Sitting of 12 July 2002

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

Behaviour Improvement in Schools
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.33 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): I am pleased to have the opportunity to open today's Adjournment debate on improving behaviour in our schools—my first opportunity to open an education debate from the Dispatch Box.
I shall say a few words about education more generally. Education is at the heart of what brought me into politics and the House. As I am sure is the case for Members on both sides of the House, my parents, but especially my mother, greatly influenced my outlook. From a working-class background in the east end of London, my mother passed the 11-plus and went to Dame Alice Owen's school but was expected to leave at 15, which very much affected her outlook and the way she brought up my sister and me. We were very much encouraged to regard education as a way forward in our lives.
Education provides a ladder of opportunity. It unlocks talent and empowers people, so it is a vital weapon in the fight against disadvantage, deprivation and poverty. It also enables us to promote a society in which rights and responsibilities are valued. Behaviour in our schools is at the core of many of the key challenges facing us in debates on education policy, including the debate on how we can improve standards in all our schools; the inclusion debate, on promoting inclusive education and equality of opportunity; the debate about truancy, violence and street crime; the debate about how to give a platform to young people—empowering them, listening to them and acting on what they say; and, of course, the crucial debate about how to recruit and retain the best possible teachers in all our schools.
Behaviour in schools is an important issue with far-reaching consequences, which is why we take it very seriously indeed. It is a priority not just in the Department for Education and Skills but across Government. Poor behaviour has a ripple effect throughout society. From the occasional truant to the hardened street criminal, from heckling in class to serious incidents of bullying, poor behaviour leaves its mark on those whom it touches. For example, low-level disruption in class can demoralise teachers and pupils alike. Behaviour such as talking over the teacher and deliberately distracting others can have a long-term cumulative effect. The atmosphere in class changes, gradually grinding down pupil and staff morale,
1144
often resulting in lower standards overall and difficulties in teacher recruitment and retention. That is just one way in which poor behaviour can manifest itself.
The statistics on behaviour in our schools speak volumes. Forty-five per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cited poor behaviour as the main reason.
Michael Fabricant: I am following the Minister's arguments with considerable interest. I taught for a year before going up to university—it was an interesting experience. One thing I learned was that communication is sometimes more important than education when one is trying to involve the class. However, a sanction is also needed. Does the Minister appreciate that many teachers feel that because they have virtually no sanction any more to punish, in the broadest possible sense, they can do very little to achieve good behaviour in a class where there is a will against such behaviour?
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman said that teaching was an interesting experience. I am sure that it was interesting for him, as well as pupils and fellow staff members.
The hon. Gentleman is correct—we need to get the right balance between carrot and stick. Young people need positive incentives to be in school and behave well, but schools must also have the capability to deal with bad behaviour. I shall come to that in a moment. As I said, almost half the teachers who leave the teaching profession cite poor behaviour as the main reason for doing so. Getting to the root of behaviour problems before they result in a child falling behind in lessons is therefore imperative. Once a child has fallen behind, it is hard for them to catch up again. It is all too easy for them to continue playing up in class or playing truant, perhaps even ending up being excluded.
Once children have been excluded, it is much harder to reintegrate them into the mainstream and help them with their problems. It is at that point that many of our young people fall into a spiral of decline. We know that exclusion can swiftly lead a young person down a slippery slope, with 72 per cent. of excluded children committing an offence while out of education.
At the same time, the numbers of children with behavioural problems are increasing: 6 per cent. of children have clinically identifiable behavioural problems and 4 per cent. have emotional problems. Up to one in four of the children who do not reach their attainment targets has behavioural problems, which of course can mask underlying learning difficulties. As 80 per cent. of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties are in mainstream classes, their learning and the learning of those around them will be affected.
Poor attendance at school and truancy are obviously indicators of wider behavioural challenges. Addressing them as part of the overall strategy to improve behaviour is vital—the children concerned are vulnerable and at risk of becoming victims of crime, or drifting into crime themselves as perpetrators.
We are well aware of the impact of alcohol and drug misuse and abuse on the behaviour of young people. The children of our country are the future of our country, and their life chances cannot be jeopardised. There are clear and unarguable links between drug and alcohol use and offending by young people—we know that from the street

1145
crime initiative that the Government launched a few months ago. More needs to be done in this regard, in particular in addressing alcohol abuse by young people. In the autumn I will issue new guidance to schools on alcohol education. I will also seek the views of young people as to how we can most effectively take forward our strategy on alcohol and, in particular, alcohol education in schools.
I know that there will be concern about the announcement this week reclassifying cannabis from a class B to a class C drug. Some teachers may be concerned that young people will view that as a licence to bring cannabis into schools. Let there be no mistake: we will not tolerate drugs in schools, and we will do all that we can to support teachers and other staff in making drug-free schools a reality.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the Minister accept that while it is the task of Parliament and Ministers to pass legislation, the message sent from this place is equally important? Does he therefore also accept that the message sent this week to children about drugs is wrong?
Mr. Twigg: No, I do not accept that. There are good arguments for the reclassification, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary this week. As it happens, yesterday afternoon I visited the Highlands school in my constituency and spoke to a group of 12 and 13-year-olds. The reclassification of cannabis was a live issue with them, as it was the leading news story yesterday. We are dealing with sophisticated young people. We can certainly send out a powerful message, but they can differentiate. They understand what we mean when we say that we want to focus police time, effort and energy on hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, but they also understand that we are not in any way saying that cannabis is acceptable in our schools.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; he has been generous. Does he accept what many police officers tell me—that most heroin users start off with cannabis?
Mr. Twigg: We are in danger of straying into a different debate, but I know that that proposition is contested.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Most alcoholics start off with half a shandy.
Mr. Twigg: My hon. Friend makes a point about alcoholism. It was one I discussed in the school that I visited yesterday. Alcohol has a considerable effect on peoples' lives: many die on our roads and in our hospitals as a result of it. I do not want to go too far down that route, but it is clear that there are differences of opinion on both sides of the House and within the police force. The leadership of the Metropolitan police and the Association of Chief Police Officers have endorsed the announcement that was made this week.
Whatever happens on that issue, all of us in the House can agree that improving drugs education is vital, and conducting our drugs education in a style and in language
1146
that will resonate with young people is crucial if it is to be effective—indeed, if it is to be more effective than in the past.
Another key issue that we need to tackle head-on is bullying in our schools. That is a crucial element of any successful policy to improve general behaviour in schools. I know that most schools treat the matter extremely seriously, and that there are many positive examples of schools which ensure that their pupils know that bullying is wrong and they cannot get away with it. In September we will re-issue our anti-bullying guidance pack. We wild do all we can to ensure that we are working with and assisting schools so that pupils are not left to suffer in silence.
All bullying is wrong, whatever form it takes. We know that there are aggravating circumstances in certain instances of bullying. A great deal of work has been done, for example, to tackle racist bullying, which involves children being picked on because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their ethnic origin, and the bullying of disabled children or children who are a little bit different.
Michael Fabricant: I am encouraged to ask the Minister whether he is aware of bullying that goes on in Scotland against English pupils there whose parents have moved to Scotland to work? Does he agree that that is also a deplorable form of bullying?
Mr. Twigg: Of course. Racist bullying, whatever form it takes, is wrong and must be tackled.
Let me focus briefly today on homophobic bullying. A survey in 1996–97 showed that only about 6 per cent. of schools referred specifically to homophobic bullying in their written anti-bullying policies. Such policies are now a legal requirement, and I fervently hope that more of those policies in schools will acknowledge homophobic bullying and set out how it should be tackled. That is very important not only in dealing with a serious problem but in helping those who suffer homophobic bullying to overcome any reluctance to report it. For too long, this form of bullying has not been given the priority that it deserves. I want it to be addressed in a sensible and sensitive way in our schools.
The trauma caused by homophobic bullying—whether the pupil is gay or straight, or whether the pupil knows what their sexuality will be—can have a huge impact on learning and emotional development. Many callers to Childline report feeling suicidal because of the homophobic bullying that they are facing. However, there are many examples of good practice to draw on.
Mr. Phil Willis: I am delighted that the Minister is including homophobic bullying in his speech opening the debate. Will he also address the problem of homophobic bullying of teachers? That is a very real issue. Is he aware that section 69 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 contains an open agenda for the homophobic bullying of teachers in single-faith schools where, because homosexuality is not an accepted part of a particular faith, it could be a reason for a teacher to be sacked or not to be employed at that school? Will the Minister give an undertaking to look into the matter and to issue guidance?
Mr. Twigg: I am happy to give an undertaking to examine the matter. I am aware of it. The message that

1147
must go out from the House and from Government is that such bullying and behaviour are unacceptable anywhere in our society and in any school.
I am pleased to say that there are some positive examples of good work that is being undertaken to tackle bullying and discrimination against pupils and also against teachers. I put on record a tribute to the teaching unions, which have been in the vanguard of work on the issue, even when it was much less easy for people to speak about it, and to the Stonewall group.
I should like to cite an innovative project—the Bolton homophobic bullying forum, which uses various methods, such as staff awareness training, follow-up work in personal, social and health education lessons, and theatre work to target homophobic bullying in its pilot schools. I am pleased to pay tribute to that excellent work in Bolton and in some other schools. I want to work with schools generally to make such initiatives the norm, rather than the exception.
Naturally, we all want to do all that can be done to persuade schools and others that all forms of bullying need to be tackled decisively, and not swept under the carpet. I hope that as many schools as possible will obtain a copy of our new anti-bullying pack when it is launched in the autumn. All of that highlights the need to deal with behavioural problems before they adversely affect other pupils.
We have invested significant amounts of money to improve behaviour and to deal with those issues. More than £600 million has been made available through the standards fund to tackle bad behaviour and truancy. Last year, £163 million was allocated to tackle truancy and exclusions.
More than 1,000 learning support units are helping to prevent disruption to mainstream classes by providing separate short-term teaching and support for disruptive pupils at risk of exclusion. Such units can have a profound effect by helping challenging pupils to improve their behaviour. We recently published good practice guidance based on the experiences of the best learning support units so that they can extend their influence, as in-school centres of excellence in behaviour management, to helping teachers in the classroom with advice on behaviour improvement strategies that really work.
Under the excellence in cities programme, 3,500 learning mentors are developing one-to-one relationships with children who need extra support, as a result of which pupils can be kept in school and working while their behaviour problems are tackled.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Connexions service, working closely with pupils over the age of 13. Connexions is now up and running in half of England, and will go national next year. More than 2,000 personal advisers are already in post, with a large proportion based in schools, helping pupils to raise their aspirations and motivation, and working with them to tackle issues and barriers that could lead to poor behaviour, truancy, exclusion, and on to crime. Excellent work is being done in many schools and I am delighted that it is being extended.
More than 330 pupil referral units have been set up for children who need additional support and whose problems cannot easily be tackled in school. They deal with children who have been excluded or who are simply not managing in mainstream classes, and they are successfully
1148
improving behaviour, attendance and attitudes to learning because of the broad, tailored curriculum and support that they are able to offer to pupils. The 2002 report from the chief inspector of schools pays particular tribute to the improved and improving performance of those units. Clearly more needs to be done to achieve excellence throughout, but progress is being made.
Simply targeting the pupils who are posing the problems is not the most effective way of raising standards of behaviour. We must lay the foundations of promoting good behaviour in the classroom. That does not just mean good classroom management, although that is important; it means giving interesting lessons that capture and hold pupils' attention, and teaching styles that engage in order to encourage pupils to stay in school in the first place. We are working through the key stage 3 strategy to ensure that the pace and quality of lessons improve, so that children are keen to learn.
More widely, we are encouraging schools to develop far greater engagement of their pupils, so that schools become places where children want to be. Some schools offer activities such as arts, sports and voluntary learning activities for pupils before and after school and in the holidays. Evidence shows that those activities help pupils to gain new skills and increase their confidence, and that their behaviour and attitude to learning improve.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for generously giving way to me a third time. I totally agree with what he says about morning and evening clubs, but does he appreciate that many teachers nowadays feel unable to do such extra-curricular activities because they are bombarded by the Department with more and more paperwork and obligations which take up time outside teaching? Would not a little less bombardment from his office and a few more of the sort of clubs to which he has just referred be a better option?
Mr. Twigg: We are well aware of the concerns about work load and bureaucracy, and the Department has made the reduction of that a priority. Many of those activities do not directly involve teachers; sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. We are not in the business of imposing new burdens on teachers; we are in the business of making the best use of our schools and giving those opportunities to young people.
Through personal, social and health education and citizenship classes, children can learn to appreciate the effect of their actions on their own lives and the lives of others. They can learn to understand the difference between right and wrong and the fact that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and to consider their behaviour both in and beyond the classroom towards those in authority and each other.
We are also keen, on a cross-government basis, to promote opportunities for young people to speak up for themselves. We are keen to encourage school councils in every school—they have a real ability to have an influence within the schools—and a role for young people within some of the governing bodies of our schools, giving young people a chance to have their voice heard.
Those are just some of the existing general initiatives, but we are not resting on our laurels. In the Chancellor's Budget statement this year, £66 million was given to the Department for a programme for behaviour improvement.

1149
We chose to invest that money in the local education authorities that have the highest levels of truancy and street crime. More than 80 per cent. of recorded street crime is committed in 34 local authority areas, and each of those has a grant of almost £2 million for the coming year for that programme. The idea is to enable LEAs to build on existing best practice around promoting positive behaviour, and allow us to test what really works as a basis for more general action.
Local education authorities can pick the measures that complement their existing provision from a range that includes learning support units, additional support staff and e-registration. All children at risk of truancy or exclusion will have a named key worker with whom to work. We have also set those LEAs the challenge of providing full-time supervised education from day one of temporary or permanent exclusion in schools involved in the programme—hundreds of schools throughout those 34 LEAs. Plans include in-school and out-of-school provision and, in some cases, working with external providers.
All the LEAs involved will be working with the police on that project, building on existing police involvement in schools that has previously been primarily a teaching role or in citizenship education. A police presence in schools will help to reduce victimisation, criminality and antisocial behaviour within the school and its community. I know that there are sensitivities about police being placed in schools and I pay tribute to the positive developments taking place in many schools, which involve them working with the police and local education authorities to ensure that we tackle criminality in and around our schools.
We know that the earlier a behavioural problem manifests itself, the more serious it will become and the more expensive it will be to remedy. The diverse causes of behavioural problems can result in a range of piecemeal, short-term interventions that do not present long-lasting solutions. That is why we are encouraging LEAs to develop behaviour and education support teams with part of their behaviour improvement programme funding.
Each team will contain four to five professionals, who between them have a complementary mix of education, social and health skills to meet the many needs of children, young people and their parents. The aim of the BESTs is to offer intensive support, using key workers, to young people aged five to 13 who show signs of emotional or behavioural problems, and to their parents, providing an over-arching service.
We have not just plucked the idea out of thin air. It builds on existing schemes, the evaluation of which has shown the many benefits of agencies working together with young people to deliver results. The evaluation that I have seen showed that teachers gained greater confidence in their ability to manage challenging behaviour and felt that they had acquired more strategies for working with difficult pupils.
We are also working on removing one of the root causes of truancy and poor behaviour: the boredom and alienation that is felt by many young people in respect of the traditional curriculum. The Green Paper "14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards" proposes
1150
offering to all young people a wide range of academic and vocational options, to help ensure that schools and the wider education service offer something relevant to all I young people and not only those who are academically able, thus giving everyone the opportunity for success. A very positive feature of our recent consultation on 14 to 19-year-olds was the high level of participation by young people. That was a deliberate aspect of the consultation and is a very welcome contribution to the ongoing debate about where we should go with that age group.
However, good behaviour in individual classrooms is not enough. To ensure consistency, schools need to adopt a whole-school approach. Strategies that set the tone on behaviour issues, such as anti-bullying and discipline policies, pupil and community involvement and behaviour audits, are very important in providing a consistent approach. That is why we are working hard to ensure that schools have the confidence that they need to develop those whole-school approaches to promoting good behaviour and to develop and maintain positive learning environments for all children and have access to additional support for children who are experiencing problems.
We are currently designing comprehensive training materials for classroom teachers and developing the role of the lead behaviour professionals. Their role will be to take the lead on all aspects of behaviour in the school by training and supporting their peers and colleagues in the classroom and around the school, and in turn receiving ongoing mentoring support themselves. We are also responding to the strong requests from school staff for support in improving their skills in behaviour management. For example, we are providing such support in the programmes for continuing professional development for senior staff, some of the new leadership programmes and qualifications, the new "Leading from the Middle" programme for middle managers and the programmes for teaching assistants and trainee teachers, all of which now involve training in behaviour management techniques.
Of course, that is not all that is involved if we are to improve behaviour. Children are in school for a significant amount of their time, but school is only part of their life as they grow up. Schools cannot be expected to take the entire responsibility for improving behaviour and raising standards. This is an issue that the wider community needs to tackle. In particular, we need to tackle it with the help of parents, whose participation is vital to our success in this behaviour project.
Greater parental involvement is surely one of the benefits that is to be gained from extended schools. We are encouraging more schools to consider extending the services that are offered on the school site to benefit not only pupils but their families and the wider community. New services could include health and social care, child care, community learning opportunities, information and communications technology and sports facilities.
Through the provision of easy-to-access services, schools can forge better links with parents and encourage them to become actively involved in their child's education. The provision of other services on the school site can help pupils and families to deal with any problems that can contribute to poor behaviour. Schools that maintain and develop strong links with parents and the wider community can share responsibility for children's behaviour and their emotional and social well-being.

