children to be adopted, the matter is important enough to come before the Houses of Parliament for their endorsement.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: When I sought to rise earlier, I had planned on making a different point. I should now like first to comment on the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, regarding objectivity. I remind the Committee that there was a departmental investigation into many of the allegations of lack of objectivity in adoption proceedings. That investigation showed that social workers mainly demonstrated objectivity, and that many of the strange stories were myths and legends and not part of practice. We should continually remind ourselves that social workers and adoption workers are making extraordinarily complex decisions in these family situations. We should do all we can to support them in what we say in this Committee and this House.
    I leave the legal points to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and shall concentrate on practice issues. I shall, however, deal with two of the points he made. The first is that I have absolute sympathy with Members about the wish to see what is in the regulations, as they will address the very heart and emotion of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that matching is the core and most important point. That is why I do not agree with the noble Lord that we should deal with parts of the matter off the Floor of the House. The regulations will give an importance to some parts of the Bill which I believe they do not have in comparison with other parts of the Bill. Some people simply want to take a particular view—perhaps a dogmatic view; and clearly I have my own views—on those parts.
    We should debate the whole of the Bill in Grand Committee. When we reach the next stage, people will have an opportunity to put those points. The proposal would give undue weight to certain issues, whereas those who are interested in this work should become involved in the broader issues.
    I support one part of the proposals. Perhaps I should also say that I am having some difficulty following where we are in relation to the amendments. I support the proposal on independent guidance and representation of the child made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Earl, Earl Howe, in Amendment No. 70ZA. This would be a useful check on some of the issues we raised in relation to regulation. It is very difficult to discuss the detail of regulation because regulation itself cannot be written in Committee; it has to be clarified in consultation. In Committee, issues that do not have much relevance to actual practice are approached differently.
    CWH 206
    If every child in the adoption process had an advocate with a position that differed from that of the placement authority and the local authority, we could ensure a check on the social work. Such advocates would know whether the child was concerned about the placement and be able to iterate those concerns to the court. I therefore support the proposal that every child should have the opportunity of independent representation. I think that that would address some of the other issues underlying our concerns.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I shall, if I may, briefly support the point that has just been made. We sometimes talk about the wishes and thoughts of the child—and I was guilty of this and made the same mistake when dealing with the subject very early in our first Sitting—whereas we should be considering the effective representation of the child's interests in court. There are so many whose interests differ from those of the child.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The debate on this group of amendments is very important. In many cases, it links to the debate that we shall have shortly on unmarried couples. I well recognise that we need to consider these matters very carefully indeed. I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in his request that particular clauses be recommitted. He will know that that is a matter for the usual channels. I shall of course ensure that the usual channels are apprised of his wish.
    As far as the noble Baroness, Lady, Blatch—who is now not in her place—is concerned, my own experience of Grand Committee—
    Lord Northbourne: It might be appropriat e for me to inform the Minister that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, told me that, unfortunately, she has to be in North London. She said that she was not walking out in high dudgeon.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am relieved to hear that. The general issue of Grand Committee is of course not for this Committee to discuss. We are in our fourth day of debate and it has been an extremely helpful and useful process and very stimulating.
    Clause 44 amplifies the general power in Clause 9 of the Bill to make regulations in respect of the functions of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. Subsection (1) provides that regulations under Clause 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining or making any report in respect of the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.
    Subsection (2) makes clear that the regulations may make provision to ensure that adoption agencies pay proper regard to the stability and permanence of the relationship between prospective adopters when determining their suitability to adopt. The requirements on the stability and permanence of the relationship between prospective adopters, set out in the regulations made under this clause, will apply to the assessment of both married and unmarried prospective adopters. It is on that basis that I readily