1151
We are also emphasising parents' responsibilities towards their children by, for example, challenging the attitudes of those who condone their children's absence from school and extending the use of parenting orders to emphasise the importance of those responsibilities. The truancy sweeps that were conducted in May, focusing on the 34 local education authorities to which I referred, sent out a very strong message both locally and nationally that trivial excuses for missing school are unacceptable. Last week, we launched a new toolkit for schools on dealing with abusive or violent adults—often parents—to ensure that schools are aware of the legal avenues that are open to them in such cases, as well as to reinforce the fact that such action is intolerable. Of course, the vast majority of parents are not abusive or violent, but the clear message to those who are is one of zero tolerance.
We want to create a culture in schools that supports the emotional well-being of children and staff. I believe that the measures to which I have briefly referred will help us to accomplish that aim. They will help to ensure that improvements in achievement and behaviour are ongoing and nationwide, and that children who are at risk of developing behavioural problems will be helped within a supportive framework. Our main objective is to safeguard the interests of all children and to ensure that they have the chance to achieve their full potential by making sure that their educational options are not limited by their own poor behaviour or that of others.
As I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House will know, in many communities it is the behaviour of pupils when arriving at and leaving school that determines the local perception of what that school is like. In turn, that local perception, which is shaped by the behaviour of pupils at school, can determine the views of local parents in making choices about which school they would prefer for their own children. For many schools—especially some of those in challenging circumstances—behaviour policy is therefore absolutely central to school improvement.
In the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of schools to speak to pupils, staff, governors and parents. It is absolutely clear that behaviour is a key concern in all those groups, whether it means that pupils are living in fear of being bullied, members of staff are considering quitting the profession because of the pressure or parents feeling that they have no ability to choose to send their children to the local school because of the behaviour that they see at the local bus stop. I want to work with schools, young people and local education authorities to promote good behaviour. I hope that today's debate can play a positive part in this very important area of work to promote the best behaviour in all our schools.
10.7 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to respond to the Minister this morning. He said that this was the first time he had been able to open a debate from the Dispatch Box. Like him, it usually falls to me to wind up debates, so I sometimes feel that I am always the bridesmaid and never the bride. The benefit of this being a Friday debate is that we both get to open this important discussion.
The Minister also spoke a little about his background and some of the reasons why he cared so much about education. Without taking too long a trip down memory
1152
lane or into family history, I reflected that while his parents were living in working-class areas of the east end of London, mine were living in Salford in similar circumstances. Obviously, something went horribly wrong, either in his case or mine, and one of us took a wrong turning in life. Perhaps we can decide when that happened and help to put it right in this debate.
The Minister spoke of education as a ladder of opportunity. In particular, he referred to a balance of rights and responsibilities in education—a point that I strongly endorse—and went on to refer to the now well-known research showing that 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession cite pupil behaviour as their principal reason for making that career move. That is an especially strong indicator of the scale of the problem that we face in our schools.
Improving pupil behaviour in our schools is not a simple problem. It is not easy to tackle because many factors lie behind it, ranging from the pressure of examinations to bullying, mental health issues, drugs and the Government's exclusion policy. The spectrum of pupil misbehaviour ranges from persistent low-level disruption to vicious assaults on other pupils or teachers.
Schools face a massive challenge, which affects academic results and teacher recruitment and retention. I recently met a teacher from a preparatory school in London. I asked him whether he had always taught in the independent sector or whether his background was in the maintained sector. The reply was the latter, and when I asked him why he had moved from the maintained to the independent sector, he immediately cited pupil behaviour. He said that he could not bear it any longer and that it was so bad that he would prefer to sweep the streets than continue in his previous school. That is appalling, and none of us can rest easy as long as it pertains.
The scale of the problem is shown in the research that Warwick university undertook on behalf of the National Union of Teachers. A third of the teachers who responded to the study said that they had witnessed offensive weapons in their schools; 83.2 per cent. reported threatened pupil-pupil violence, and nearly half experienced that weekly. More than half the respondents experienced threats from third parties, usually parents, and less often, former pupils, through written comments.
Nearly two thirds of respondents reported offensive language at least weekly. Damage to property was a routine occurrence in the working lives of almost half the respondents. Nearly half—46.8 per cent.—encountered persistent disruption and defiance weekly. More than four fifths of teachers regularly experienced disruption to their teaching. More than half the respondents encountered pupil-pupil bullying regularly. A tenth of teachers regularly experienced violent threats. Those are shocking statistics; I know that the Minister agrees.
One of the most worrying aspects is the evidence that suggests that the problems are getting worse, not better. An annual survey that Keele university conducted in November of the views of thousands of pupils in England and Wales recorded more than 40 per cent. saying that their lessons were being disrupted. That is a third more than when surveys began 10 years ago.
I shall read some comments by pupils in response to the research. A female pupil said:
"In some classes you can't concentrate because people are messing around. Sometimes the teacher doesn't even get round to setting the work because he/she is dealing with a child that is misbehaving."

1153
Another female pupil said:
"Our lessons are disrupted every lesson—we rarely get more than 10 minutes' worth of work done in an hour."
A male pupil said:
"The school would be a much better place if expulsions were increased and they were to adopt a zero tolerance level to all badly behaved pupils. The school would be a better place if they could make a pupils' council to allow recommendations from the pupils."
It is striking that not only the teachers who face abuse, violence or threatening behaviour in schools are worried and want action to be taken—pupils are also urging action.
We read more and more reports of horror stories that strike fear into the heart of any parent. This week, the Evening Standard reported a story, which appeared in several national newspapers, under the headline: "School told to let sex assault boy back in". The article stated:
"A 14-year-old boy expelled for indecently assaulting two girls at school has been allowed back by governors…The headmaster permanently excluded him from the Nottingham comprehensive. but the boy—who cannot be named for legal reasons—appealed to the governors, who said he should be allowed to return…The head told"
a newspaper,
"'I believe the governors acted in good faith, but they were wrong to let him back in. I believe that what he did merited nothing less than permanent exclusion.'
The chairman of the governors said: 'Education is a right for everyone.'"
I shall consider the comment of the chairman of governors shortly.
Another dreadful story made the national newspapers in March. I shall quote BBC Online's version:
"A pregnant teacher suffered a miscarriage after she was assaulted by rowdy pupils she was trying to discipline, an employment tribunal heard."
The incident took place in Islington Green school in London. The article continued:
"Mrs. Blackburn told the tribunal there was a culture of violence at the school and teachers were routinely attacked by pupils, yet were instructed to intervene if pupils or staff were at risk of injury."
She did that. The article stated:
"One pupil had already threatened to go round to her house and beat up her baby, the tribunal heard.
'I reported the incident to the head teacher. The student was given a suspension, I cannot tell for how long' said Mrs. Blackburn.
'She was subsequently readmitted to my class, over my objections.'"
We should reflect on those two stories. Education is a right for everyone, but should it override that of other pupils to personal safety? Should it force a teacher to face young thugs in her class who have threatened to assault her or her baby? No hon. Member would tolerate that environment for his child; we should not tolerate it for other people's children. We need a clear, unequivocal message that violent or abusive behaviour will not be tolerated.
As the chairman of governors at the excellent King David high school in Manchester said to me recently when I visited the school, pupils should be grateful that they are allowed to be part of a school. That does not happen if they are told that they have a right to be at the
1154
school, regardless of their behaviour. He said that they must feel proud of their school and that they owe something to the school community as well as having a right to take something from it. That reflects the Minister's point about the balance between rights and responsibilities, which is too often tipped in the wrong direction.
Exclusion is not the only solution or the end of the story. The Government continue to expand the pupil referral unit, and we welcome that. The Government are right to do it. However, a clear and robust strategy for improving pupil behaviour should be underpinned by the knowledge that appeals panels and Ministers will back up teachers and well-behaved pupils. The disruptive few must not be allowed to ruin educational opportunity for the hard-working many.
I want to consider the problem of drugs in our schools. The message is hopelessly confused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) said in an earlier intervention. After the Home Secretary's statement this week, schools are in a state of uncertainty and confusion. Problems were already experienced in schools, and we considered that when the Education Bill was in Committee in January. I pressed the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to give clear guidance to schools about drug abuse. I asked him to issue guidance to make it clear that pupils who had been excluded for drug abuse should not be readmitted. He said:
"It is unacceptable to take any illegal substance to school, but it is right that head teachers are allowed the discretion to make judgments about the powers at their disposal, whether that is no action, fixed-period exclusion or a permanent exclusion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 January 2002; c. 370.]
I accept that head teachers should have the discretion to make decisions. However, when they make such decisions and reach a conclusion about the appropriate disciplinary policy, they are too often undermined on appeal. Ministers should get to grips with that.
Between January, when I had exchanges in Committee with the Under-Secretary, and May, the Government appeared to have moved—at least, they were going to toughen up their rhetoric. Statements were made to the press, and a new tough line on discipline and drugs in schools was widely reported. However, on closer inspection, the Government's new tough policy was limited to those who deal in drugs. The sort of guidance for which I pressed would be given to appeals panels only when a pupil was excluded for dealing, not other instances of drug abuse. The head should set a disciplinary policy for the school; Ministers talked tough, went to the press and said that they endorsed that, and supported heads and parents who wanted a clear and tough policy. However, the small print made it clear that little movement had occurred. That confusion can only increase following the Home Secretary's statement this week.
As evidence of that, it is only necessary to cite the concerns raised by some of the head teachers' leaders. To quote from The Times of 11 July:
"Head teachers struggling to prevent cannabis use said yesterday that David Blunkett's decision would make it harder to convince children of the dangers of the drug.
John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said the move sent a mixed message to children. 'For many years now, cannabis has been understood to be a dangerous drug. The Government is now re-categorising it, with limited explanation, and without the support of its drugs czar"'.

1155
That concern was also picked up by David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers—
Mr. Stephen Pound: Extraordinary!
Mr. Sheerman: He does not usually comment.
Mr. Brady: The Chairman of the Select Committee thinks it extraordinary that the general secretary of the NAHT should wish to comment on such an important matter, but I think it is entirely right. The comments that Mr. Hart made in the statement issued by the association raised those concerns and sought to send the sort of clear message that I would like the Government to send.
The NAHT has stated that decriminalisation of cannabis should not be allowed to undermine school drugs policies. Schools need robust guidance from the Department for Education and Skills that drug abuse will not be tolerated. When heads exclude a pupil for offences connected with drugs, that decision should not be overturned on appeal.
The same confusion underlies the Government's whole policy on exclusions. The rhetoric is tough but the practice is weak. Three years ago, the Government deliberately set about undermining discipline in schools.
Mr. Willis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my interrupting him as he prepares to move on to another point, but I would like to ask him a question before he leaves the drug issue. He has made it clear that Conservative Front Bench policy is to exclude all youngsters who bring drugs into school or who deal in drugs. Is that it? What would happen to those youngsters at that point? They do not get excluded from society; they have to go somewhere. I know that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in what he says, but will he give us some insight into Conservative policy on excluded youngsters?
Mr. Brady: I am flattered by the hon. Gentleman's compliments about my sincerity, but I fear that he was not paying sufficient attention to my remarks. As I made clear earlier, it is not our view that all pupils who are involved with drugs, in whatever way, must be permanently excluded. It is right that the head teacher should make such decisions. Our concern is that, all too often, the decisions taken by the head are subsequently undermined on appeal. Heads across the country are worried about that, in relation not only to drugs, but a wide range of other disciplinary problems. We believe that that needs to be tackled. There must be clear guidance from Ministers—the kind of guidance that they have been prepared to give in relation to part of the problem—namely, those who deal in drugs, but not to other aspects of it. I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was present in Committee when we considered some of these problems during our deliberations on the Education Bill earlier in the year.
One of the difficulties for heads now is that, in a climate in which the Government have prompted a fairly major debate on what is appropriate behaviour in the context of drugs, they are left in the position of having to make individual judgments not only on the particular circumstances of a case and what is appropriate for a particular pupil, but on what is expected of them by society in our country today in terms of whether it is a serious disciplinary offence for a child to take drugs.
1156
Ministers have repeatedly refused to help head teachers with that issue. They issue tough-sounding press releases to the Daily Mail, saying that they are going to crack down on drug abuse, but the small print makes it clear that the guidance applies only to drug dealing. Once again, heads are left to draw their own conclusions. That is not fair on the heads or on the schools, and it will certainly lead to wild inconsistency across the country in the way in which similar cases are dealt with.
The same confusion that we find in the Government's approach to drugs in schools underlies the whole policy of the Government on exclusion. The rhetoric is tough, but the practice is weak. Three years ago, they set about deliberately undermining discipline in schools. Their circular 10/99 required schools to undertake a variety of prior alternative strategies. What prior alternative strategy to exclusion could be appropriate in a case such as that of Linda Townsend, whose case was reported in the education section of The Guardian this week? She is a teacher who was covering a lesson for a colleague when she was assaulted. A boy attacked her because she asked him to leave the room. She was kicked and punched to the floor. She said:
"The first punch concussed me and after that I was like a rag doll."
She says that she suffered bruising over her whole upper body and lost cartilage in both knees. She was off school for a month. She said:
"I couldn't sleep. I was having flashbacks. I was an emotional wreck."
Again, we have to think back to the 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession who cite pupil behaviour as their principal reason for doing so. That becomes all too readily understandable when we hear of cases such as this.
Mr. Pound: The tone that the hon. Gentleman has struck in his current comments is rather at variance with the much more supportive and, perhaps, henotic statements that he was making earlier. On the prior warning indications, does he not realise that he is doing a grave disservice to teachers and educational professionals by implying that they do not do that anyway? Even in the extreme cases that he cites, the school community will address those issues at the earliest identification in every case. Bad cases make bad law, and the case to which he referred could easily be one that suddenly appeared; but, in the majority of cases, it is early identification that the educational professionals want, and on which the Government want to support them.
Mr. Brady: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I fear that the truth of the matter is that it was the Department for Education and Skills' circular that did a grave disservice to those professionals in the world of education, for precisely the reason that he cites—namely, that heads already undertake a variety of alternative strategies when it is appropriate and possible to do so. I never encounter heads in my constituency or in the many other schools that I visit around the country who are gung-ho about excluding pupils. That is not what they want to do, so they will certainly seek appropriate other strategies when such strategies exist.
I shall return to the case that I was describing a moment ago. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) says that hard cases make bad law; they sometimes also

1157
illustrate a wider point, however, and I think that that is the case here. It is clear that the incident in question was not an isolated one. The report in The Guardian goes on:
"The boy had already threatened a teacher that day and been involved in other violent incidents at the school, including another assault on a teacher."
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this kind of problem is directly attributable to the Department's guidance, which has undermined schools' ability to enforce proper and appropriate discipline. When a child has assaulted a teacher once, it is quite remarkable to suggest that anything other than exclusion is appropriate; the fact that we expect a teacher to go back into a classroom with the same pupil who has assaulted him or her on a previous occasion—or occasions—is a remarkable comment on what we expect teachers to face in carrying out their duties.
Michael Fabricant: It is not just a matter of how teachers will react to that appalling situation when they meet those children again. Does not the fact that those children will be back again, with the same teacher, wrongly signal to other children in the class that they can do the same?
Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fixing a target to reduce the number of exclusions, the Government were motivated not by educational good practice but by the policy of the social exclusion unit—it was a social, not an educational, policy. There may be some merit in its aim, but the result in our schools was, in some cases, horrific.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North is an amateur comedian from time to time, but, if he will allow me, I will make the slightly more complimentary remark that behind it all he is a level-headed sort of chap—[Laughter.] My remarks are provoking considerable dissent on the Government Benches. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the scenario that I have described is not an isolated one, even in that school, let alone in many other schools around the country and that it is not acceptable. The fact that the Department for Education and Skills issued guidance that prevented head teachers from excluding pupils who had committed any disciplinary offence, without having prior alternative strategies in place, was clearly wrong, especially in the light of those hard cases of the most appalling abuse and violence. The policy could have been introduced only by people who are out of touch with what really goes on in schools and classrooms around the country.
Eventually even the Government accepted that the policy was wrong and was doing more harm than good and, thankfully, they have moved to water down and change the policy. It is now possible, for a limited number of different offences, to exclude on a first offence and without undertaking those prior strategies. Despite that, time and again I hear head teachers say that the difficulty is that they arrive at what they believe to be the right and necessary solution to deal with a problem in their school, and take what they believe to be the appropriate
1158
disciplinary action to exclude—it is not a decision that they take lightly—only to find that their decision is undermined on appeal.
Mr. Pound: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
Mr. Brady: How can I resist?
Mr. Pound: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will get no comedy from me today—this is not a humorous subject. The worst case of a primary school pupil assaulting a teacher was found, on examination, to have behind it the fact that the seven-year-old child involved had been systematically brutalised by his mother and her boyfriend. In fact, the child was simply repeating the behaviour that he had seen that morning. The school was anxious not to exclude the child, even though he had committed a horrendous assault on the teacher. For every terrible case and example that the hon. Gentleman can bring to the Dispatch Box, Members can bring others. Let us try to discuss the generality of the issue, not individual cases.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That was a little long for an intervention.
Mr. Brady: None the less, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His example supports my point—a head teacher took the appropriate action, identified a problem that ran deeper than the superficial difficulties, and tried to respond in a way that would benefit the child concerned. That is welcome and appropriate, and is the kind of good practice that goes on in schools throughout the country every day. It cannot be appropriate to undermine that through appeals panels and Government guidance. The Government must be clearer and more robust in what they say appeals panels ought to do.
Listening to the hon. Member for Ealing, North, I am tempted to refer to just one other hard case to give a measure of what some heads and teachers around the country are dealing with. I shall not name the school in question, but it is the worst case that I have ever encountered. It has had 13 heads over six years. There have been two shootings and a fatal stabbing outside the school gates in the recent past.
Mr. Pound: Eton.
Mr. Brady: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is correct, but I shall not reveal the school's identity. The list of problems goes on, and they are genuine and huge. The Government owe it to parents, teachers and the country to take those problems seriously and to tackle them. Their school discipline policy has been, to date, a massive fraud on the parents of Britain. They have talked tough at every turn, but they always act weakly.
Mr. Pound: Your heart is not in it.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman says that my heart is not in it.
Mr. Sheerman: This is supposed to be a speech, not an exchange between you two.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brady: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), is trying to encourage a dialogue between himself and me.
Mr. Pound: It is a colloquium.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman says that this is a colloquium, but the crucial point, however much Labour