    CWH 207
    acknowledge that this is a very important part of both the Bill and, of course, of our future success—one readily hopes and expects—in improving the overall quality of the adoption service.
    In that context, it is entirely understandable that Members of the Committee want to flesh out as much detail as possible as to what is likely to be in the regulations. I fully understand the points that noble Lords are making. I know that there is disappointment that draft regulations are not available and I will come on to the review that we are currently undertaking in this area. In our defence, Clause 44 was introduced at a late stage of the deliberations of the Bill in another place. There simply has not been time to work up draft regulations, which is why we will issue our proposals on the fundamental review of the adopter assessment process for full public consultation later in the year.
    When we come to the substantive question, which essentially is how much we put in primary or secondary legislation, we have a balance to draw. On the one hand, the more precise the primary legislation, the more inflexible it could be in practice. In making difficult judgments in relation to prospective adopters, we have to put trust in adoption agencies and the social workers and give them proper discretion. I do not believe, therefore, that it would be wise to set out in primary legislation, or even in regulations, rules so precise that people who would make good adoptive parents were ruled out because for good reasons they may not meet precisely one of the conditions in the legislation.
    On the other hand, there is no doubt that all Members of the Committee want to feel assured that stability and permanence in a relationship mean just that and that, as far as one can ever determine the future relationship of any couple, whether they are married or not, those making the judgment feel that the relationship is strong and will last. We all want to give security to the adopted child.
    I hope that the Committee will find it helpful if I say, by way of introduction, that I will take away all the points that have been raised in this debate because I am determined to see that we get the right balance. It might also be helpful if I set out the Government's current thinking on what exactly we mean by an "enduring family relationship" and by "stability and permanence".
    The concept of family life has been considered in recent case law, although with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway present it is somewhat foolhardy of me to mention case law, as I have discovered already from our earlier debate on statutory guidance.
    6 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): A Division has been called. The Committee stands adjourned until 6.10 p.m.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6 to 6.10 p.m.]
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As I was saying, the concept of family life has been considered in recent case law as including,
    "two adult lifetime partners whose relationship is long term and characterised by an emotional and financial commitment and interdependence".
    That would perhaps provide a starting point for consideration by adoption agencies and the courts, which will look at a range of evidence in coming to a decision about whether the couple has an enduring family relationship. The word "enduring" in the definition of a couple will reinforce the fact that the relationship should be a stable one that both partners intend should last.
    We are carrying out a fundamental review of the adopter assessment process and the operation of adoption panels. This review is being taken forward in close collaboration with key stakeholders. The objective of the review is to ensure that the adopter education, training and assessment system is transparent and results in approved adopters who are empowered to meet the needs of the range of children and young people requiring adoption.
    The scope of the review will include the range of criteria used for the assessment of potential adopters and the consistency of their application across the country, with a view to improving the process in the future. This will include the issue of judging stability and permanence in a relationship.
    As under the present adopter assessment system, it is likely that there will be a number of ways in which adoption agencies will consider the stability of a couple's relationship. These will apply both in cases where a couple applies to adopt jointly and in cases where an individual with a partner applies to adopt as a single person.
    At present, as part of the adopter assessment process, a home study takes place over a period of several months. A designated social worker visits the prospective adopters at home in order to establish a detailed view of the prospective adopters, any family members and any other people living in their home.
    A professional social worker also typically works through real-life situations with the prospective adopters in order to assess the evidence of the stability of their relationship. The prospective adopters and the social worker will discuss issues such as how they would expect to handle disagreements about the child, and how they currently handle disagreements about other family members.
    In addition, adoption agencies ask for confidential personal references about prospective adopters. Personal referees are usually asked to comment on all aspects of the relationship between the prospective adopters, including the amount of time they spend together and the leisure and recreational activities they share.
    My sense is that most potential adopters who go through this process find it to be a pretty tough process indeed. We have read of concerns among potential

    CWH 209
    adopters who have described the process as lengthy, often intrusive, sometimes over-intrusive, and certainly difficult.
    I do not comment on that. It should be a tough process, because the judgment that has to be made is an important one. But nobody should be under any misapprehension that decisions to approve prospective adopters are made in a frivolous or light-touch way. That is part of the confidence that must be given to the new system.
    We then come to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is: given that these regulations are so important, should they be undertaken by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure? We had a debate about this earlier, and perhaps there are further amendments to come on other regulations. In deciding on mainly negative regulation—there are three regulations that will be affirmative in this Bill—we are following current practice in relation to such legislation. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the matter raised no objection.
    However, I recognise the force of the argument put forward by the noble Earl. I also recognise that these are important regulations. I should tell him that I am prepared to consider this matter between now and the Report stage. The noble Earl has made an extremely important point. As I said earlier, I want to ensure that this debate about the balance between how much discretion and flexibility is allowed at local level and what precise matters should be put on the face of the Bill, or in regulations, is carefully considered. I shall be happy to engage in further discussion on that balance between the Committee and the Report stage.
    However, I repeat: one has to be extremely careful not to try to define too much in legislation and then allow less discretion to the social workers and the adoption agencies, which would exclude some potentially very good people who were being considered for adoption. That is the balance and the dilemma that we face in this area, but I accept that we must give a clear view as to what we mean by a "stable and enduring relationship". It is important that the broad parameters of that are known and discussed. The consultation process later in the year will be very important in that regard. That is why I have sympathy with the noble Earl's suggestion; namely, that when regulations in this area come before your Lordships' House we ought to consider whether they should be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure that the noble Earl would not take that as a precedent for any other amendments that he may table in relation to other regulations.
    I turn to the very helpful amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I accept that he is trying to tease out some of the issues in relation to the judgments that will fall to be made as regards Clause 44 of the Bill. The noble Lord has also raised a number of important issues, such as the right of the child to be heard, the question of how we ensure that local authorities do the right thing, and how we monitor the situation. In addition, going back to our debate of a
    CWH 210
    week ago when we talked about adoption support services, the noble Lord also raised the question of what duty there is on a local authority to provide such services after the assessment.
    I come to the question of the voice of the child. We have of course already discussed this issue. There is no question that the Government believe that the child's wishes and feelings should actively he sought and fully taken into account. It is a key value that underpins our National Adoption Standards. In addition, Clause (1)(4)(a) of the Bill requires adoption agencies, and courts, to have regard to,
    "the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision",
    when coming to any decision relating to the adoption of a child. That is an overarching principle. The procedures that adoption agencies, and the courts, will operate for determining the child's wishes and feelings will vary depending on the age and understanding of the child, the stage of the adoption process, and the circumstances of the case. These procedures will he set out for adoption agencies in regulations and guidance, and for courts in court rules and guidance.
    As I explained to the Committee previously, these regulations and guidances are not available now, as we intend to consult extensively. We have already made clear that there will be explicit obligations on adoption agencies to consult the child at specified stages of the adoption process, to record their views, to ensure that their views are considered by the decision making process—for example by adoption panels—and, where they are not acted upon, to record the reasons why not.
    The detail of the regulations will be subject to consultation but, as a matter of good practice, we would expect the views of the child on any suggested match with prospective adopters to be sought and taken into account in the light of the child's age and understanding. This should take place before any match between a child and a set of prospective adopters is considered by an adoption agency adoption panel and before any decision is made. We would then expect there to be several meetings between the child and the prospective adopters before the child goes to live with them. This important part of the introduction process will ensure that the proposed placement works for both the child and the prospective adopters.
    The key point in relation to the procedures operated by adoption agencies is that it is the job of the child's social workers to ensure that the child's voice is heard throughout the adoption process. I referred earlier to our National Adoption Standards which make clear that every child will have his or her wishes and feelings listened to, recorded and taken into account. Professional social workers have the skills and expertise needed to ensure that their wishes and feelings are listened to and attended to.
    The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is not in his place, also raised a number of other questions, to which I refer briefly. He takes us back to the question of how we ensure that local authorities do