1159
Members try to divert us from it and however much they are not prepared to take it seriously, is that heads and teachers in schools up and down the country are struggling to maintain discipline. The impact on the schools' academic results and on their ability to attract and retain good teaching staff is being severely affected. We must have a clear and robust strategy from the Government, not just a strategy for the press and for broadcasting. It must get through to schools and be able to tackle this pressing problem.
10.37 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I had some severe doubts and felt some trepidation about the debate when I realised that it would be on a Friday because, first, I have to be here on a Friday, which is not my favourite time to be here, and secondly, because it would encourage the type of speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), a gentleman of whom we are all rather fond. He is certainly not unpopular in the House. The bulk of his speech was about some horrific cases, but we would like to have much fuller details, such as what the head teacher did and whether there was immediate exclusion after the violence or an appeals panel. He seemed to link a previous case with a case that was reported only last week.
I welcome the Minister to his job—it was nice to hear him make his first speech at the Dispatch Box—but he is not going to get an easy ride. During the debate, even he fell into the trap a little. Having listened to this debate, which has lasted for more than an hour, one would think that our schools are falling apart because of bad behaviour. That is not the case. This country has successful schools, where pupils learn and get good teaching, and where there is little incidence of poor behaviour. I would love it if Opposition Members would sometimes quote what Ofsted, rather than the Daily Mail, thinks about behaviour. In fact, behaviour is unsatisfactory in only one school in 12, according to Ofsted.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is it not the point that it takes only one or two children to disrupt a class? The fact that, overall, only one in 12 schools has a behavioral problem does not provide an answer for parents whose children's classes are being disrupted by those one or two children.
Mr. Sheerman: I am trying to correct the untrue impression that there is poor behaviour in every school.
Mr. Brady rose—
Mr. Sheerman: I shall not give way for a while; let me get into my speech.
According to Ofsted, only one school in 12 has a problem with poor behaviour. Even small incidents of bad behaviour—and large ones in the 8 per cent. of schools in which that is a problem—can be incredibly disruptive. All my children have attended state schools and have had problems with their studies because they were sitting close to students who were not keen on the lessons. My children have come home and said, "We had an interesting history lesson, but some people in our class would not let the teacher teach." That is to be deplored.
1160
We need a bill of rights or a charter for parents, teachers and pupils, with the centre of a bill of rights for pupils being the right to learn and to get on with their studies.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman thinks that I went too far in my remarks. Is there not a danger that he is sounding complacent? He refers to a tiny minority of cases and schools. How can that possibly explain the 45 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession, citing pupil behaviour as their main reason for doing so? It is a much more widespread problem than he is prepared to accept.
Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech, he will realise that I have great concerns about bad behaviour. I am interested in the ways in which we can interpret and analyse that on the basis of good research, before we bring in policies to try to remedy the situation. There is no doubt that a child's learning will be disrupted when there is bad behaviour in the class.
I have asked consistently—colleagues may ask why I am asking it again—what is most important in education and schooling. It is the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. Anything that disrupts that must be deplored.
When I go around schools—I am not ambulance-chasing here—I hear head after head saying that something happened to the moral standards of this country under Thatcher. There was a moral vacuum; it was a time of "anything goes" materialism and the quick buck. During the Thatcher period moral values seemed to disappear. Something happened in that 18-year period of Conservative rule to undermine all behaviour in all schools, and that is to be deplored. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West ought to visit his schools and speak to some of the older heads who have been around for while about the moral decay of the Thatcher years. I hear about that very often.
There are real problems, and the links to crime are worrying. Statistics from Ofsted and the Home Office show the relationship between poor behaviour and exclusion, and the dreadful cycle of decline into petty crime, more serious crime and prison. What is shameful is our track record of failure in the education of people who are in prison. I am keen that the Select Committee should look at prison education soon, as that subject has only come into our remit since Ofsted was given a role in that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right that the figure of 70,000 people in prison for non-violent offences is far too high. We must track back with prisoners to see what their educational experience was. We must learn from that—what happened to their education and how and why did that occur?
Family background is very important and we can be too politically correct in this House. I visit schools in my constituency and around the country. What kind of behaviour can we expect from the children of the large number of drug addicts in this country? What kind of behaviour can we expect from the children of those affected by that much more common drug, alcohol? There is disruptive and violent behaviour by parents. What is it like to go to school after a night lying in bed hearing your parents fighting and screaming? What sort of misery does that bring to a child? What chance does a child who has been physically and sexually abused have of an

1161
education? We know the statistics. What kind of behaviour can we expect from families with a range of dreadful problems?
There was a disruptive child in a school in my constituency. He never went to bed; he fell asleep in an armchair. He stayed up at night, watching pornographic videos with his parents. What sort of behaviour does that teach a child in terms of his fellow pupils and their parents? There are horror stories, but we must remember the background of many children in our country.
The Minister rightly said that bullying in schools was a dangerous form of bad behaviour. One third of all girls and one quarter of all boys are afraid to go to school at some point because of bullying. That figure comes from the Department for Education and Skills website. Whether it is physical, verbal or indirect bullying—psychological bullying, especially among girls, is very often more damaging than physical bullying—it has a long-lasting effect on people and can result in a loss of confidence and truancy and can adversely affect school achievement, creating a life of misery.
Anti-bullying packs have been sent to all schools and the DFES has produced an excellent website on the theme of "Don't suffer in silence." I do not think that the Minister mentioned that good innovation this morning. Nevertheless, however good these measures are, bullying still occurs far too regularly.
Where I have seen good and well-managed schools, I have seen very little evidence of bullying. The lesson is that good, well-managed schools with consistent policies can, over time, sort out bullying and poor behaviour. We need to tackle the root causes of bullying and other forms of bad behaviour in schools, and we must also support the teaching profession when bullying occurs. How do we begin to improve behaviour? How do we turn bad behaviour into good?
Good behaviour is linked to better attendance rates and better opportunity so that those from deprived backgrounds are not restricted in what they can attain. It is linked also to the wonderful work that the Select Committee has seen on the sure start initiative. The Government are very reluctant to say what the future of sure start is. When the Select Committee considered early years education, we looked at sure start. In terms of breaking the cycle of social deprivation in education, sure start has been extremely successful. It engaged parents, including the pre-birth period involving the pregnant woman and her partner.
We have seen classes promoting the early stimulation of children. We know the importance of playing with, stimulating and massaging the baby. It is important to tell the stories that one assumes every parent in the country knows. I am blessed to have my first grandchild. I got great pleasure only yesterday, seeing her at nine months old, and trying to remember—my wife is much better at it—all the nursery rhymes that form part of our heritage and oral tradition.
Mr. Pound: "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out, out."
Mr. Sheerman: I have not tried that; it is a good one. I do not know whether I will try that when I am jogging her up and down on my knee, but I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
1162
We must talk about tackling the language barriers, about which the Minister was reticent. If a child cannot speak the language, bad behaviour can be a problem as students can become very frustrated. We have been too politically correct for too long about the absolute importance of insisting that new arrivals to this country learn English, which will open up their full potential in their education and in their working lives. For too long, we have been too deferential, saying that it is up to the individual to learn the language. I do not think that the rights and responsibilities of our country should be enjoyed until people can speak the language of this land. In Denmark and Sweden there is an insistence on children and their parents learning English. In Denmark, if immigrant parents do not learn English they do not receive the full benefits.
Mr. Pound: English?
Mr. Sheerman: They do not have all the benefits taken away, but they do not get all of them if they cannot show that they are trying to learn the language of the country. I feel strongly that learning English is important, and it is linked to behaviour.
Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No, I shall not give way, because this is a debate on behaviour. The hon. Gentleman was badly behaved last week, and I am excluding him from intervening on my speeches until I have an apology from him.
Families take their children away from school at particular times in their education, sometimes to disrupt it. Young girls of 13 are taken to Pakistan for long periods, and their language and education are disrupted. That is not good for their education. We need a consistent policy. I ask the Minister to consider language and how difficult it is for schools.
Those of us who are interested in education visit many schools, and we know that there are high pupil turnovers, especially in inner-city schools—not in the leafy suburbs or at Eton, Harrow and Winchester. Those high turnovers are to be found in areas where, according to the statistics published this morning, there are high levels of street crime. In many schools, teachers tell me that they do not know who they will be teaching when they walk into school in the morning. A batch of new pupils has come in and another batch has gone out. What sort of education can be provided in those circumstances, and what behaviour can we expect when students are struggling to understand the lessons because they have poor English? We have underestimated the importance of knowing the language and understanding and communicating better. We need a holistic approach: not short-term, one-off measures, but a policy over years that is much better than the present one.
I do not want to speak for much longer, but I cannot deal with better classroom management in isolation. Good classroom management is as important as good school management. There is a dramatic difference between a classroom in which the teacher understands good classroom management and has been taught the relevant skills, and a classroom in which the teacher does not have those skills. We have an excellent, wonderful teaching

1163
profession. It is important to give teachers good classroom management skills. For too long, we have taken it for granted that it is enough for someone to be a good maths teacher, a good physics teacher or a good language teacher. Only late in the day did we understand that classroom management skills were vital to an understanding of how to regulate and manage behaviour.
There should be dialogue with parents. I was not condemning parents in my earlier remarks: I was just saying that some parents have great problems, which they inflict on their children. Children often have problems at home, but is there anything the school can do to help? Is the link between the school and the parents good enough? Is there enough counselling and support networks for parents? Some of the measures that the Minister told us about are interesting, but some teachers feel that they cannot cope with so many initiatives.
I want to emphasise the quality of teaching. Ofsted has just published an interesting report. It showed that the weaker teachers are given the 11 to 14 year group. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) in the Chamber. The Government are particularly interested in 11 to 14-year-old students, as is the Select Committee on Education and Skills. We are considering that age range because that is when bright kids come out of the primary school system and their interest in education and their attainment reach a plateau or decline. That transitional age is a real problem, because it is when behavioural problems commonly tend to set in.
We must consider closely Ofsted's report last week, which suggested that some of the weaker teachers or supply teachers are shifted into 11 to 14 education. Poor behaviour starts somewhere, and if Ofsted and other experts have identified that 11 to 14 is the crucial age, we must ensure that those children are stimulated and that their interest in education is maintained.
Good management and good teaching are the key to our multifaceted approach, but so is consistency. I make a plea to the Minister and to the Government to ensure that policies are consistent and are carried through. I do not mind initiatives, but I want them to build one on the other and to be consistent over time. Governments owe it to schools to be consistent in their management and policies. Ofsted has shown that successful schools are consistent in their plans and policies, and do not chop and change in short-term programmes. Children must have stability, and need to be supported by effective, long-term policies.
1164
Two areas need particular attention: the 11 to 14 age group and ethnic minority pupils, especially black boys. At a recent seminar with the Select Committee that was held in the House of Commons, Professor David Gillborn said that the behaviour of black children can be misinterpreted and read as aggression, resulting in their being placed in low sets, well below their real ability. Assessing ethnic minority children on the right basis, rather than on the basis of prejudice, is very important. Ofsted says that in black culture what really works is emphasising respect for every pupil.
These may not be all the answers, but I am conscious that a statement will be made at 11 o'clock. I shall end by making an appeal. Good management, policies over time and consistency are what the education system deserves from Ministers, the Government, teachers and heads. There are some good, well-intentioned people in the education sector. I hope that they will take those long-term views and values to heart.
10.58 am
Mr. Phil Willis: I was desperately hoping that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) would carry on for another two minutes.
I tried to intervene on him to help him in that mission. I congratulate the Minister on his opening speech. The Prime Minister was exceedingly wise when he chose him to take up this portfolio. His approach to the debate in covering a wide range of issues is a credit to him, and set a good tone for the whole debate. I thank him for that.
Mr. Pound: But.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should not presume that there was to be a "but". I was about to say that I am delighted that the Government take the problem of homophobic bullying seriously. In 1990, I drew attention to the research paper by Ian Rivers "Social Exclusion, Absenteeism and Sexual Minority Youth Study", which showed that 72 per cent. of young lesbian and gay men and women had experienced extreme bullying at school. That issue is very serious, but has often been clouded by debates about whether advice should be given.
It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Gibraltar
11 am
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Gibraltar.
As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I had planned to be in Madrid this morning for a meeting, under the Brussels process with Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Pique. However, because of the Cabinet changes in Spain this week, the new Foreign Minister, Ana de Palacio, has asked us to postpone the meeting until after the summer, and we have agreed.
Some time ago, I undertook to report to the House before the summer recess on the progress of our talks. Had today's meeting taken place, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe would have made a statement early next week in my absence on a long-arranged visit to the far east. In view of the postponement of today's talks, however, I thought it right to take the first opportunity to report to the House myself.
There has been a dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar for the last 300 years. As the House will be aware, in 1984 the then Conservative Government decided that the only way in which to make progress to resolve the dispute was to talk to Spain about both the practical issues of concern to Gibraltar and the sovereignty issue which mattered to Spain. The so-called Brussels process was thus born.
This Government decided last year to relaunch those negotiations. We did so because we had reached the same conclusion as our predecessors—that the status quo was damaging to Gibraltar, and also damaging to Britain. It is damaging to Gibraltar because Gibraltar will not thrive while the dispute festers and its people have to put up with everyday disruption: queues at the border, insufficient telephones lines, inadequate air services and much else. Moreover, Gibraltar has an uncertain future in isolation from the European Union's single market and the global marketplace, and as tax havens are phased out.
The dispute is also damaging to Britain's interests because we are trying to build a strategic alliance with Spain to help deliver the European Union that we both seek, and because Spain has repeatedly blocked European measures we want—measures, for example, to make air travel safer, flights cheaper and delays shorter.
Above all, the dispute affects the 30,000 Gibraltarians; but it also affects 60 million Britons. It needs to be solved for good. I know that there are those who think we should simply tackle the practical irritants faced by Gibraltarians, but that has been tried for decades and it has failed. The only way of securing a stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar is through a comprehensive and permanent settlement of the dispute, and that means an agreement with Spain on all issues including—as flagged up by the Brussels communiqué itself in 1984—sovereignty.
By taking the latter approach, we have made significant progress towards a solution. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the phases of the process on which we are embarked. In the first phase, the current one, our objective has been to agree the framework—the principles—of a new permanent settlement for Gibraltar. That is what we
1166
have been working on for the past year or so. If and when we were able to reach agreement with Spain on such a framework, we would publish it in a joint declaration—a statement of intent by the two Governments. Thereafter, in the second phase, there would be further detailed negotiations—in which the Government of Gibraltar would again be invited to participate fully—to produce a comprehensive package, including a new draft treaty, based on the principles set out in the joint declaration. The United Kingdom would ratify such a treaty only after securing the consent of the Gibraltarians in a referendum.
After 12 months of negotiation, we and Spain are in broad agreement on many of the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement. They include the principles that Britain and Spain should share sovereignty over Gibraltar—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sell-out!"]—including the disputed territory of the isthmus; that Gibraltar should have more internal self-government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sell-out!"]—that Gibraltar should retain its British traditions, customs and way of life; that Gibraltarians should retain the right to British nationality, and should gain the right to Spanish nationality as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Surrender!"]—that Gibraltar should retain its institutions—its Government, House of Assembly, courts and police service; and that Gibraltar could, if it chose, participate fully in the European Union single market and other EU arrangements. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
Mr. Straw: Her Majesty's Government believe that a settlement along those lines would offer Gibraltar and its people a great prize. It would mean greater freedom for the people of Gibraltar to make decisions affecting their lives, and to live, work and travel without constraints anywhere in the region and beyond. It would mean greater prosperity and more jobs—from new opportunities to trade freely in the European Union, from the investment that would come if the dispute were settled, and with the prospect of millions of pounds of EU funding to help. It would mean a better quality of life, with improved telephone and transport services, a cleaner and healthier environment, a better infrastructure and faster communications. And it would mean a long-term, settled future: it would mean preserving Gibraltar's links with Britain, while developing a new and successful relationship with Spain.
I profoundly believe that such a future is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar; but, as I have stressed many times, it is not in the end a decision for me or even for the House. The decision rests with the people of Gibraltar. If we and Spain can, after taking stock, reach agreement on the kind of framework that I have outlined, and if thereafter all parties can build on those principles to produce a comprehensive settlement, the whole package will be put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum and they will decide.
We had hoped to reach agreement with Spain by the summer, but I have also made clear many times that no deal is better than a bad deal. There have been distinct "red lines" throughout this process.
We and Spain have not yet resolved all differences. In respect of the duration of co-sovereignty, we must have a permanent settlement. Co-sovereignty cannot be just a stepping stone to full Spanish sovereignty, however long

1167
delayed. I know and understand that Spain has a long-standing historical aspiration to regain full sovereignty one day, but any agreement between us and Spain must be permanent. Gibraltar must have certainty. As for the British military facilities, we have made it clear that our current arrangements should continue.
Unless we and Spain can resolve the outstanding issues, there will plainly be no agreement. Our aim, however, remains to overcome them if we can. We must remember that Spain too has interests. It too has politics; it too has history. The departing Spanish Foreign Minister, Josep Pique, has conducted the negotiations throughout with honesty, dignity and integrity, and I pay tribute to him. I am confident that his successor, Ana de Palacio, will wish to continue in the same spirit.
I hope that the people of Gibraltar will be able to reflect over the summer on the progress that we and Spain have made to date. I am glad to say that there is already some new thinking in Gibraltar. I have been struck by the readiness of some people there to think constructively about the future. Gibraltar's Chief Minister, Mr. Peter Caruana, has himself long been committed to dialogue with Spain, and I have always wanted him in the talks alongside me, and free to represent Gibraltar. That offer from the United Kingdom and Spain still stands, under the long-standing "two flags, three voices" formula. I believe that this and the phased process that I have described provide both the safety and the dignity that Mr. Caruana seeks for his participation, so that Gibraltar's voice can be heard in the negotiations as well as outside.
After 12 months of negotiations, we are now closer than ever before to overcoming 300 years of fraught history and securing a satisfactory outcome to a process established 19 years ago by the Conservative Government of whom the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, was a member. The chance of a better future for Gibraltar—more stable, more secure and more prosperous—is too important to let slip. We shall continue to seek an agreement, but it must be one that is acceptable to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum. That is the basis on which I commend our policy to the House.
Mr. Michael Ancram: The statement is a disgrace and a sell-out. We understand the reasons for the postponement of the talks in Madrid today. Indeed, we formally welcome the new Foreign Minister, Ana de Palacio, and hope that she will be more sensitive to the concerns of the people of Gibraltar than her predecessor was.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me 20 minutes' sight of what is a detailed statement with deep implications. For the moment, I can do no more than respond in general terms. We will wish to study it in great detail before we respond more fully. It would have been better to hold it over until next week and to give us more notice of it, even if the Minister for Europe had to make the statement. It would have been better to make the statement before a fuller House than the rather small House that is always here on a Friday. I do not like ascribing conspiratorial motives to the Foreign Secretary but I suspect that it is not an accident that he chose to make the statement on a Friday.
The key to the Foreign Secretary's statement is his admission that the British and Spanish Governments are in broad agreement to "share sovereignty over Gibraltar".
1168
That is what we have feared has long been being cooked up in the dishonourable talks that have taken place over these past months behind closed doors. Today's statement is yet another shabby step in what has been from the start a shabby and dishonourable process.
Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the Foreign Secretary clearly gave the Spanish Government the impression at the outset that he could deliver a sell-out on sovereignty. Right from the start, the Minister for Europe sought to bully and to intimidate the Government and people of Gibraltar. He mocked the size of their population. He accused them of being stuck in the past. He threatened that they would be left behind if they did not cave in to the Government's determination to betray them. That hectoring tone continued in the statement today.
When will the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues realise that this issue is not about our relations with Spain? It is about the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar, who have no representation in this House and rightly look to the British Government to represent their best interests. Does he not understand that democracy is about consent freely and democratically given and not about consent sought under duress, threat and deliberate financial pressure?
Does the Foreign Secretary not understand that his broad agreement to share sovereignty is a betrayal of the people of Gibraltar? Does he really not understand after his visit to the Rock the true feeling of the people of Gibraltar whose interests he is supposed to represent? Does he not understand that sovereignty shared is sovereignty surrendered, that the people of Gibraltar will not vote to surrender their British sovereignty, and that they will be right not to do so?
Why cannot the Foreign Secretary accept that the process that he has outlined today is doomed? Why will he not learn the lessons from Northern Ireland and guarantee that in future such talks will be genuinely three-sided, with the Government of Gibraltar properly represented and able to make their own case?
Why will the Foreign Secretary not accept that agreements on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, broad or otherwise, should never be concluded with Spain without the consent of the people of Gibraltar, freely and democratically given, before rather than after such agreement has been reached? Will he explain why he is attempting to divide the sovereignty over the military interests in Gibraltar from the sovereignty of Gibraltar as a whole? Will he assure us that in future the full agenda of talks, and the limits within which they are taking place, will be fully and openly disclosed?
I call on the Foreign Secretary to suspend the current round of talks, and to set about reconstituting them on the basis of an agenda that excludes sovereignty, upon which agreement cannot be reached, and deals instead with those issues relating to the normalisation of relations between Spain and Gibraltar, upon which agreement might be reached.
Does the Foreign Secretary not accept that these talks have been a humiliating episode for his Government? He has achieved the impossible. He has upset the Spaniards, he has infuriated the people of Gibraltar, he has shamed himself and his Government, and at the same time he has nothing to show for it. Will he now stop playing with

1169
Gibraltar's sovereignty, call off the talks and start repaying the loyalty of the people of Gibraltar to Britain by demonstrating a little loyalty to them in return?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman begins by making what I can only describe as an absurd complaint—that I as Secretary of State have taken the first opportunity to come to the House to make a statement. I was available to make a statement today because I was not in Madrid. I am sure that, had I not used this opportunity and had my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made a statement quite late in the afternoon next week in what will be a very busy week in the House, the right hon. Gentleman would have made the opposite complaint—that I was not here to make a statement because I was in the far east.
I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I remind him that he was a member of the Government who began the process of which I am giving a staging-post statement.
Michael Fabricant: We never did anything like this.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that the Conservatives never did anything like this. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Falklands?"] If we look at the history in relation to Gibraltar, the difference between us and the Conservative party is that in 1969 it was a Labour Government who gave the solemn undertaking that there would be no changes in sovereignty without a referendum. As we now know from the Public Records Office, just two years later, when the ink was barely dry on that undertaking, it was a Conservative Government, led by the then Foreign Secretary Lord Home, who were determined to hand over the whole sovereignty of the Rock under a 999-year lease without any referendum whatever.
It does not lie well in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman or Conservative Members to complain about the fact that sovereignty has been discussed in these talks, because sovereignty was at the heart of the Brussels agreement. It is there in the text and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Then he comes out with the most extraordinary proposition that sovereignty shared is sovereignty surrendered. I do not accept that for a second. We have shared some of our sovereignty with a large number of organisations, including multinational organisations such as NATO, where our ability to exercise control over our future is strengthened by sharing sovereignty. That is one of the paradoxes of sovereignty that the Conservative party has never been able to understand.
The truth is—this is recognised implicitly by virtually everyone to whom I have talked in Gibraltar—that shared sovereignty would lead to more control for Gibraltarians over their own lives. Behind the bluster that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman, there is inherent confusion and contradiction. On the one hand, he asks us to abandon a process and negotiations begun by his own Government when he was a member of that Government; on the other, he says that there should be genuine three-sided talks, as in Northern Ireland. The only difference between what happened in Northern Ireland and what is happening here
1170
is that in the end in Northern Ireland, one of the three sides decided to take part in talks; it took a great deal of encouragement before it did so.
There is on the table an open invitation to Mr. Peter Caruana and the Government of Gibraltar to take part in these talks. I discussed that with Mr. Caruana this time last year. He laid down certain conditions, which I got the Spanish Government to accept. He could safely be involved in exactly the way that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of Gibraltar seek. I am sorry that Mr. Caruana has not so far done so, but there is this difference between Mr. Caruana and some Conservative Members: at least Mr. Caruana recognises, as he has said publicly, that there is a dispute with Spain and that there needs to be dialogue. Nothing that I have heard from the right hon. Gentleman has ever posed any alternative but talks with Spain to try to resolve the dispute. The dispute is a fact. Spain is a fact. The current difficulties which Gibraltarians suffer as a result of the dispute are also facts, and we are seeking to find a way through them that ensures dignity for Gibraltarians and that they have the final say.
The last piece of absurd confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's bluster was his suggestion that we should put to the people of Gibraltar the consequences of the negotiations before the negotiations had been completed. That is exactly what he said. It is the most absurd proposition from the right hon. Gentleman in a whole series of utterly ridiculous propositions. He should read yesterday's editorial in the Gibraltar Chronicle. In place of the nonsense that we heard from him, it says that it is time for Gibraltar to adopt a fresh approach and a positive agenda. It ends with the following words, which I am sure could be directed at the right hon. Gentleman:
"Let us not resign ourselves to a draining inertia or hallucinogenic escapades."
That well sums up the response that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary heard the cry, "Falklands" during his response to the shadow Foreign Secretary. He may remember that there were extensive discussions about the sovereignty of the Falklands before the Argentinians made the mistake of the military invasion of the Falkland Islands under the then Conservative Government. May I offer my general support for the process in which the Foreign Secretary has been engaged?
In the course of his statement he repeated once again the proposition with which one would hope the whole House would agree, that no deal would be better than a bad deal. May I ask him about what he described as red-line issues? Does he agree that there can be no deal if Spain is unwilling to abandon its claim for full sovereignty, if the United Kingdom cannot enjoy precisely the same military facilities and for as long as we wish and if it is not a matter of agreement between Spain and the United Kingdom that the issue should be finally resolved by a referendum of the people of Gibraltar? Taken singly or cumulatively, are not these issues upon which there can be no compromise?

1171
Finally, does the Foreign Secretary have a mind to the fact that the negotiations cannot acquire some timeless nature? There has to be some time limit. I do not suggest today that he should offer a final point at which they have to be concluded, but I urge him to understand that the continuing nature of the negotiations must inevitably bring uncertainty and the sooner that uncertainty is resolved, the better.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks and for his constructive approach. I noted the discomfort of the Opposition when he dared to mention the Falklands. I was in the House at the time of that utter debacle. I also remind the House of the approach taken by the Conservative party in 1971, which was to dispatch Gibraltar to the Spanish under a 999-year lease without any referendum whatsoever.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Thirty years ago.
Mr. Straw: They say that it was 30 years ago, but it is the same Conservative party. We know that when it comes to selling out British interests the Tories have not changed. We know about their Pol Pot syndrome, where they keep bringing forward year zero to try to encourage the country to go in for collective amnesia, but it does not work—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to what the Secretary of State is saying.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about red-line issues relating to full sovereignty, military facilities and the referendum. The answer to his question is that any one of those amounts to a red-line issue; it does not require all of them together. As I said in my statement, we have to have a solution based on shared sovereignty and we have made that clear throughout the talks. I have said publicly, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, that conceding total sovereignty to Spain was never on the agenda and that the United Kingdom Government would never agree it. That would be inconsistent with the Brussels process while shared sovereignty is fully consistent and implicit in the Brussels process.
On the military facilities, I have no need to repeat what I said a moment ago about the referendum. We have made it clear to the Spanish Government that the referendum is a fact. Their approach has yet to be put precisely in terms that we have agreed, but they have always acknowledged that fact, as they need to.
On the issue of time, I cannot give a precise time scale and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not asking me to do so. There needs to be some time limit. It is likely that we would have been further forward had there been a meeting of the Brussels process today. There was not, but I look forward to arranging one in the early autumn
1172
so that we can have a further meeting in Madrid as was planned for today. Then, of course, there will be a full report to the House.
Donald Anderson: May I commend to the shadow Foreign Secretary and to those engaged in the foolish chorus of "no surrender" and "sell-out"—
Michael Fabricant: Quisling.
Donald Anderson: And "quisling" indeed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The remark of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is completely out of order.
Michael Fabricant: If it is technically out of order, of course I withdraw it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a technicality. That statement is out of order.
Michael Fabricant: I withdraw it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
Donald Anderson: I recommend to the others that raised that foolish chorus that they have a certain humility. May I suggest that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) reads the Franks report on the Falklands, the leaseback position put then by the Conservative Government and their proposals in respect of sovereignty of Gibraltar? Historians will decide whether this new initiative by the Government under the Brussels process was indeed misguided and doomed from the start or a brave attempt to deal with real issues and concentrate minds on the way to an eventual permanent solution. What is clear, as the Foreign Affairs Committee saw during our very recent visit to Gibraltar, is that there is a substantial degree of mistrust by the people of Gibraltar in respect of this current initiative and indeed that has been fuelled in part by provocative statements by individual Ministers. So may I recommend to my right hon. Friend that he uses this period of reflection constructively to seek to lower the temperature and find confidence-building measures to build bridges with the people of Gibraltar?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course I am aware of the views of most people in Gibraltar about this. I too visited Gibraltar and received an interesting reception. Yes, we should use this period which has come up by chance because of the Cabinet changes in Spain and I look forward to helping to build the confidence of the Gibraltarians in this process. I have two comments for my right hon. Friend. First, no one who acknowledges that there is a dispute with Spain which causes all sorts of practical problems for the people of Gibraltar has yet come up with proposals as to how these can be resolved other than through a dialogue.
Secondly, I wanted Chief Minister Caruana and the Government of Gibraltar to be represented in these talks from the start. I believe that the conditions that I negotiated with Spain—the so-called two flags, three voices arrangement—fully met the conditions that