    CWH 211
    the right job. I do not want to go over all the ground that we have discussed previously, but I believe that the Government are absolutely clear that we want adoption services to work; we want to ensure that the local authorities perform effectively; that we shall performance manage; but that we have concerns about the nature of the proposals that the noble Lord put forward. If one puts on the statute the kind of duty that he wishes to see local authorities given, one runs the risk of saying not only are adoption services important but that they are of overriding importance; of more importance than many of the other provisions and functions of social services.
    The final point raised by the noble Lord concerns Section 7 statutory guidance. All I would say on that is that the 1996 case has since been followed in a number of other cases. There has been ample opportunity to overturn decisions or for the House of Lords to consider this and they have not done so. As far as local authorities are concerned, they know that Section 7 guidance is tough guidance. That is why I often come under pressure in your Lordships' House to issue more statutory guidance to local authorities.
    In conclusion, I believe that this is an important point and I recognise the importance of these regulations. We will do as much as we can to flesh out some of the detail, though that will not be entirely easy because of the process we set ourselves in relation to working on this over the autumn and the consultation process that we have set. However, I recognise the force of the argument put forward by the noble Earl in relation to the status of the regulations, and I shall come back to noble Lords on Report on that matter.
    Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his encouraging response. I realise that it is not an absolute commitment, but I appreciate what he has said. If I had to point to a clause in the Bill with overriding practical application for the way that the Act, as it will become, will work, it is this clause. Clearly, Clause 1 sets the framework and we realise that. Clause 44 and the regulations that will fall under it are at the heart of the Bill.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: A Division has been called. The Committee stands adjourned until 6.35 p.m.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.25 to 6.35 p.m.]
    Earl Howe: The Minister made the point that to define "additional criteria" on the face of the Bill and thereby to enlarge Clause 44 would create an element of inflexibility. I take that point but at the same time, there are abiding and enduring principles and characteristics which, for the foreseeable future, should govern the approval of all adoptive parents. I listed some of them in my earlier remarks; they are non-contentious.
    We ask ourselves in this context what we should understand by the terms "stability and permanence". The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in the next group
    CWH 212
    of amendments, will attempt to get rather closer to those concepts and I do not want to anticipate his remarks. However, he seems to have made a good stab at this problem.
    The Minister referred to recent case law, which should only ever be a starting point in this context. When we are reforming the laws on adoption, as we are doing—this is a basic point to make—it is of course for Parliament to decide what constitutes an acceptable measure of stability and an acceptable family unit. We look at these matters afresh, which is our function. The Minister referred also to the assessment that is done by social workers of the degree of stability that a couple evinces.
    The Minister made it sound more of a scientific process than it is in fact. There is very little science about it. It may be a tough process but it is not and cannot be a wholly reliable predictor of permanence because in the end it is a matter of subjective judgment. I do not want to dwell too much longer on this amendment, however, other than to reiterate my thanks to the Minister for his positive undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 70ZA not moved.]
    Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 70ZB:
    Page 27, line 39, at end insert—
    "() In deciding the stability and permanence of a couple under subsection (2), the regulations shall require an adoption agency to have regard to (inter alia) the following factors—

    (a) whether the couple have lived in the same home together as a couple for at least the previous five years,

    (b) whether they are prepared to make a written and public commitment that they will together make a home for the child until he reaches the age of 18,

    (c) whether they are prepared to make a written and public commitment to act jointly to promote the welfare and best interests of the child, and

    (d) whether they are prepared to enter into a binding and enforceable contract with one another and with the child that they will on a basis set out in the agreement jointly provide financial security for the child during its minority."

    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 70ZB and to speak to Amendments Nos. 123 and 122A, 122B and 122C. I brought this group together because they are all probing amendments relating to the Government's proposal for adoption by unmarried couples. The Government's proposal for adoption by unmarried couples is a major change in the law and we have a responsibility to look carefully at the implications.
    We are probably all at one in accepting that Clause 1, the primary welfare of the child, is absolutely right. I suspect also that Members of the Committee will agree that the most important needs of all children, but especially of children seeking adoption, are security, stability and enduring love. The Government indeed accept this in Clause 139(4)(b).
    We also know, alas, that the statistics show that couples who have made the long-term commitment to marriage are, on average, more likely than those who