1173
Mr. Caruana initially imposed. Had he been involved in the talks, their consequences would necessarily have been different because they would have involved three parties rather than two. We had agreed that we would hold these talks—that was an agreement between the two Governments as long ago as 1984. I have sought to ensure that Mr. Caruana has been informed about the progress of the talks, but it would be better all round if he were willing to say, "Yes. I have always been up for dialogue with Spain. There is a dispute and this represents an opportunity for me to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar." Again I can give Mr. Caruana a complete undertaking that he would be as free to represent the interests of the people of Gibraltar in the talks as he always has been outside them.
Sir John Stanley: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that during the Foreign Affairs Committee's visit to Gibraltar the week before last when we met every political party, the trade unions, every conceivable community group, people at random on the streets and patiently sitting stationary in their cars during the Spanish obstruction on the border, neither I—nor, I believe, any other member of the Committee—was able to find a single person on the Rock who was prepared to say that they would vote in favour of the Government's joint sovereignty proposal.
Given that it is blindingly clear that the people of Gibraltar will in no conceivable circumstance vote in favour of the Government's deeply misguided policy of joint sovereignty, surely the only sensible course is to abandon that policy, and to abandon it now.
Mr. Straw: I am not aware directly of the right hon. Gentleman's experience in Gibraltar, but it will come as no great surprise to Members of the House, particularly those who have visited Gibraltar. He asks whether I am aware that not a single person would be prepared to vote in favour of the shared sovereignty proposal. There is no shared sovereignty proposal to be put to the people of Gibraltar yet. Let me make it clear that what we seek to do is to resolve all the disputes with Spain. They include the question of sovereignty.
I have been open about that from the start, as indeed were the Government of whom the shadow Foreign Secretary was a member back in 1984. The question of sovereignty has always been on the agenda. It is impossible to conceive of why it was on the agenda unless one of the likely conclusions was that there would be shared sovereignty. The Conservative party was signed up to that principle, we have accepted it in principle. However, any agreement—any joint declaration, but any subsequent detailed agreement, including the treaty—would seek to resolve everything together.
My belief is that if we could get there, we would have a package of proposals that would make a real difference to the people of Gibraltar, and if we had a process of discussion in which the Government of Gibraltar would have to be involved, that would change perceptions. That is my belief, but in any event it was going to be some time down the track.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I never thought the day would
1174
come that he would make a statement, practically every word of which I disagreed with? Is he further aware that many Labour Members will not go along with what he is doing and that just as this House, of which I was a Member at the time, would not accept the sell-out of the Falklands by the Tory Government, so we shall not accept the sell-out of Gibraltar by a Labour Government?
May I point out to my right hon. Friend that Mr. Pique, who has just been sacked, said that whatever agreement Britain made with Spain on joint sovereignty, Spain would never give up its claim to total sovereignty? The Spanish Government treat the people of Gibraltar so oppressively now, when they have British sovereignty, that one wonders how they will treat them if they get their hands on them, even under joint sovereignty. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the restrictions on the people of Gibraltar could be removed now as a sign of good will by the Spanish Government and that although they want to cozen this Government, they have no genuine goodwill towards the people of Gibraltar?
My right hon. Friend says that the people of Gibraltar would enjoy Spanish as well as British sovereignty. Is he not proud that the people of Gibraltar are so proud to be British that they do not want to touch Spanish sovereignty, that they want to be British, just as they were British during the war when a fascist Spanish Government fought against this country? It is about time the Government abandoned these talks.
Mr. Straw: I regret that my right hon. Friend disagrees about this, because we are genuine friends and normally agree on matters. Of course I am aware of some of the sentiment in the House, but I also believe that, in our party and in the Liberal Democrat party, there is widespread support for this process. My right hon. Friend says that the restrictions should be removed tomorrow. I understand that; I do not wish to see the restrictions there for a second longer than they should be—and they should not be there. In saying that, however, he admits that there are matters of deep concern to the Gibraltarians about how they are treated by the Spanish Government. If that is accepted, I am afraid that the next conclusion is inevitable: we must have a dialogue with Spain to resolve those difficulties. That is what we are engaged in.
There was a time when it was thought that the way to resolve those difficulties was simply by taking each individual problem in turn. That does not work, and has not worked. That was why the previous Government, in 1984, decided—it will be recalled if the Commons record is seen—with approbation from the then Labour Opposition to engage in the process of negotiation with Spain. We are continuing with it.
Finally, my right hon. Friend talked about shared Spanish sovereignty for individuals. I think that he meant shared Spanish citizenship.
Mr. Kaufman: Yes, citizenship.
Mr. Straw: What I would say on that is this: early in these negotiations we established that it was absolutely fundamental that Gibraltarians would retain their right to British citizenship in any event. That has been accepted. In addition, they would be offered, if they so chose, Spanish citizenship as well.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, whatever its validity in the past, the

1175
Brussels process is no longer appropriate? The talks should cease now. Is not the change in Foreign Minister in Spain the best opportunity to stop them?
Does the Foreign Secretary also accept that, whatever his personal intentions and motives, he gives the impression that he is more interested in the rights—claimed or otherwise—of the kingdom of Spain than he is of those of the British citizens who live and work in Gibraltar? Does he accept that he would be better employed now in actively protecting and pressing the rights and interests of the United Kingdom, including the people of Gibraltar, and dealing with Spain on matters upon which our two countries can agree? Surely it is right that the agreement that he intends to reach with Spain should not be brought into being until after he has consulted and reached a firm view about the views of the people of Gibraltar. To do it the other way around, as he currently intends, is to leave the people of Gibraltar in a state of uncertainty, which is not fair on them.
Mr. Straw: Let me deal directly with the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, because it is a serious one. I am glad to note that he at least accepts the validity of the Brussels process up to now, even if there is a difference across the Chamber as to whether it should be continued. His last point is fundamental. I can reassure him that we have always made it clear that no agreement would be put in place without the positive consent of the people of Gibraltar. However, there is an issue about how one gets there.
Mr. Caruana says that there should be a dialogue: we are engaged in a dialogue. He says that there is a dispute: we are trying to have a dialogue to resolve the dispute. We cannot know the conclusions of the negotiations until the negotiations are concluded. I wanted Mr. Caruana in the room. I hope very much that the Conservative party will join the Liberal Democrats and me in telling him that it is safe for him to be involved in the negotiations. To this day, I simply have no comprehension of why he decided not to join in the negotiations, because he would have been, and still would be, a free man in those negotiations to agree or disagree as he wanted.
The purpose of the negotiations is to come forward with a proposition. Because Mr. Caruana was unwilling to take part in the negotiations, we had to have them bilaterally between the two Governments. That was why we decided on the approach of a joint declaration, which would be a framework that would then be the subject of tri-lateral negotiations, outside the Brussels process, with the Government of Gibraltar. Only at the end of that could we pin down an agreement in treaty language, which would then be put to the people of Gibraltar.
I understand the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes about the current degree of uncertainty, but it is critical that before we ask the people of Gibraltar to vote, they know exactly what they are voting for. That is why we have this careful process.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I have great respect for the views and vision of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but at times we all make bad decisions and mistakes. Surely the time has now come to recognise that what we have done with the Brussels process has been a mistake and has not been best handled.
We can come up with all the arguments in the world. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that it would be better if Gibraltar were to be represented, but it
1176
is not, and we can come up with all the reasons why it is not. The bottom line, however, is that had Gibraltar had the power of veto, it might then have attended the talks. It did not attend because it did not have a veto. The time has come to end the talks, sit back and think about where we go from here. We say that the people of Gibraltar will have the right to free access to Spain, but not all of them have access to Spain now. Many people in Gibraltar are not allowed to cross the border into Spain.
Those are some of the reasons why we should not continue down this road. The bottom line is that if we want to come up with a useful agreement for Gibraltar, it should be about open access, allowing it into the single skies agreement and reintroducing the ferry across to Algeciras. All the wrongs that have been done should be put right before we continue.
The other bottom line is that we should never capitulate to a bully, because the moment we do that we will never secure the rights of the people of Gibraltar and ensure that they have freedom. Please lift the sword of Damocles from over the heads of the people of Gibraltar as quickly as possible.
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is a good friend of mine, but I must say that he just made the case, very eloquently, for the negotiations.
Michael Fabricant: No, he did not.
Mr. Straw: He did. He drew attention to a long list of problems suffered by the people of Gibraltar, including access to Spain and to the single skies. The only way of resolving those problems is by dialogue with Spain, which is what we are seeking to achieve.
Mr. Roger Gale: Surely the Foreign Secretary must understand by now why many of us in the House and the people of Gibraltar have no confidence in his part in the negotiations. The Government do not have a glowing record on enforcement. They failed to enforce the Sangatte protocol, to restore freight trains between England and France and to enforce the legitimate export of beef to France. Many of us have expressed real concern about infringements of law by Spain that directly affect the free movement of people between Gibraltar and Spain. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the talks, I suppose that is up to him, but he is doing so in the certain knowledge that the people of Gibraltar will ultimately reject them in any case. In the meantime, what is he doing to enforce the law as it stands or as he, practically alone, would like it to stand?
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a contest about which Government have been more effective inside the European Union, it is one that my party would win hands down every time. He talks about Sangatte. As my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, a little humility might be appropriate from the Conservatives, because the mother and father of the problems at Sangatte, about which I know a great deal, is the fact that they signed up to the Dublin agreement and tore up an effective operational bilateral agreement for the return of asylum seekers.

1177
It is worth bearing in mind the remarks of a distinguished former chairman of the Conservative party, who recently said:
"The concessions Labour are considering are the same ones John Major's conservative government was willing to make. In politics it is important that parties do not lose their sense of history. Some of this criticism expresses an out of date and completely obsolete vision of Spain."
Andrew Mackinlay: I am not very impressed with the yah-boo nature of this interchange. From either Front Bench we have heard that the other is to blame, but those of us who are consigned to the wilderness have an historic role: to press a Government, of whatever colour, to resist appeasement and stiffen their sinews against the bully.
Mr. MacGregor of the southern European department of the Foreign Office took the Polish ambassador to the Court of St. James down to Gibraltar to discuss the 60th anniversary next year of the death of General Sikorski—a great Polish hero who was killed off Gibraltar. What was the Foreign Secretary's reaction when he heard that Spain had said to the Polish Government during the Spanish presidency that it was not a good idea, if Poland was interested in acceding to the European Union, to aggravate Spanish feeling by participating in those important commemorations for the Poles and the Gibraltarians, as well as the United Kingdom people?
Spain has been consistently bullying, and it is time we stood up to it. Many of the things that the Foreign Secretary referred to in his statement are not things that can be given to the people of Gibraltar—they are matters of right. It is time that he and others stood up with vigour to prosecute and promote the best interests of Gibraltarians, Britons and others in the European Union who want free mobility in and out of Gibraltar, and free commerce. What he has embarked on will not succeed. It is more likely that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will seek election to the papacy than that a Spanish Foreign Minister will agree in perpetuity to joint sovereignty.
Mr. Straw: I do not know anything at all about the General Sikorski anniversary. I have a Polish community in my constituency, however, and it is entirely appropriate that they should be able to mark it, so I will look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend talked about promoting the best interests of the people of Gibraltar and encouraging commerce. I agree with that, but he and other hon. Members have not told us how we are to do that but for a dialogue, to which Mr. Caruana has himself signed up. [Interruption.] Now the shadow Foreign Secretary says that he is in favour of dialogue. In that case, what on earth is he complaining about?
Mr. David Tredinnick: I fear that the Foreign Secretary has got so excited at the Dispatch Box this morning that he may be in need of some homoeopathic medicine for his blood pressure.
The Foreign Secretary said that an argument for shared sovereignty is that there are insufficient telephone lines. That is absolutely amazing. He should have a word with
1178
my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). We have satellite communication now. How can he possibly say that we need shared sovereignty to deal with insufficient telephone lines and get faster communications? He then implied that 60 million Britons will be as affected as 30,000 Gibraltarians. That is patent nonsense. He has not referred to the absolute hypocrisy of the Spanish position on Ceuta and Melilla, two Spanish colonies on the north African coast that the Spanish Government have not the slightest intention of giving up. If they want sovereignty negotiations over Gibraltar, they should be talking about giving up those colonies, which they grabbed many years ago.
Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the last point first. There is a dispute between Spain and Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla, but the treaty basis for those enclaves is different from that for Gibraltar. Had it been the fact that article 10 of the treaty of Utrecht had provided for Britain to have sovereignty for ever, without the provisos that the article contains, the position would have been different. The treaty of Utrecht applies only to the Rock, and there is a much livelier dispute about sovereignty over the isthmus, which is another issue that has to be resolved in the negotiations.
It is the people of Gibraltar who have said that they want more telephone lines from the Spanish to resolve some problems that they have had in running their businesses. I happen to agree with them, and to believe that dialogue is the way of achieving that.
Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Foreign Secretary understand and accept that self-determination and freedom are not negotiable, as they are a matter of principle? Does he therefore accept that it is insulting and offensive to the free people of Gibraltar that he seeks to come to a deal on sovereignty over their heads and without their consent?
Mr. Straw: It cannot conceivably be over their heads. Opposition Members are tilting at windmills. The Brussels process, supported and activated by the last Conservative Government, laid down that sovereignty was a key part of the discussion, but nothing can be decided over the heads of the Gibraltarians because of the undertaking that a Labour Government, not a Tory Government, gave in 1969.
Mr. Mark Francois: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is entirely typical of the way in which the negotiations have been conducted that the statement has been sneaked out on a Friday morning, when most hon. Members are back in their constituencies on constituency business? Does he accept that it is a sell-out of the people of Gibraltar? That is how it will be perceived, however the Government attempt to spin it. Does the Foreign Secretary also accept that it will cause anxiety in the Falkland Islands—the difference is that the Argentine Government do not have votes to trade in the European Union, as the Spanish Government do?
May I put three specific points to the Foreign Secretary? First, as he has intimated today, broad agreement has already been reached with the Spanish Government, so when does he anticipate that a copy of the agreement or joint declaration will eventually be made available, including to hon. Members? Secondly, the

1179
Foreign Secretary has visited Gibraltar and knows full well that there is no prospect whatever that the people of Gibraltar will vote for an agreement that will result in shared sovereignty with Spain. Everyone has known that all along. That being the case, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what is really behind the agreement? What have we been promised in return by the Spanish Government for going along with it? What votes have we been promised in the EU and what—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going on far too long.
Mr. Straw: The idea that I sneaked out the statement at 11 o'clock on a Friday is absurd. The moment I knew that the Spanish Foreign Minister had been moved from his post, I decided to make a statement and communicated that fact to Front-Bench spokesmen and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, so they were well aware of my intentions.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) asked when a copy of the joint declaration would be made available, and I am glad to hear that he thinks that is a good idea. We shall do so when there is one, but there is not one, as I have been trying to explain. There may not he one, but I think that there probably will be.
As for the Falklands, the hon. Gentleman was not in the House in 1982, but I was. The history of the Falklands is one that we shall certainly not follow. There was an effort at backstairs deals with no negotiation or involvement whatsoever with the people of the Falklands; there was a readiness by the Government of whom the shadow Foreign Secretary was a member to hand over the Falklands, without any veto whatever being given to the people of the Falklands. Contrast that with our position on Gibraltar, on which we have said from the start that of course we respect the commitment that we gave—not them—to ensure that any final decisions are put to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Am I right to say that both Ceuta and Melilla, the two sovereign
1180
Spanish enclaves off the Moroccan coast, are represented in the Spanish Parliament and, indeed, the EU? The Foreign Secretary has spoken a great deal about the democratic wishes of the Gibraltarians. Surely the time has now come to make sure that they have proper representation both in Westminster, probably with two MPs, and in the EU.
Mr. Straw: On the European Union, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of our commitment to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and ensure representation by attachment to a United Kingdom constituency in the European Parliament. The other issue that he raised is interesting. Essentially, he is proposing that Gibraltar should become directly a part of the United Kingdom. In that case, the Government of Gibraltar would obviously have to become a local authority and accept completely the current laws of the UK as they apply. People in Gibraltar have never put that to me; if it is a proposition, we shall obviously look at it.
Michael Fabricant: Whatever the rights and wrongs of making the statement on a Friday, does the Secretary of State not think that he has learned something today? With the exception of one Labour Member, not one Member in the Chamber could give him any comfort whatsoever. Do I have to remind him that a former shadow Foreign Secretary said that he could not agree with a single word of the Foreign Secretary? Does he not think that the whole process of negotiation in Gibraltar, as elsewhere with other European Union countries, has been characterised by his Department's surrender and weakness? This is not a policy of flying two flags. It is a policy of flying one flag, as ever, as the Minister for Europe knows full well—the white flag.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman asked about comfort. I have to tell him that his interventions always provide me with comfort.

Behaviour Improvement in Schools
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
11.56 am
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an interesting statement from the Foreign Secretary, but have you received notice that the Home Secretary will make a statement today, given that we have just heard that the Government's crime policy has resulted in a 28 per cent. rise in crime and the lowest detection rates ever? That is a huge indictment of Government policy to be tough on crime and tough on causes of crime. The Foreign Secretary has come to the House, but where is the Home Secretary?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I have not had any notice of that. The hon. Gentleman can make his comments at a more appropriate time.
11.57 am
Mr. Willis: As I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he opened the debate and for raising the issue of homophobic bullying. Contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), have focused on the value of education and what education is about. I do not know whether Members had a chance last night to see the interview between Michael Parkinson and Nelson Mandela in South Africa in connection with the sports aid programme. The interview was particularly interesting because it showed that Nelson Mandela and the South African people had a thirst for education that could not be satisfied. Our youngsters have access to what is arguably one of the world's highest quality education systems, despite its flaws, yet here we are, discussing how we can get them in and engage them, while in other parts of the world, particularly in southern Africa, tens of thousands of youngsters have no education at all and face an incredibly uncertain future.
Mr. Djanogly: It is interesting that we are filling our schools with foreign teachers because of the lack of our own. I note the enormous numbers that are coming over from South Africa. Given the hon. Gentleman's comments, that must be a problem for the South Africans.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that intervention. I have raised the same issue in the House on a number of occasions. It is deplorable that, because of appalling management of the teacher supply, we have to denude the countries of sub-Saharan Africa of teachers—countries where they are most needed—to make up our shortfall. I hope that the Government will return to the issue, but I shall not pursue it today.
As hon. Members know, I spent not just one year before I went to university, but 34 years in classrooms. Apart from four years when I was deputy head in a boys' grammar school, which, I am delighted to say, was becoming a comprehensive, all my time in education was spent at the sharp end, dealing with youngsters from challenging homes and circumstances. I say to the House in all humility that in all that time, the children did not
1182
change. They were exactly the same when I left teaching in 1997 as they were when I started in 1963. What changed was society around them. We should always try to get that in perspective.
There have always been disruptive and violent pupils in our schools; the idea that they have suddenly appeared over the past two or three years is nonsense. I met violent and disruptive pupils, and I met violent and disruptive parents. Although I was attacked only once by a violent parent, who hit me over the head with an umbrella, having ambushed me at the bottom of the stairs, I know that a number of my colleagues encountered real difficulties from time to time.
I should also say that I remember my very first day at school and a disruptive child aged five. The little boy was going off to Rosehill primary school. His mother had bought him a new coat, but it was raining when he went to school, so his old coat was put on top of his new coat. The teacher met him at the school gates, sent his mother away, took him inside and said, "Will you take your coat off?", to which the little boy said, "No. My mother says I have to keep it on to protect my new coat." The teacher grabbed hold of the child and shook him rather violently to get his coat off, at which point he stood on her foot rather violently and ran out of school.
Later that day, my father caused me to go back and make humble apologies, but the point of telling the tale is to illustrate that many children are temporarily involved in disruptive behaviour—a one-off incident, or a small incident. We must recognise that from time to time children growing up in all sorts of environments stray from the strait and narrow.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting example and makes a powerful point, but does he accept that there is a difference between such an incident at a primary school, and one involving some hulking great brute of 17 years of age in a secondary school?
Mr. Willis: Of course. I merely wanted to show that we should not get incidents of disruptive behaviour out of perspective, and we should not believe that the problem is new; it is on-going. Sadly, what is new is that many youngsters today have an anarchistic view of authority: authority is there to be opposed. Many of their parents come with exactly the same view, whether towards school, the benefits office, the housing office or wherever.
I want to emphasise, and I hope that the Minister will accept, that we do not have a universal breakdown of discipline in our schools. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, who spoke for the Conservatives, gave some horrific examples, but they are exceptional. The vast majority of our schools do not have that awful problem.
We cannot look at school discipline without looking at the whole issue of discipline in society. As many hon. Members know, my daughter was attacked recently on the streets of Kennington, just for the sake of a mobile phone. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffered a fairly brutal attack. That is becoming quite common. In one month in Lambeth and Brixton there were 17,000 such incidents. It is a major problem.