    CWH 213
    have not, to be able to offer a child that stability. I give only one example, as Members of the Committee are no doubt aware of the statistics. Within five years of the birth of a child, on average 8 per cent of married couples will have split up and 52 per cent of cohabiting couples will have split up. Those figures show two things: first, that marriage is by no means a guarantee of stability; and, secondly, that the average relating to cohabiting couples does not mean that there are not cohabiting couples who have long and enduring stable relationships.
    There are two ways of addressing this problem. The first, which I think will be advanced very soon, is to allow only married couples to adopt or, to put it another way, not to allow unmarried couples to adopt and to allow only married couples or single persons to adopt. The second alternative way is to apply stringent criteria to all couples in order to ensure, as far as possible, that only couples who are likely to offer stability are acceptable as adopters. Manifestly that is the route that the Government would like to take.
    It is worth saying in passing that if we accept the 8 per cent:52 per cent ratio and the principle of applying stringent criteria, the likelihood is that there will he about six times more married couples approved for adoption than unmarried couples. I raise in passing the possibility that that situation might be challenged by the equal opportunities lobby, the human rights lobby and all sorts of other lobbies. That should be taken into consideration when we are considering this question.
    Before the Committee makes a decision about which route we should follow, we must know more—
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: We have difficulties in hearing at this end.
    Lord Northbourne: I am sorry. If we accept the two alternative ways in which this problem can be addressed, it is fundamentally essential that the Committee knows more about the Government's decisions and understands more clearly what their intentions are before we are asked to make a decision. It is with the aim of finding out more that I have tabled this group of amendments.
    Amendment No. 70ZB and Amendment No. 123 suggest criteria that should normally be the minimum acceptable criteria before a couple can be accepted as adopters. These amendments propose three things. The first is that there should be a track record, to which the Minister has already referred. I have suggested a track record of five years stable co-habitation. The second is the willingness of the couple to make a clear, long-term public commitment to do their best to offer the adopted child the environment, stability and love that it needs. The third is a more practical one: to ensure that if the couple break up, the child is not exposed to the kind of drawn-out haggling over money that so often dogs divorce cases today and which is emotionally disastrous for the child.
    Amendment No. 122A addresses the question of what constitutes a couple by asking what constitutes a partner. In the Bill the term "couple" is defined as a
    CWH 214
    relationship of partners. This is a crucial question and in my view it is not clearly answered in the Bill. I give just one example. Across the country many young and old people who are friends live together not in a sexual partnership but to avoid loneliness and to share living costs. They may be brothers and sisters, two sisters or a whole range of others, for example, young unmarried people. Are these people included as couples? They may be committed, have been living together for a long time and have economic stability. We need to know. Or, is some element of sexual partnership imperative in the definition of a couple?
    Amendment No. 122B attempts to define a family for the purposes of the Bill. The Government are fond of saying that today families come in all shapes and sizes. They are certainly correct in saying that, but there is surely a need to define where the ultimate boundary of a family lies for the purposes of the Bill.
    Amendment No. 122C seeks to delete subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 139. Why should a brother and sister from an excellent home not be satisfactory adoptive parents? Why should grandparents, or uncles, who happen not to be married but to be cohabiting, not be eligible to adopt as they would be if they were married? These seem to be relevant questions worth asking. I beg to move.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Clement-Jones: I want to speak to this amendment, which in the view of these Benches is certainly preferable to the next set of amendments we shall debate, or the amendments we shall debate probably next week. It is an attempt to establish some fairly stringent criteria by which the stability and permanence of a couple: are to be judged.
    In his previous response the Minister helpfully set out the test which needs to be applied. I believe that the measures we are discussing go beyond the application of any sensible test. As I understand it, the test that the Minister described should not over fetter an agency in the exercise of its duties, in the light of the fact that it does have to exercise discretion.
    It seems to me that the measures which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, proposes are fairly prescriptive. I realise that I sound like a government Minister, but those measures are extremely prescriptive. I hasten to add that I do not often take that line. However, they would put the adoption agency in something of a strait-jacket when assessing suitability, stability, permanence and so forth. They constitute a starting point for debate but no more than that. The noble Lord proposes that a couple who wish to adopt should have lived together in the same home for five years and should make a written and public commitment. What happens if any of those conditions are not fulfilled? Such conditions limit the possibilities open to adoption agencies.
    I understand entirely where the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is coming from. As I say, I much appreciate the fact that he contemplates unmarried couples and gay couples being able to adopt. Therefore, if the price, as it were, of accepting that is