1183
Let us consider the examples that our young people are given in, for example, popular television series such as "Men Behaving Badly" or even the one with those wonderful ladies, Joanna Lumley and co—
Mr. Pound: "Absolutely Fabulous".
Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
There is a relish and glorification in the appalling behaviour depicted in those programmes, but in schools such behaviour is out of order. We now have a laddish culture on our streets. There was an appalling report of City brokers—highly educated young men and, I presume, young women—who trawl the sex bars of London and regard that as normal behaviour. They are as heavily involved in the drug culture as are the youth on our streets. Let us not simply think that the only people involved in the drug problem are youngsters in poor communities. That is nonsense and we must understand that.
It also horrifies me that the behaviour of footballers such as the two from Leeds United has been glorified. The club, which I support and have supported for many years, should have set an example by condemning such behaviour.
There is no doubt that discipline in schools is becoming worse and more polarised, as is evident from the number of exclusions, up 11 per cent. between 1999–2000 and 2000–01. I think that the Minister will accept that it was a gross mistake for the previous Secretary of State to have issued a target to reduce exclusions—that was a nonsense of a policy. Schools supported that, but discipline and heads' authority in schools was undermined.
The House should know that the greatest rise in permanent exclusions occurred under the previous Conservative Government. Between 1993 and 1998, permanent exclusions rose from 3,000 to 13,000, an increase of more than 400 per cent. Let us not give the impression, as Conservative Front Benchers sometimes do, that those exclusions are the result of the failure of this Government and of schools. They have been rising for many years, and that is something with which all of us, irrespective of our political persuasions, must deal.
The Keele university study has been referred to and I shall not repeat the statistics, but it was interesting because each year between 5,000 and 10,000 young people are interviewed about their attitudes. Poor behaviour in schools is creating a culture where it is de rigueur not to work and engage in the curriculum and in what the school wishes to achieve on behalf of young people. It is an increasingly worrying trend. The peer pressure is not to work and to fool around and to be one of the crowd. We must get to grips with that.
The NUT-Warwick university study produced some appalling statistics, to which it is right to draw attention, on the effect of poor behaviour on teachers and on what they have to put up with. If we want to support our teachers and schools, the Government must address such key issues head on. They must recognise the reality of working in a classroom and accept that every new initiative that is thrust down from on high, in relation to which teachers must perform like performing monkeys, undermines what they should be doing: tackling the relationships in a school. That is what they often cannot do.
1184
I am pleased that Mike Tomlinson, the former chief inspector of schools, referred in two of his last reports to the deterioration of pupil behaviour. The problem might affect only one in 12 schools, but that is an enormous number. The consequence is that teachers want out, which is a problem for us all, but in many ways the real problem is that many of our youngsters cannot engage with the education process, as they cannot learn in a disruptive environment—a matter on which I am sure the whole House can unite.
I want now to turn to the analysis of the youngsters who are causing disruption in our schools—especially those who are being permanently excluded—and whether we can learn any lessons from it. On breaking down the statistics, we see that 83 per cent. of youngsters who were permanently excluded last year were boys, so it is significantly a boys' problem. Some 61 per cent. of those boys were aged 13, 14 or 15. There is an immediate challenge for the Government to consider what is happening to boys with challenging behaviour. The Government need to ask what is being taught and what they are doing in relation to the curriculum to say to those boys that it is far better to mess about, be permanently excluded and get out of the system than to engage with schools.
More worrying is the fact that children with special educational needs are seven times more likely than any other child to be excluded from school. Those with emotional and behavioural needs are especially affected. I applaud both the previous and the current Governments for the work that they have done in respect of special educational needs—a comment that I frequently make in the House, as that work is a credit to those on both sides of the Chamber—but we have not got it right. We now have an inclusion policy that I support with all my heart, but we are finding that the children whom we are including, who have emotional and behavioural difficulties, are the very ones who are being turfed out because schools cannot handle them and do not have the strategies to enable them to do so. One cannot teach these youngsters in groups of 30 or 35; it is just not possible for a teacher to engage with them in such circumstances. That is a lesson that the Government must try to learn.
Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) became so excited that he had to leave the Chamber, he mentioned the ethnic minority issue, but I was hoping that he would go a little further. It is all right to say that there are problems in engaging with young people from ethnic minorities who speak another language, but it is utterly wrong to say that children from such backgrounds do not want to learn English. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case. I accept that such evidence exists in respect of parents, although it applies to a very small number of them, but the children have a thirst to learn English. The fact that most of those youngsters are bilingual—indeed, some are trilingual—is a huge compliment to them.
The ethnic minority group that poses a real problem is Afro-Caribbeans. The expulsion rate of Afro-Caribbean youngsters is 38 in every 10,000 children, making them the largest ethnic group of youngsters who are being permanently excluded. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) recently made a number of very challenging statements to the Government in asking how we should deal with black students, but I do not believe that they engaged with her comments. It is

1185
not that the Afro-Caribbean community does not want its kids not to be educated or involved in society, but that the schooling system that we are offering and the culture in many of our schools is totally alien to its youngsters. We have got to address some of those problems.
Michael Fabricant: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising that point. There is a genuine problem with some of the ethnic groups in our society. Some perform far better than white caucasians, but the problems must be tackled. So many Members of Parliament and others, even the Government, do not deal with them because of the tyranny of political correctness.
Mr. Willis: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made that intervention because I was trying to make an important point about analysing the problem, not suggesting simple solutions. We have all failed to tackle the problem in the past. That includes previous Conservative Governments. It is now time to act.
I want to consider in more detail the youngsters who are being turfed out of our schools and permanently excluded. Evidence from the Youth Justice cohort study in 2002 was published in March this year. It showed that permanently excluded students were less likely than school pupils to live in a two-parent household—47 per cent., compared with 79 per cent. Permanently excluded students are far more likely to live in a single-parent household; 40 per cent. are in that category. Thirteen per cent. of such students live in a household with no parent or step-parent; many are in care. It is a major problem that many of our most disadvantaged youngsters, who are in care, are more likely to be excluded.
We must acknowledge that excluded children are often concentrated in specific sorts of schools in particular sorts of communities. We often discuss grammar schools, but I point out to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that such children do not come from grammar schools; 84 per cent. come from community schools, where the number of pupils who receive free school meals is three times higher than the average. They come from schools where twice as many pupils as the average are on the SEN register and have statements, and from schools that have three times the average level of unauthorised absences. Such schools have three times the average number of permanently excluded pupils.
Although we must consider specific categories of schools, we should tackle one issue perhaps above all others. I say that while acknowledging that the Minister has a genuine feel for young people and the circumstances that we are discussing. I have met many disruptive youngsters, but I have not met any who did not hate themselves more than the people against whom their behaviour was directed. They have an appalling self-image. That applies increasingly to many ethnic minority communities. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) referred to that at the weekend. There is a major problem of self-image and the way in which society perceives those students. Unless we can make young people feel good about themselves, they will not engage with education, society or end their offending or disruptive behaviour. Who is to blame?
Mr. Brady: I want to explore that issue further. From the hon. Gentleman's extensive teaching experience, does
1186
he agree that pupils, especially boys, who, he says, constitute the majority of excluded pupils, need to know the boundaries to be happy and confident? They need to know the limits and they require good discipline. In a school where discipline works, children can learn in a happy, confident environment.
Mr. Willis: I could not agree more. Knowing the boundaries within which we have to work is crucial, whether in the home, the youth club, the local football team or at school—but may I add a rider to that? When I began teaching, it was easy to go into a classroom and set out the boundaries. By and large, youngsters met those criteria, and their parents did so as well. Today, that is not the case. Now, we have to negotiate with young people in terms of agreeing the boundaries, and, more importantly, we have to bring their parents along to agree to them, too. According to the clock, I have been going for nearly two hours now, but before I finish, I want to say that that is a real issue, and I might come back to it a little later.
Who is to blame? If I am honest, I have to say that I do not blame anybody. I do not blame any party in government, although some of this Government's present policies are not helping to deal with this problem, despite being well-intentioned. The Secretary of State has now said that she wants to get rid of the one-size-fits-all comprehensive school, but I think that that is the wrong tack. Instead, we should get rid of the one-size-fits-all curriculum, and the one-size-fits-all testing regime and examination system—the way in which we make our schools conform to a centralist agenda.
That conformity has been occurring, with respect, since the great reform Bill of 1988. It is not a new phenomenon, but it is one that is hampering schools' ability to deal with problems. With respect to most hon. Members present today, most of us have been reasonably successful when we have had a test put in front of us. We might not have done so early on and instead achieved our success later, but we have none the less been reasonably successful. A public policy research paper in 2001 identified one of the biggest rises in illness among young people as being in the incidence of mental health problems. Much of that is associated with the pressure of testing.
I want to make it clear that neither I nor my party is opposed to testing, but the Government must seriously address the fact that the whole education system is geared to testing. That is now its purpose: not to educate but to test. On average, youngsters will take as many as 68 formal exams between starting school as five-year-olds and leaving at 18. Most of those exams are not diagnostic tests to determine how to improve performance; they are simply hurdles. If youngsters do not get over those hurdles, the message that goes out to them is that they have failed.
We now have level 4 for English, maths and science at the end of key stage 2 as a target. For a significant number of the youngsters whom we are talking about, who exhibit poor discipline and poor behaviour in school, one of the problems is that they cannot cope with what is going on; yet they know that, a year later, they will be faced with the next barrier, and that if they do not get over that, the reward will be to have more of the same. In secondary schools, year 7 children who fail to get their level 4 standard assessment tests in English are now getting a booster programme that involves their doing what they were doing the year before in primary school.

1187
I say to the Minister that that is genuinely well-intentioned, but it is not addressing the needs of the children. I want him to intervene on me at this point, and to tell me what a subordinate clause is. I move on. I suspect that, if I looked round the House now and asked all hon. Members to give me a definition of a subordinate clause, and to tell me when they would use it and when it was useful, they would struggle.
Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is not a main clause.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman, quick as a flash, says that it is not a main clause, but it would be worth hon. Members' going into a school next week and asking the teachers how they teach subordinate clauses to children who fail, who have not got level 2 English.
My point is that we constantly teach for tests rather than teaching children what they need to know and the skills they need to be able to function.
Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Willis: In a moment; I am getting excited about the subject.
If hon. Members are telling me that authors such as Roald Dahl, who wrote wonderful children's books, and the people who wrote the Harry Potter books and the book on which "Kes" was based sat down and said, "How do I get a subordinate clause into this?", that is nonsense. We must teach youngsters a love of language. Of course they need skills and fluidity, but our strict testing regime is driving those out.
Michael Fabricant: I totally agree, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that it is important for people to understand grammar. I have heard even my great colleague who sits on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, use the words "between you and I". We all know that the preposition takes the accusative, but the question—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the debate, which is on behaviour improvement in schools.
Michael Fabricant rose—
Mr. Willis: I take your hint and I shall move on, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is poor discipline in schools because children are not coping with the diet that has been offered to them. That is a valid point, which I hope is raised in the winding-up speeches. Yesterday, the Science and Technology Committee published a report on science teaching in schools, which all Members should read. One comment is that course work is tedious and dull; I have heard that endlessly from youngsters. Other comments are that it does not engage youngsters in topical debate and that teachers slog through completely pointless practical lessons. Our Select Committee is saying that about secondary school science teaching—a key subject area—so there is work to be done there.
1188
What can we do? I take my hat off to the Minister and his colleagues for putting in resources, recognising problems and trying to tackle them, but they are not tackling the key issues. We must free schools up so that we do not have this endless conveyor belt of exams and testing. We must free schools up so that they can innovate on the curriculum; the Education Bill is attempting to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and I—we are still at one on the issue, I think—genuinely believe that the schools that most need to innovate will not he given the powers to achieve that, as they would not pass the other tests. Furthermore, the schools that most want autonomy will not get it, because they, too, would not pass the tests. I hope that the Minister makes it clear that the very schools that we are talking about—those that need to engage with some of the most disruptive children—must be given the greatest freedom to innovate, act autonomously and devise new methodology.
Above all, we must give our schools time. For many of the youngsters to whom I referred earlier, who often come from dysfunctional families and dysfunctional communities, school is the place where there is some stability, and they need that more than anything else. School is the place where someone engages with them and has time for them. Of course, that is important.
I worked in Chapeltown in Leeds in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was a hugely dysfunctional community and there were 26 nationalities on the roll. There was a violent atmosphere in Chapeltown then, including tremendous hostility towards the police. I worked with an inspirational head, who said to us, "Your job is to be out in the homes as well as in school so that you can engage with parents and not simply expect them to come to you." We operated with vertical tutor groups and people also came to the schools. We must do that today.
The management of exclusions must be dealt with. I worry about the Conservative policy of simply saying, "Out of sight, out of mind." The Conservatives think that if they get the children out, the problem will be solved. I accept that that is not totally fair, but it appears to be the case. It may be good for a headline to say, "Let us support schools by getting the kids out." However, I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that a child excluded from a school is not excluded from the community. The child remains and has to be dealt with in the community. It is crucial that we adopt strategies to deal with that.
I commend to the Minister the strategy that came from Toronto and is now operating in Slough of a no-exclusion policy. There is an exclusion-free zone, the principle of which is that we do not wait for a situation to arise whereby a child is permanently excluded, as that reinforces offending behaviour and negative imagery. Instead, we manage transfer before that occurs. One must put into place, with local authorities, rapid responses, so that a head knows that there is somewhere for a child to go if the situation is about to explode. The head knows that there will be support in terms of case conferences within five working days, and not five weeks, which is often the case with many local authorities.
Exclusion is an issue not only for schools, but for the whole of society. I implore the Government not to seek

1189
simple solutions to complex problems. They must look for comprehensive solutions to take communities, parents and, most of all, young people with them.
12.31 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: It is always disconcerting to follow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), as I nearly always agree with most of what he has to say. He anticipated many of my points, although I differ from him—in emphasis, certainly—on exclusions.
My wife is the head of an urban comprehensive in Skelmersdale and the convenor of an excellence cluster in the town. As I am liable to say good things about the excellence cluster, the school and my wife, I ought to declare a sort of interest.
Mr. Pound: It is self-preservation.
Mr. Pickthall: That is right.
I began my working life as a teacher in Kirkby in Merseyside, in what was then the largest secondary school in Europe. Every moment of that experience—although it was nowhere near as long as that of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, if a lot longer than that of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant)—is etched on my memory. However, that was more than 30 years ago. I must take care not to analyse the present situation with behaviour in schools as though it were the 1960s or 1970s. The debate on behaviour in schools has been bedevilled in recent years by the comparison between "then"—whenever that was—and now. Society has changed enormously in those years, and the norms of people's lives and behaviour have changed.
Family structures have changed dramatically, and not enough research has been done on that. I was dealing with a family last week—a perfectly decent family with six children. Two of the children were the father's, but not the female partner's; two were the mother's but not the male partner's; and two belonged to both partners. Such a "step-sibling" situation is very common and has tensions of its own, with difficulties that are transferred into schools and elsewhere. That situation is multiplied again and again in my constituency, and everybody else's.
Schools have a peculiar place in society. On the one hand, they are isolated—almost all schools these days are surrounded by huge security fences and have CCTV. Some hon. Members may have read a novel by Graham Greene called "It's a Battlefield", in which he describes a school, a factory and a prison in the town in such a way that the reader cannot tell the difference between them.
Although schools are isolated from society, they are also integrated, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described. Parents are invited into schools, and schools invite themselves into homes. Schools are connected to their local towns and villages through a network of partnerships and other agencies.
Many of the problems of bad behaviour and violence occur when students, especially secondary school students, are going to and from school, such as on bus journeys. Bullies wait outside school gates for their victims. At those points of movement, the responsibilities
1190
and obligations of teachers and head teachers are less clear and more complex, and sometimes more dangerous. They may sometimes be in peril, as in the case of the unfortunate head teacher who was stabbed to death a few years ago when he tried to stop a bullying incident outside his school.
It is important for schools to invite parents into the school, but on occasions they are inviting trouble. I may be stretching the parameters of the debate, which is about the behaviour of pupils and students, but I believe that it should also be about parental behaviour. These days, parents are more legalistic. They are encouraged to take legal action—looking for compo—when the slightest thing goes wrong in their lives.
More parents now automatically take the side of their son or daughter in a dispute with the school, even though they know that the child is wrong. More parents are prepared to be psychologically, verbally and sometimes physically aggressive towards reception staff. To defend reception staff as much as anything else, schools have complex systems of bells and alarms which people—even the local MP or policeman—have to ring to get into the building. More parents use violent language and violent threats against teachers and heads—and even against students, the children of their neighbours. Parents are more prepared to participate in their children's quarrels with other children, instead of letting them sort things out for themselves. They are sometimes violent towards their partner's children or their stepchildren. More males are prepared to be violent and aggressive towards female teachers.
I list those incidents, because they are known to the children in the school and highlight the vulnerability of teachers. Youngsters who are inclined to be unto-operative see that their teachers are vulnerable to such threats. Such incidents also reveal the lack of consequences for the perpetrator against whom no action is taken. They set an example for everyone in the school. That is frightening, but I do not know what the answer is. I am describing a problem that I see every day, but I do not know what the Government can do to sort it out, although I welcome their recent strong words.
My strongest assertion is that none of us should tolerate verbal, psychological or physical abuse directed towards school staff or children by parents. Our assumption—the school's assumption; the local authority's assumption—should be that such behaviour cannot be tolerated, and that those responsible will be prosecuted. It is no good shrugging it off and hoping that it will not happen again, because these people do not go away for good; they come back.
Ministers have made strong statements about parents' violence towards those in schools, but I think much sterner action is needed. Schools are entitled to a much closer relationship with the police. Indeed, it occurs to me that perhaps secondary schools, at least, should have a police officer on their governing bodies, not just for their own benefit, but to give the police a better idea of what schools must put up with. Some students who have been excluded keep returning to the school gates and trying to get into the school to harass staff or other students. They should expect arrest and prosecution. I would not have said that 10 or 15 years ago; the iron is entering my soul increasingly in this context.

1191
What I have described does not, of course, happen daily in every school. It would be crazy to suggest that. Very few adults behave in such a way—but it takes only one such incident to destroy a school's confidence and knock it off course, and to destroy its reputation in the local community. That reputation is a precious thing nowadays, as school intakes rise and fall according to rumour. Episodes are reported in newspapers, and in the towns I represent rumours seem to get around in 10 minutes—and to be embellished in the process.
I can think of no other job that requires a woman or a man to stand in front of large groups of young people for hour after hour. That is certainly not our experience today: we are standing in front of rows of empty Benches. When I think of doing that day after day, year after year, for 40 years, my heart sinks. I did it for a few years, and was happy to get out after that. Those young people often do not want to be there. There are young people in secondary schools whose hormones are popping. The teacher must stand there and, through sheer force of character—but mostly through sheer bluff—stay sane, keep the young people happy and keep them learning. It is, in fact, an impossible task.
I am more and more convinced that teaching depends entirely on bluff. Somehow, the teacher must keep the bluff going, because once a kid realises he can call the teacher's bluff, the teacher is dead and gone: all the others will realise that the bluff does not work any more. That applies to some of the children others have described today. However skilled the teacher is by nature and through training, he and his students know that it only takes one nutter. If one person is prepared to call the bluff, everything begins to collapse.
Each school must have its own boundaries—the invisible boundaries that separate mischief, cheek, rumbustious behaviour and the one-off incidents described by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough from disruptive and destructive behaviour. They will vary from school to school. I said that I would not use examples from my own dim and distant teaching past, but I think that one is very relevant.
When I started teaching—I taught English—it struck me as odd that children of 13, 14 and 15 were expected to sit down all day, except when they were engaging in games or other enjoyable pursuits. If they were learning English or history, they were expected to sit. It seemed unnatural that pupils should be expected to sit down for 40 minutes, or an hour and 20 minutes for a double period, to write or to do an exercise, so I did not mind if the kids stood up and walked around, even if they talked to their fellow pupils, so long as it was constructive and they were working. They could stand up and work on the window sills or whatever. Other teachers in the school did not allow that. They wanted pupils to sit down so that they knew where they were. They had to sit at the same desks so that the teacher could remember their names.
Every school, perhaps every teacher, has different boundaries, but given schools' clear contracts with students about what those boundaries are—they have clear contracts now—schools should be prepared to exercise the clear right to remove students whose behaviour is preventing their peers from being educated and who are destroying the bluff, as I have called it.
Over the past 10 years—I am critical of my own Government as well as Conservative Governments for this—the messages that Governments have put out on
1192
exclusion have fluctuated. Schools and communities do not know where they are. The message should be clear and consistent. It should support the school's right to exclude on the ground of unacceptable behaviour. It should be the school's decision—it cannot be decided by central Government—what unacceptable behaviour is.
Once a pupil has been excluded, the problems increase. There are difficulties with admissions of excluded pupils to other schools. In some local authorities, the county schools are obliged to take on pupils excluded by other schools, but some schools do not do so. I will not mention any names because it would be invidious. I have been trying to do something about it. Some schools in Lancashire will not under any circumstances accept any student who has been excluded from another school, but exclude their own pupils from time to time and expect the rest of the school community to pick up the tab.
Home tuition does not work; it has never worked. It has always been a mess, insufficient and slipshod. Schools have their own policies to deal with the problem, usually before it gets to exclusion, but we need more PRUs. They work if they are run properly. I know that the Minister is looking at exclusion from day one, and getting the young person back into a proper curriculum and a proper environment. It has to be like that, but PRUs have to be everywhere. All communities must have access to them. That is not the case at the moment.
So far, I have spoken about how we deal with social failure, but schools do have positive and assertive discipline programmes. They have systems to try to instil class self-discipline. We need to think in such positive terms as well as analysing the negative things that are going on. We must be tough on unacceptable behaviour and tough on the causes of unacceptable behaviour.
I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We find ourselves wandering into a culture where it is desirable, acceptable and cool not to work. That is not just the case in schools. When I taught in higher education, I knew that students were working like the devil at night, and they would pretend to their friends that they had not done any work at all because it was cool not to work. However, it is more the case among children.
We indulge our children from the earliest days. We indulge them with consumer goods and by giving in to their demands. It is so hard to expect children to change their habits once they go into the classroom if they have got their own way at home; they cannot. I suggest that we fail our children in that respect. We expect schools to patch up the sorry mess that we, as parents and communities, have created. When my children were growing up I was guilty of this, too. We shove our kids in front of the television so that we can get a bit of peace and quiet and so that we do not have to bother talking to them. When they get bored with the television they go upstairs and look at the computer screen. They spend half their time looking at screens and when they go to school they look at more screens as they are shown endless videos and have to work on computers. The amount of decent human interaction between adults and children has been shrinking for a long time at school just as it has at home.
We give children mobile phones because we cannot think of anything else to give them for Christmas. They take them to school where they are obliged to switch them

1193
off. However, I have had more than one incident reported to me by teachers of a teacher telling a child off for misbehaviour and the child phoning his mum. Ten minutes later the mum arrives at school and starts berating the staff.
I do not have time to go into detail as I want to conclude my remarks, but there are huge problems with special educational needs. I note what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said in congratulating the work of successive Governments on special educational needs, but it is far short of what is needed. Vast numbers of new cases of dyslexia and dyspraxia seem to be emerging from the darkness and we are slow to tackle a wide range of disabilities. For years, kids do not find out that they have a disability which has not been detected or assessed. When it is assessed, the processes for dealing with it are very slow. Such children often need one-to-one tuition which is very expensive and local education authorities are reluctant to spend piles of money which they do not have. However, these problems produce extra unacceptable behaviour for which the kids cannot be blamed. Nevertheless, it has to be addressed.
Special educational needs require more resources. I hate to say that as it is not the answer to everything. Local education authorities need to take a more intelligent approach.
Richard Younger-Ross: Is it not the case that parents often become frustrated because they cannot get resources or statementing for their children? Parents are a community and talk to each other and those who are upset with the system help to draw down the perceptions of other parents of the education system and the schools because they are not getting the essential resources that their children need.
Mr. Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have all had constituents come to us in torment because they cannot access the right facilities for their child. They see their child's education disappearing down the drain for months and years until something is done. That time can never be made up. When I meet constituents in that situation, I feel that if I were in their place I would be prepared to tear the local authority to pieces to get the right resources for my child.
We need joined-up action between local education authorities and the police service to tackle severe misbehaviour. We need much more research into the self-discipline of the classroom. In the past, if a disrupter became more than a little nuisance the class would sort it out somehow because most of the class wanted to work. We need to address the reasons why that discipline breaks down. We need much more support for teachers who are ashamed, frightened and, in the case of men perhaps, a little emasculated when they find themselves being challenged by young children. They are ashamed to report it, so they hide it and try to cover it up, and it has to be discovered from outside.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said earlier, we also need sure start. That brilliant programme operates in the most deprived ward in my constituency, Skelmersdale, where it is doing some tremendous work. One can feel the difference. A home
1194
start programme also operates throughout the constituency, with volunteers looking after people with small babies in deprived or neglected areas.
Many of those solutions need to be strung together. Misbehaviour in schools is a serious problem and it is no good hiding from it. No matter how much we work on understanding the problem, finding out where it comes from and the many reasons for it, we must concentrate resources and energy in all sorts of areas, which I and others in the debate have identified, so that the lives of perfectly ordinary, decent kids and their education are not disrupted by half a dozen baddies who can destroy an entire school.
12.56 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I am pleased to take part in this interesting debate on what is clearly a complex issue. It is as important to consider the reasons for behavioural problems in schools as what we should do about them.
I do not accept that the problem can simply be blamed on modern-day society. That is much too superficial a way to approach the subject. Nor do I have much sympathy with those who blame pupils' bad behaviour only on poverty and disadvantage. Essentially, children have not changed over the years, yet at the turn of the last century schools did not have the same behavioural problems as we see today. Although bad behaviour in schools is clearly worse in inner cities than it is in rural areas, it would be wrong automatically to assume that there is no poverty or deprivation in rural areas.
I served as an inner-city councillor in a previous political existence and I now serve as a rural Member of Parliament, and I have a few observations to make. First, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, we should not shy away from discussing the difficulties posed by multi-ethnic classrooms. Simply to avoid the issue for fear of sounding racist plays into the hands of those who would feed on people's ignorance. It is important that we consider those issues so that communities do not become isolated and we do not return to the ethnic strife that we unfortunately saw in some cities earlier in the year.
If, as was the case in my London borough, 60 to 70 per cent. of secondary school pupils have English as a second language, it is almost inevitable that some children will communicate less effectively than others. They may then become disinterested in their class studies and a higher proportion might behave badly as a result. In that connection, I feel strongly that we must continue to address the high levels of illiteracy in this country.
My second observation is that family life in cities is often more diverse and fractured than it is in rural areas. My constituency is in the eastern region, which has relatively few exclusions. Generally, family units tend to be more cohesive there than in the big cities. Perhaps the fact that children find it harder to travel in rural areas than in big cities means that they tend to be more home-centric. Marriage rates are higher and the number of single-parent families is lower than elsewhere in the country. That must have an impact on a child's stability and therefore on the incidence of behavioural problems. Support for the family and for family values need to be prioritised when we are considering children's behaviour.

1195
Unfortunately, however, there seems to be a growing number of parents who, for whatever reason, believe that the schools, society as a whole—indeed, anyone but themselves—should have the primary responsibility for socialising their children and asserting discipline over them. Of course, we are where we are. It would be nice to believe that all parents would hear the elaborate contributions in today's debate and behave accordingly, but that is unlikely.
It is the duty of Parliament to tackle the issue and remind parents of their obligations to others. To my mind, it is a question of helping parents as well as punishing them; of providing schools with the ability to discipline children; and of re-examining the judicial system, so that extreme behavioural problems can be dealt with more effectively and swiftly. We have a long way to go.
This is certainly not a problem just for parents. The school system is part of the problem. Three quarters of exclusions happen in our secondary schools, where there are significant teacher shortages and up to 40 per cent. of teachers leave within three years of joining the profession. Increasingly, foreign teachers are being recruited to fill the gaps. It is an unsatisfactory situation.
At the same time, children, being children, will often be difficult. Anyone who has had children will know exactly what I mean. They will push things to the limit, just to see how far they can take them. They need to be disciplined, to learn what is and what is not acceptable—what the boundaries are. When we have fewer and less well-qualified teachers struggling with growing class sizes in secondary schools while filling in more and more Government forms, they are likely to have less time to devote to the one or two children in a class who are creating a problem and who probably need a little more attention.
Lack of home and school discipline is leading to worse behaviour. In my experience, most parents value discipline and a strong school ethos just as highly as academic standards. If behaviour is not controlled, a vicious circle can come into play whereby pupils lose interest in their studies and teachers can lose interest in their careers.
As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) noted, significant recent research shows that pupil behaviour is now one of the main reasons that teachers give for leaving the profession. In the year to March 2000—I believe that these are the last available figures—more than 26,000 teachers left. As one leaving male maths and physics teacher in the eastern region put it:
"It's having to fight this uphill battle against—if I am allowed to call them that—'naughty kids'. They get involved in so much low level misbehaviour. And rudeness and the language…Quite often the parents don't support you. You are battling against it, because parents don't believe their child can be naughty. It's like that in every class and it's got more common. I think a lot of staff feel that the kids are untouchable."
The proportion of schools where behaviour is unsatisfactory is now one in 12. I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said. I feel that he underplayed the seriousness of one in 12 schools having that problem, although as any parent knows, in some ways it is irrelevant how many or how few schools have a problem: if one's children have to share a lesson with one or two disruptive kids, that lesson
1196
can be utterly destroyed. The fact that one in 12 schools have a problem is not relevant to parents who have children in that class.
Expulsion of the troublemakers has been made increasingly difficult in recent years by the Government, who have been proudly stating that they have reduced exclusions to low levels. To my mind, and to that of many people in this country, the policy has been a disaster, so I am relieved that the Government are now going to change it. It has not been mentioned in our debate, but the Government issued a consultation paper on exclusion policy—the deadline for replies was 19 April. The Government have not yet commented on the consultation's findings, so it would be helpful if the Minister could do so.
However, there is still a catch, because exclusion will have financial implications for the school concerned. In fact, it can cost the school between £3,000 and £6,000 in lost budget per excluded pupil, which seems most unfair. If the Government are moving towards accepting further exclusions, they must address the issue of funding. Why should the school have to suffer? If anyone is going to suffer, it should be the pupil and his family, rather than the school. If it is now acceptable for a mother to be sent to prison for her children's truancy, why should parents not pay the price for disruption to the education of 30 other children? That would instil a more direct lesson about parents taking responsibility for their children. It would also be more relevant than the Prime Minister's gimmicky suggestion of withholding child benefit.
I would not argue that the Government have been ignoring problematic behaviour in schools. The Minister made an eloquent speech and explained a number of Government policies. At the same time, however, we must realise that, to date, Government solutions have made the problem worse. There is more disruption and youth crime, and more teachers are leaving schools. I heard what the Minister said, but I hope that everyone agrees that we still have an awful long way to go. In fairness, however, I commend the Government policy of getting schools to build links with local police forces to tackle bad behaviour and truancy in schools. Schools in Huntingdonshire have been following that policy for some years, and have been extremely successful in building bridges with the community and making young people understand their relationship with the police. The Government's handling of bad behaviour in schools has been deficient, and it is vital that we all work together to get that right for the future of our communities.
I shall end with a couple of suggestions, and would be grateful for the Minister's views. First, we should recognise that many children are not suited to, or interested in, academic study. We have become much too academic-centred, particularly in the national curriculum, as other hon. Members have mentioned. We need to look at vocational options, which are much more likely to win the attention of children with behavioural problems and reduce those problems.
Secondly, we should realise that some parents are incapable, for whatever reason, of giving adequate guidance to their children. They need, or could benefit from, the help of a mentor. In the same way, children will often get great benefit from having a role model, especially if they are not surrounded by role models. I believe, therefore, that there is room for child mentoring.