    CWH 215
    that we have some sensible criteria in the Bill, I do not object to that. However, I believe that the measures he proposes are too rigid and would cause problems in practice.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I briefly support some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made. I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with the reasoning behind the measures we are discussing. However, when I first read them I was very pleased that they had not been applied to birth parents as I do not believe that I would necessarily have been able to sign up to all of them when I gave birth to my daughter. Certainly, the first point would not have applied to me as I gave birth to my daughter 21 months after I was married. My husband and I had not been living together for five years. I believe that possibly—
    Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may make the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, was not an adoptive parent.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: No, I was not, but I do have an adopted grandson, so I am aware of the difficulties that adoptive parents face. My worry is that if these conditions are put before adoptive parents they may be off-putting for them. They may put off people who would be good adoptive parents.
    I am particularly bothered by paragraphs (b) and (c). When people want to adopt children, they are eager to adopt and very vulnerable. At that point in their lives, they may well say, "Yes, I can commit myself to (b) and (c)", but then, for all sorts of reasons, find themselves unable to comply with their agreement.
    Paragraph (d) also bothers me. It says that the couple,
    "will on a basis set out in the agreement jointly provide financial security".
    What happens if one person in the couple finds herself disabled or unemployed and unable to get a job, and therefore unable to stick to her commitment?
    Although I see the aim of the amendment, I cannot agree with the four paragraphs. I reiterate that the point which bothers me most is the possibility that this rather rigid criteria could put off couples who would be very good adoptive parents.
    Lord Northbourne: It might be helpful if I replied to the debate. There is flexibility on detail, and there is the possibility of amending and improving these proposals. However, the point of the proposals is precisely to make the point that we have to draw a line somewhere. The Government have drawn the line by saying that adoption societies will have complete freedom to decide this issue; at least I think that that is what they are proposing. I am saying that if we as Parliament are passing this law, we have a certain responsibility to understand what it is that we are saying, and to draw a bottom line as to who should be excluded from being adoptive parents. If adoptive parents are not prepared to make a commitment to do
    CWH 216
    their best to look after their child until it is 18, then they should not be adoptive parents. That is my opinion.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have some difficulty with this group of amendments. Apart from anything else, they are not internally consistent. I agree that Amendment No. 70ZB is very fierce in its demands. One cannot seriously make that type of binding, enforceable, public and written commitment. One can make such a commitment, but life itself teaches us—there is a Russian saying to this effect—that although one may have the best intention in the world of staying married to one's partners for life, or for 18 years, or for whatever length of time, one can nevertheless run on to the rocks and it will not happen.
    I prefer what must have been the first drafting of the amendment, which is a declaration of the couple's "firm intention" to continue to live together. That is also a far more easily accessible concept. I do not think that a social worker could make a judgment on whether they mean to live together for 18 years, whereas she might be able to make an assessment that they had a "true intention" to do so. That is more realistic.
    Turning to the other amendments, I am touched by the definition of a family used by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. In the context of this Bill, that is an extremely difficult concept to define. He has made a pretty good stab at it, although whether it will be acceptable to the Government is another matter.
    In that context, however, there seems to be some inconsistency between Amendment No. 122A—which says that a couple is two people living as "sexual" partners in an enduring family relationship—and the noble Lord's omission, because he does not agree with it, of subsection (5) of Clause 139. That provision makes clear the Government's intention that,
    "Subsection (4)(b) does not include two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother",
    and so on. The noble Lord deliberately introduced the concept that those sorts of people should be able to be considered as a suitable family. He may be able to explain this perfectly clearly, but I see a slight internal contradiction in that sequence of amendments.
    Lord Northbourne: I introduced the word "sexual" there in the hope that the Government would say that it was not that. It was merely to tease out what the Government do believe.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It was beyond my abilities to predict that that was the noble Lord's intention.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I should like to make three brief points, the first of which concerns the issue of statistics. I have heard several times today the quotation of how many married couples stay together as against those who cohabit. We do not have statistics on how many families stay together with an adopted child as part of that family, although that is a key element. Of course there are adoption breakdowns. However, many families do stay together once they

    CWH 217
    have children in their midst. Some spurious statistics are going round. We need to examine them and be clear about them.
    Secondly, people who adopt have to make a commitment. They have to go to court when that commitment is made. They have to decide and sign to the effect that they are going to support, maintain and give emotional support to that child. So, as the Minister said, the very act of adoption involves a very rigorous process. Nevertheless, some of that process has been criticised. We therefore seem to be saying, at one and the same time, that the process has to be rigorous, but that it is already far too rigorous. We need to tease out that issue.
    I think, thirdly, that the real issue is about sex and people's feelings about sexual relationships. We should remember that there are married couples who may not have said that they are adopting because they have no sexual relationship for one reason or another. As a family practitioner, I have worked subsequently with such couples. There are also couples of other constituencies who make very good parents. However, we shall address that issue in a future debate. I do not think that we should deceive ourselves. It is not really about permanence; it is about sex.
    7 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been a very useful debate. I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is not the Government's intention simply to let adoption agencies get on with it. That is the whole purpose of Clause 44. That is why we shall develop regulations. That is also why I said that I shall seriously consider the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the regulations should be dealt with under the affirmative procedure. That is also why, in the next few months, there will be a very considered piece of work to ensure that we are as clear as we possibly can be in informing those who have to do the work about what is expected of them.
    The debate has been useful. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has tabled these amendments as probing amendments. However, in so doing, he has identified for us the problems of trying to be too precise. We come back to this dilemma as to how much we can wisely put in statute and how much we should wisely leave to practitioners' discretion. There is a genuine debate to be had, and the Government are very keen to lead that debate and to have discussions with those involved. I have no doubt that we will all want to address the issue at Report stage. Nevertheless, analysing the amendments is very instructive in relation to some of the problems that arise when one tries to be too specific.
    I promise not to hold the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, against him. He has put aside the practice of at least five years to my certain knowledge in arguing that point. However, it was surely a very substantive point.
    I turn to the specific amendment. Amendment No. 70ZB has the effect that regulations made under subsection (2) of that clause must require the adoption
    CWH 218
    agency, when considering stability and permanence of the couple's relationship, to have regard, among other factors, to the factors listed in paragraphs (a) to (d). Paragraph (a) addresses the issue of the period of time during which the couple have lived in the same home together in order to be approved as prospective adopters. This is an issue on which the Government are keen to hear a wide range of views.
    Under the current arrangements for assessing prospective adopters, the adoption agency would expect the relationship between the couple to be of sufficiently long standing, and three years is a typical benchmark presently used by adoption agencies. If a couple had been together only for a matter of months, it is unlikely that the agency would be willing to assess them, but we are keen to hear further views on this issue.
    Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Amendment No. 70ZB are similar to Amendment No. 70ZA of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. They enable regulations to be made requiring the agency to have regard to whether the prospective adopters are prepared to make a written and public commitment that they will together make a home for the child until he reaches the age of 18. Paragraph (c) provides a specific regulation-making power requiring the agency to have regard to whether the prospective adopters are prepared to make a written and public commitment to act jointly to promote the welfare and best interests of the child.
    The first point I would make to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on that is that the adopter assessment process is designed to ensure that only people who are able to provide a stable and secure home for a child are approved as prospective adopters. This thorough assessment process carried out by all adoption agencies will look at all aspects of the commitment between the prospective adopters as well as their commitment to the child. Our powers in Clause 44 enable us to make regulations explicitly to require adoption agencies to consider any legal commitments between the prospective adopters, should that be considered appropriate following consultation. Only prospective adopters who can demonstrate that they have a stable and lasting relationship will be approved to adopt jointly.
    I should also reinforce the point I made in the last group of amendments. We must ensure that we comment on the commitment of prospective adopters only in the context of their suitability to adopt jointly. What I do not want to do is pre-empt the outcome of the work that Government are carrying out on civil partnerships more generally; that goes much wider than our current discussions.
    Although we anticipate the debate on married couples to which we shall return in a week's time, I am aware of the statistics which show that unmarried couples are more likely to part than married couples. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that in order to protect the adopted child the first stage will be for the assessment process thoroughly to examine the stability of the prospective adopters' relationship,

    CWH 219
    whether they are married or unmarried, to minimise the chances of placing a child in a home which subsequently breaks up.
    The second point is that should the House vote in favour of enabling unmarried couples to apply to adopt jointly, we would be interested in the legal relationship between the child and each of his adoptive parents and not in the formal and legal relationship between the adoptive parents themselves. Even if the adoptive parents split up, the child will still have a legal relationship with each of the adopters and the protection that goes with it, and the provisions on financial relief in Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, which provide for courts to order maintenance or lump sum payments by parents, will apply.
    If the noble Lord's concerns go wider than that, they will be best addressed within the Government's more fundamental review of the adopter assessment process, or as part of our subsequent consultations on the regulations to be made under Clause 44.
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 122B and 123. Amendment No. 122B seeks to insert a definition of "family" into Clause 139, which provides general interpretation. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, the definition he puts forward provides that a family means a group of one or more adults who have agreed to live together and support each other, together with any children concerned. It also provides that an enduring family relationship should be interpreted accordingly.
    The definition means that more than two adults living together could be embraced within that definition, perhaps in some kind of commune. However, Clause 48 of the Bill is clear in providing that an application for an adoption order may be made only by a couple or one person.
    Similarly, Amendment No. 123 seeks to insert a definition of an "enduring family relationship" into Clause 139. The amendment provides that an enduring family relationship means a relationship in which the couple live together in the same house and have done so for at least the previous five years. It also provides that an "enduring family relationship" means that the partners have made and are willing to make a public and written declaration of their firm intention to continue to live in the relationship until separated by the death of one partner or else until the child attains the age of 18.
    I know that the definitions inserted by the noble Lord are partly probing and perhaps reflect the concern that the term "enduring family relationship" has not been used in previous legislation to define the relationship of an unmarried couple. This can in fact be helpful, as it ensures that the definition of an unmarried couple which would apply for the purposes solely of this Bill does not encroach or pre-empt the wider work on civil partnerships being carried out across Government.
    I turn to the issue raised in relation to the definition of a couple and Amendment No. 122A, which inserts the term "sexual" before the term "partners" in the
    CWH 220
    definition of a couple in subsection (4)(b) of Clause 139. Again, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is asking me to issue a denial here. The existence of a sexual relationship is not necessary for a couple to provide a stable and loving home for a child. Where no sexual relationship exists and there are no unresolved issues for the couple around this, it would have no bearing on the child.
    Amendment No. 123C seeks to remove subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 139. Subsection (5) sets out a list of family members who are not included in the definition of a couple in subsection (4)(b). Subsection (6) provides that the reference to "relationship" in subsection (5) includes the relationships of the full or half blood. Where a person is adopted, they include relationships of the full or half blood with the adopted person's birth family. They also include the relationship of an adoptive parent with his adopted child or with his former adopted child, where that child has subsequently been re-adopted.
    A key point about the definition of a "couple" that we have included in subsection (4) of Clause 139 is that it seeks to ensure that the position on eligibility to apply to adopt jointly for unmarried couples is as consistent as possible with the position of those who could marry and subsequently adopt as a married couple. The fact that a same-sex couple is unable to marry is overlooked, but other restrictions on marriage within families are taken into account.
    Subsection (5) of Clause 139 makes clear that the definition of a couple in subsection (4) does not include a couple where one person is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle. These groups are unable to marry under the provisions of the Marriage Act. It is helpful to bear in mind that such relationships may not be stable and lifelong relationships that would provide a suitable family environment in which to bring up a child.
    Perhaps I may give the Committee an example. It would be very difficult for two sisters to demonstrate that they have an enduring family relationship and are able to offer a secure environment for a child throughout his childhood. One or both sisters could at any stage meet a partner, and the nature of the sisters' relationship would immediately change. The effect on the child of such a situation could be very detrimental. That is why we have chosen to define "a couple" in this way, and to put such exclusions in the Bill.
    I hope the explanations that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are helpful. I believe that the debate has been extremely helpful to us in teasing out some of the tensions between trying to get the definitions right and as precise as possible and the problem of not allowing enough flexibility at the local level. This is the stuff of the consultation process that we need to embark upon over the next few months.
    Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that we have managed to get a great deal on the record as a result of this amendment. I do not believe that the time has been entirely wasted. I do not agree with the

    CWH 221
    noble Lord on the last point that he mentioned; namely, the question of members of the family. Indeed, I should like to take the matter further, though I may not have understood correctly what the Minister said.
    As far as concerns consultation, it is the good old story that we hear every time that we are asked to pass a Bi11 in this place: we are asked to sign a blank cheque. I do not like that. I want to get as much information and as much commitment onto the statute book as I possibly can before we agree what is a very radical change—adoption by couples. Adoption by couples is totally different from adoption by an individual in terms of the stability of the child. Equally, the fact that each parent has a financial relationship with the child is completely different from the situation in which the parents have a financial relationship to one another, as well as to the child. The difficulty is that the child is hurt just as much when the couple breaks up. However, if he has just one adoptive parent, that is the only parent to whom he is attached—
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We are now anticipating next week's debate. As I said earlier, if a single person being considered as an adoptive parent is currently in a relationship, that relationship will be scrutinised and assessed by the adoption agency. The argument for extending the possibility of unmarried couples adopting is to provide greater stability and security for the child in those circumstances.
    Lord Northbourne: I think I understand the Minister's point, but I do not believe that I agree. For example, if you adopt me, you are my dad and your partner is not my mum; but if both of you adopt me, then you are my dad and my mum. If both start splitting up, that is chaotic and destructive. I have said enough. I shall be returning to some of these points. However, our debate has been extremely helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 44 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 70ZC not moved.]
    Clause 45 agreed to.
    Clause 46 [Conditions for making adoption orders]:
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 70A:
    Page 29, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 70A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70B. These amendments relate to parental rights at the time when an adoption order is made. The issues underlying them are a little complicated, but I shall do my best to explain them simply.
    The Bill makes clear in Clause 19 that parental consent to placement and parental consent to adoption are quite separate decisions. They rest, or could rest, upon different considerations. A parent may consent to a placement on the basis that it will
    CWH 222
    offer long-term security for the child, and so obviate the need for further foster placements. However, he or she may wish to reserve his position on an adoption order. The adoption order is very final. It extinguishes the parents' parental rights and responsibilities and places the birth mother and father in the position of "former parents". Because the effects of an adoption order are so profound, I believe there is one important right of parents that needs to be protected in such circumstances; that is the right to be involved in the proceedings which will terminate those rights.
    Unfortunately, there are situations envisaged by the Bill in which parents cannot count on being involved in those proceedings. Clause 46(3) holds that a parent who has given advance consent to the making of an adoption order may not subsequently oppose an adoption application without leave of the court. This raises some important legal issues. Advance consent given under Clause 19 is not subject to judicial scrutiny when it is given. It is a purely administrative process. To exclude parents who have given advance consent to adoption from taking part in subsequent adoption proceedings seems contrary to natural justice and may be contrary to the right to a fair trial and to family life under Articles 6 and 8 of the European convention.
    Equally, Clause 46(5) holds that a parent who has consented to placement for adoption, or whose child is the subject of a placement order, may not oppose the making of an adoption order without leave of the court. As I have just indicated, the issues which arise when consent is given for placement (and when a placement order is made) are not the same as those which obtain when an adoption order is made. Consent under Clause 18 is, again, a non-judicial process. I am troubled by the thought that such parents may not be allowed to participate in the proceedings for an adoption order. We need to bear in mind what Clause 1 says about the considerations that the court must bear in mind when taking a decision. For example, Clause 1(4)(c) refers to,
    "the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person".
    Clause 1(4)(f) refers to,
    "the relationship which the child has with relatives, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant",
    and so on.
    These are matters which the birth parents should have the right to pronounce upon. However, unless I have missed something, the Bill says that birth parents, who have previously given consent to a placement under a non-judicial process, should thereby be denied any standing in the decision-making process leading to the final adoption order unless the court holds otherwise.
    Under Clause 1(6), the court is mandated to consider the range of orders under the Adoption and Children Bill and the Children Act 1989 when it is deciding an application to adopt. One of these options

    CWH 223
    is guardianship orders, which effectively provide a middle course between adoption and residence orders. As Clause 46 stands, parents who have previously given consent to placement or who have given advance consent to adoption, will have no automatic standing in the decision-making process which examines the full range of options for the child.
    In summary, birth parents will, in certain circumstances, be excluded from the exercise which the court is obliged to carry out when it considers making an adoption order. The fact that the parents may have been party to the decision when advance consent was given—and I emphasise again in a non-judicial process— or when a placement order was made some time in the past should not affect the parents' rights to be involved in the most far-reaching decisions about their children. Those are decisions on whether their legal relationship with their children should be severed and on who will assume that legal role.
    It is quite possible to envisage a situation where placement orders may have been made at a time when the adoptive parents have not been chosen by the adoption agency and the birth parents will have no general knowledge of who will take on the role which they lose on the making of the adoption order. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
    7.15 p.m.
    Baroness Andrews: These amendments moved by the noble Earl seek to make a significant change to the provisions in Clause 46, which cover the conditions under which a court may make an adoption order as a result of a placement for adoption. I shall not recap entirely the reasons why we have made the decisions we have as regards placement for consent as opposed to placement by order. We have the two routes with their birth parents giving consent to placement and, when consent is absent, the local authority securing a placement order. We have a history of that as it has been mediated over the past decade under discussion with the various agencies with the aim of producing a better and fairer adoption process and redistributing the responsibilities.
    Our central motivation was to ensure that the birth parents, far from being treated in an arbitrary fashion, should have every opportunity as early in the process as possible to have their wishes, needs and prospects considered when the child was being placed for adoption, with court involvement only necessary in the other circumstances. Our aim in dealing with much of the question of consent at the placement stage was designed to reduce the uncertainty and the contest in the final adoption stage. We have been advised that the current system leaves much to be resolved at the final stage, so we are looking for the four benefits that I have mentioned previously.
    The first is to provide greater certainty and stability for children. The second is to minimise the uncertainty for prospective adopters, which, at the moment, means that they face the risk of a contested final adoption
    CWH 224
    hearing. Once the issues have been resolved around placements, there are limits to the circumstances in which the final adoption order can be opposed, as the noble Earl has said. The third is to reduce the extent to which the birth families are faced with a fait accompli at the final adoption hearing, as the child has, by that time, been placed for a considerable period with the prospective adopters. The fourth is that we are looking to minimise the opportunities for rehearsing and revisiting many of the circumstances which would have made that placement successful without the threat of it being reversed for potentially frivolous reasons at a later stage.
    The provisions in Clause 46(4) set out what is to happen at the end of the process at the final adoption order hearing. They provide that the court can make an adoption order as a result of placement with consent under Clause 18, or a placement under a placement order, provided that no parent or guardian of the child opposes the making of that order.
    As currently drafted, subsection (5) provides that the parents may oppose the making of the final order in these cases only if they have the leave of the court. Subsection (7) sets out that the court is to grant leave only if there has been a significant change of circumstances since either parental consent was given or the placement order was made. The effect of the noble Earl's amendments would be to remove the leave requirement in these agency cases. As now, a parent would be entirely free to contest the final adoption order, regardless of whether they had earlier given consent to placement, or a placement order had been made.
    That would greatly increase the prospect of contested final adoption hearings. It would, at a stroke, remove what we are very serious about doing—the main benefit for placed children and prospective adopters—of removing that fundamental uncertainty that the birth parents are going to turn around and say, "We have changed our minds. We have gone through all this process, we have placed the child with consent, but now we have changed our minds". We feel that it must be important to be able to prove that there has been a significant change of circumstances in those situations that justify that change.
    As I explained earlier, the current legal framework has been criticised because it leaves too much to he resolved of that order, and it also brings an additional sense of insecurity. By bringing forward the question of consent earlier in the process, we are creating opportunities at each stage for the birth parents to establish the implications of their decision, without threatening the adoptive parents at the very end of the stage with that being reversed on a whim, or simply for frivolous reasons.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the question of the judicial process. He suggested it was not compatible with the ECHR. We believe the Bill is certainly compatible with the ECHR and Article 6. In the case of placement with consent through adoption

    CWH 225
    agencies, the parents' consent will have to have been dealt with at the time of placement. If they do not consent, the only route open to them is to seek a placement order, and then there would be bound to be a court hearing. It is on those grounds that we believe the question of compatibility is resolved.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also raised the question of how the court will get the birth parents' views when birth parents will have given consent to placement in advance. The court will still be able to obtain their views, either through the adoption agency report to the court—so there will be no question that by giving advance consent they will lose any of their ability or their rights to put their views—or they can through the agency of a CAFCASS officer report to a court even if the parents themselves cannot oppose the adoption order. There will be agencies for their views, whatever they are, to be made known to the courts.
    If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, would prefer, I would be happy to write to him about those two specific points to make them absolutely clear. They are important in terms of process and those two particular instances.
    I return to the fact that the door is by no means shut because the essential point is that parents can contest the final adoption order. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is absolutely right to say that there is a difference between a placement order and an adoption order. It is because of that importance, and because it is difficult to take this particular aspect of the process out of context from everything that has gone before, that parents need to demonstrate there has been the kind of change of circumstance that could conceivably justify reopening the decisions which have been assumed in good faith to have been taken earlier on the basis of full knowledge. That way, the provisions will give a much greater sense of security and stability for the adoptive placement in advance of the final adoption order being given.
    CWH 226
    Given that the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will remove that gain, I hope that he will be prepared to reconsider them.
    Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which I find partially reassuring. I am not prepared to say that I find it wholly reassuring. If the Minister would kindly write to me on the matters I raised, I should be grateful, and I will of course read carefully what she has said. I am very much in favour of the central premise of this part of the Bill, which is to remove as much uncertainty as possible from the process at as early a stage as possible and thereby create stability and certainty for all parties.
    However, I am very uneasy at the thought that where birth parents have a legitimate point of view to express at the final stage when their relationship with their own child will be severed they cannot, for whatever reason, express that view directly. I think that that is potentially a very serious state of affairs. The noble Baroness said there would be mechanisms for the birth parents to be able to make their views known in an indirect fashion, and that I appreciate. I shall have to think very carefully about whether I regard that as adequate in the circumstances. It is perhaps a matter for reflection between now and Report stage on my part as much as on the part of the Government. In the meantime, in thanking the Minister once again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 70B not moved.]
    Clause 46 agreed to.
    Clause 47 agreed to.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This would be a convenient moment to adjourn until Thursday next at 4 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman (Lord Elton): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday next at 4 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Criminal Justice System: Funding
  Criminal Justice System: Funding
  Wolvercote Clinic
  Wolvercote Clinic
  British Overseas Citizens
  British Overseas Citizens
  EU Tax Package
  EU Tax Package
  (Gibraltar)
  (Gibraltar)
  Chinook ZD576 Crash
  Chinook ZD576 Crash
  Trident
  Trident
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Malta
  Malta
  Public Sector Civil Nuclear Liabilities
  Public Sector Civil Nuclear Liabilities
  Egg Production: Battery Cages
  Egg Production: Battery Cages
  Wye Navigation Order
  Wye Navigation Order
  Hospices: Funding
  Hospices: Funding
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence and Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence and Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances
  Revascularisation Procedures
  Revascularisation Procedures
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Stem Cell Research
  Stem Cell Research