1197
As chairman of a social services committee on a council, I became aware of a pervasive view that teachers, social workers and probation officers are the only people qualified to deal with the problems of parents or children, but I have seen at first hand in New York the superb success of a scheme whereby unambitious and poorly educated children benefit from the advice and the relationship involved in a long-term mentoring scheme.
The nearest equivalent that I have seen in the United Kingdom is the Prince's Trust, where the addition of a role model or the input of friendly business or tactical advice from an experienced mentor can make the world of difference to a young person's chances of succeeding and moving forward in the community. I should very much like to see such a scheme put in place for children, especially in our inner cities.
1.11 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound: I concur with the comments of many other hon. Members in the Chamber today about the extraordinary degree of skill, ability and dedication that we cherish and respect in the teaching profession in this country. If there is one lesson that we have learned, which is appropriate in a debate on education, it is that many parents seem to wish to abdicate responsibility for their children's upbringing and put that responsibility on the shoulders of teachers, support staff and the entire school community. I have been massively impressed, both today and in my day-to-day experience, by the extraordinary skills of our teachers. None of us should miss any opportunity to make that point.
At 8.30 this morning, I was speaking to Peter La Farge, the head teacher of Greenwood school in my constituency, about a fairly serious matter—the replacement of hutted accommodation. He broke off from the conversation to identify two pupils in the playground who he was convinced were about to start a fight. It is that quality of anticipation and sheer skill in teachers to which we must pay credit.
As many other hon. Members have done, I pay credit to the assured, skilled and deeply caring and committed introduction to the debate by my hon. Friend the Minister. I do not share his happy childhood memories of education. I was the original schoolboy with
"shining morning face, creeping like snail
"Unwillingly to school",
though had I faced the prospect of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) as a supply teacher, I might have revised my opinion.
However, I left school at the age of 15 and a half, by mutual agreement with the head teacher, and was fortunate, as one could do in those days, to go straight into the Royal Navy, where I learned to kill people with expediency, which stood me in no little good stead when I came to apply for a job later. I was told that as that was my only qualification, I should try the national health service. In fact, I spent 10 years working as a hospital porter.
The point—which relates to the comment by the hon. Member for Lichfield about sanctions—is that, like many schoolboys and, sadly, even some schoolgirls of my generation, I was beaten continuously and thrashed
1198
remorselessly on a daily basis. I will not state, as many people do, that it did me no harm. It did me a great deal of harm. I had absolutely no interest whatever in education. I was out the door at the earliest opportunity, without a GCSE, O-level, A-level or any qualification to my name. Fortunately, I found sanctuary in the structured and disciplined violence of boxing and London Labour politics, and was able to make something of a career for myself. I do not think that looking back to some black-and-white past of cane-wielding teachers, even should they now repose in Lichfield, is the way that we should aim to approach the debate today.
I felt sorry for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) with his cri de coeur that he was ever the bridesmaid and never the blushing bride, and the House has sympathy with him for that. However, he did refer to drugs, which in many ways illustrate one of the horrors of the reality of education and, in particular, parental involvement.
Some of the worst cases of drug involvement in schools that I have been aware of have been where boys have sold cannabis which they obtained from their father, who grows it, smokes it and allows it in the home and in no way condemns it, and even gives his son that drug to sell. That is an actual case.
Two years ago I was at a school asking year 6 pupils what they most wanted in life and one child said that what she most wanted was for her mother's boyfriend to stop injecting himself in the kitchen because he sprayed blood all over the tiles.
I could give many other horrific examples, but I shall give only one more. At a show-and-tell in an adjoining borough to mine, a primary school child brought in the most valued object in the house, which was a small glass cocaine container that her mother obviously cherished and valued. That is the reality.
We saw from last year's Ofsted report that 80 per cent. of children found truanting were accompanied by an adult. Adults have real responsibilities in this regard and we cannot, as a House, as individuals, as parents, simply stand back and expect teachers to take up that slack and carry that load. Parents must become more involved. How right my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was to pay credit to sure start, the lesson of which is precisely that everyone must be involved in a child's education. If it takes a village to educate a child, it takes a family to nurture and support that child. Everyone must be involved.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly drew attention to the decline in the number of exclusions, which he said peaked at 13.000. About 12,700 pupils were excluded in 1996–97 and there has been a 28 per cent. reduction in that figure. That points towards the core of this debate, which is the need to achieve a balance between the needs of the excluded and allowing teachers to teach, pupils to learn, schools to operate as schools and classrooms to be the places where children can grow and learn and expand their horizons and become better people.
As has rightly been said, one may be excluded from school but one is not excluded from society. Simply taking the children from the school may solve the problem in that place, at that hour, on that day, but it displaces the problem to society at large. We must address that in the round. If the curse of modern politics is the constant

1199
reference to things being joined up, let us live with that, because we must see things in the totality, in their global perspective, and work with that.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall briefly refer to experience in the London borough of Ealing where we faced precisely that problem. When I was elected, all the high schools bar one were grant-maintained and the pupils that they excluded all ended up in the one non-grant-maintained high school, which, inevitably, despite the best efforts of the teachers, support staff and governors, became perceived as a sink school. It is now being relaunched as a city academy. It simply is not enough to move the problem on.
In Ealing, we have worked with the Government on sure start throughout. I pay credit to assistant director Howard Shephardson and our inspirational director of education, Dr. Caroline Whalley, and particularly to Councillor Leo Thompson, the council cabinet member with responsibility for this area. We had a high level of permanent exclusions, but we now have a joint LEA-school panel, known as a placement panel, which meets regularly for referral purposes, to discuss policy issues involving partnerships.
I give credit to the excellence in cities partnership forum, which allows us to develop a behaviour and social inclusion strategy for secondary-aged pupils in Ealing. That allows us to share out pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties so that no one school is over-burdened. That is completely different from the beggar-my-neighbour, devil-take-the-hindmost policy that sadly existed among some proponents of grant-maintained schools. Support systems for any child who is being reintegrated are agreed through the panel members working together.
The primary sector in Ealing has undergone an extensive review, resulting in a decision to close the primary EBD or educational and behavioural difficulties school and develop more flexible and inclusive provision. We have replaced the school with a centre that has a multi-agency approach providing educational programmes and therapeutic support. The primary behaviour team works from the centre to support schools in behaviour management and reintegration of pupils who have had a placement at the centre. In other words, it addresses the needs of the pupil while recognising the importance of the school being allowed to teach and the pupils being allowed to learn.
The number of permanent exclusions has been massively reduced. The preventive role of the PRUs, or pupil referral units, has been mentioned. In Ealing, we have developed over the past few years an "at risk" model for early identification—an issue that was picked up earlier. We have done so because we owe it to our children and young people, who are the citizens of tomorrow—the child is the father or mother of the adult—to give them that early identification. I would recommend the "at risk" model to anyone.
In Ealing, we are currently working with a range of agencies on developing the multi-agency provision and support plan that sets out the contribution that each of the support agencies will make. The process is defined and delineated from stage one, and provides for 25 hours of education for permanently excluded pupils. That is slightly below the Government's target, which is, I think,
1200
27 hours, but I assure the Minister that we are getting there. The provision is intended to extend to at risk and vulnerable pupils.
I should like to refer also to the children and young people's strategic partnership, which is overseeing the children's fund development. That is beginning to contribute significantly. An early intervention co-ordinator and panel, mentoring and summer schemes are all designed to target intervention to prevent children from becoming involved in youth crime. Through the excellence in cities programme and PRG—pupil retention grant—funding, Ealing high schools have become self-sufficient in meeting the needs of students with a range of difficulties. We now have specialist counsellors, learning mentors, therapists and business mentor schemes—precisely the theories that we have talked and heard about today. We are now seeing those concepts being delivered in practice in my borough, in the place where my children go to school. The improvements are now working, and the local education authority team aims through regular consultation with schools to complement those schemes and assist them where they require additional help and where an objective outside agency input is required.
Intervention and support for children with mental health and therapeutic needs have also been referred to. They are a major focus area for primary and secondary behaviour support and provision development. In Ealing, we currently have a partnership project between the child and adolescent mental health service—the CAMHS—and the study centre of the PRU to develop a bridge for parents and pupils in accessing mental health services. A therapeutic inclusion project is planned to link the PRU with an Ealing high school that currently has good practice in support and intervention for its pupils. We also co-ordinate training and support across the borough.
In addition to the core support services provided by the LEA, there is a range of other ongoing and developing initiatives to support primary and secondary pupils in improving the management of pupil behaviour to support vulnerable groups. Those initiatives include the looked-after children education/social services team, a multidisciplinary team that we are continuing this year and which again brings together all the experts in the field, the "at risk" preventive programme and the PRU curriculum, which has developed substantially in the past two years and which incorporates the explorer programme, about which we may hear more.
The Ealing parent partnership mentoring programme for pupils in years 3, 4, 5 and 6 provides the assistance and support for which hon. Members have called. Such a mentoring service exists in Ealing, thanks to a Government initiative, my hon. Friend the Minister's pathfinding work and the local education authority's active response. Ealing parent partnership and the primary and secondary behaviour teams are currently working with feeder primary and secondary schools. Thirty year 6 children, who were identified as vulnerable, are taking part in a transition skills programme. They will be supported until they reach year 7.
We have a new joint social services and education post through the standards fund. We are grateful for that. A social worker who supports the work of the primary and secondary behaviour teams will therefore be placed in the social services teams and provide a direct link between education and social services.

1201
Connexions was mentioned earlier. It is the finest example of mentoring for secondary school pupils. It provides a role model and support as well as the parameters and boundaries that young people need. We are delighted to be one of the first education authorities to work with Connexions.
We obviously support a continuation and extension of the excellence in cities initiatives, for example, the excellence challenge for post-16 students and further funding for standards fund initiatives.
Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman cites a catalogue of great achievements that, he claims, the Government have facilitated for his constituents. Does he agree that many initiatives depend on the money that has been made available? Should not the same funding be made available for other local authorities, especially in the south-west, that receive a much lower standard spending assessment?
Mr. Pound: I am not convinced that an election address by me to the voters of Ealing, North calling for additional funding for the south-west of England would garner me many votes. I was trying to make the point that we are considering not money, but one of the biggest societal factors that affect us today. We are examining the way in which tomorrow's leaders, workers and society are shaped and formed today. That does not depend simply on giving more money; that is meaningless. Money without commitment or an overarching policy has no value.
I do not apologise for listing the wonderful achievements in the London borough of Ealing in partnership with central Government. I am proud of that list because my kids go to schools in my constituency and benefit from it. I promise the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) that any left-over money that we do not need will head in his direction post haste.
We are witnessing a pivotal moment, not only in my borough and my city, but in our country. Education is being perceived as part of the growth of society and the future of our country. It is not enough to concentrate on those who do well and do not cause problems and are not "creeping unwillingly to school." We must consider the whole picture and realise that education will not be a good system for anyone unless it is good for everyone.
I do not underestimate the extent of the problems that disruptive behaviour causes in schools. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West gave examples of horror stories, and I could match them. That applies to all hon. Members. We know how much teachers put up with. However, that is only part of the story. We are trying to value those who have been considered valueless in the past. The people who cause the problems are the hardest to work with. They will not go away and we must either work with them now or face the consequences of our neglect later, when they cause even more serious problems. I am therefore delighted to participate in the debate.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has popped out, probably to issue a press release. I sympathised greatly with his point about the ever-expanding horizon of hurdles over which secondary
1202
school pupils must leap. That issue was particularly brought home to me last week when my daughter told me that she had just got her third level 7. I was delighted until she told me that I had to pay her £25 for each of them, as I had rashly promised. So, it is not just the pupils who suffer in these cases; parents feel the pain, too.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his earlier comments, and I look forward to his winding-up speech, as do we all. I would like to say, with him, that this is an issue that cannot be ignored. It must receive the attention and the resources that it deserves. I shall close as I started, by saying: let us pause for a moment and give thanks to those who teach our children and shape our future citizens.
1.30 pm
Michael Fabricant: And that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a lovely thought. I would like to join the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in expressing it, because teachers work very hard, not only in their jobs but for the maintenance of the education of their children. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman. Although he said he agreed with the mutual arrangement between him and his headmaster that he should leave school when he was 15 and a half, the eloquence of his speech demonstrated that there is not only a university of life but a school of life. Clearly the Royal Navy taught him not only how to kill ruthlessly—and perhaps to do so metaphorically in the Chamber—but how to be articulate. It obviously gave him a vocabulary that is most appropriate in the Chamber—not the sort that I would have thought one would learn in the Royal Navy.
While we are in the mood to offer congratulations across the Chamber, I would also like to congratulate the Minister on his debut speech in his new post. His comments were thoughtful and interesting, and he mentioned a particular subject to which I shall return later. He spoke about his mother, and his background. My own mother was born in Aberavon and had to leave school when she was 14. As I am speaking from the Conservative Benches, I had better say that I went to an ordinary state school, just in case anyone thinks that I went to Eton or one of those other schools mentioned earlier which have a problem with cannabis. I certainly do not think that Eton is exclusive in that respect.
I also mention—not really to boast, but to give some justification for my taking part in this debate—that I taught for a year before going up to university, and also undertook some tutoring of masters degree students learning statistics when I was doing my doctoral studies. I think it was the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) who said that he had been a teacher for 34 years. Oh, no—that was the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). I think the hon. Member for West Lancashire had been a teacher for 20 or 25 years—more than a decade, anyway, and certainly more than a year. Anyway, I certainly do not claim to he an expert in this subject. Nevertheless, like everybody else, I went to school, so I know the experiences that I went through there. I would, therefore, like to speak of my own experiences both as a teacher—in my own small way—and in school itself.
The Minister talked about the carrot and stick approach—although that is not the main issue of his that I wanted to discuss—to behaviour and discipline in

1203
schools. I want to return to the issue of sanctions, because it is a real problem. This is not a party political matter; the same problem has faced Conservative Governments in the past. We can talk about a carrot and stick approach, but the fact is that there is no stick at the moment. Although I am not advocating bringing back corporal punishment, I am not totally sure that that is such an outrageous idea—I shall say why in a moment—and it is certainly one that we need to think about.
I rather fear that we have reached the stage in schools at which we have not only parents who are barrack-room lawyers, but pupils who are, too. Some of those pupils really do get away, if not with murder, with disrupting the whole class, to the detriment not only of the teachers but of the other pupils in the class That is wrong and unfair.
I do not know whether I am going to regret saying this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will tell you that when I first became a teacher—when I had finished my A-levels and wanted a year's gap before going up to university—I taught first and second-years in a high school. My head of department gave me two pieces of advice for maintaining behaviour and discipline in my class. The first was that to capture the interest of the class and maintain discipline, one must provide 20 per cent. education and 80 per cent. entertainment. Members should remember that when they speak in the Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who is traversing the Chamber as I speak, because he is able to combine entertainment with educating the House. That is important, because if one gives boring speeches or boring addresses in class, one will not retain the listener's interest.
The second piece of advice is a little more controversial, and it brings us back to the carrot and stick. My head of department at the state school at which I taught gave me a strap and told me that I was to use it if I had any problems. I very rarely had to use discipline, and I hope that my pupils enjoyed the year when I taught them. I certainly did. However, I used the strap two or three times, but I never, ever forced it on the pupil. I used to tell pupils at that boys' school, "Look, either do 100 lines or take the strap. It's up to you." Invariably, the pupil would rather have the strap—thwack, it was over and done with.
A little sanction is called for, but let me set the record straight: I am not advocating the return of corporal punishment. I am saying that it is interesting that when pupils were given the choice between 100 lines or the strap, they chose the strap, which took half a second to administer, stung for perhaps 10 seconds more and perhaps involved an element of humiliation. They would rather have that than go home and do 100 lines.
I say to the Minister that there must be some form of sanction, because teachers in some schools are finding it difficult to maintain discipline. We must be aware that pupils and their parents are barrack-room lawyers and that sometimes discipline breaks down, for all the reasons that have been outlined. We must address those problems.
I was not getting at the Minister or the Government when I mentioned the tyranny of political correctness earlier. However, just as we should not allow political correctness to get in the way of addressing the problems of racial groups in society, likewise we should not allow it to get in the way of discussions on bringing back some sanctions for teachers. Teachers in Lichfield and in
1204
Burntwood in my constituency tell me that they have no way of controlling their classes when things start to break down seriously.
I am pleased that the Minister mentioned bullying, because it is a serious problem. Because this is the first time that it has ever been addressed in the House, I am especially pleased that the Minister raised the issue of homophobic bullying. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being a young man or, indeed, a young woman growing up without understanding things about themselves and being bullied for being different? They may then try not to be different and deceive themselves.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on undertaking research and providing guidelines on that important issue. Perhaps he will send me a copy of the guidelines when they are printed. I suspect that most teachers are not aware that homophobic bullying is even an issue, although I may be wrong and that may be unfair. However, the fact that the Government have highlighted it today will make teachers and head teachers aware that it can be a problem in our schools.
The Minister also spoke about the problems of exclusion, and it is useful that we have all agreed that, once a pupil is excluded, he enters society, from which he cannot be excluded. How will that be dealt with?
The Minister talked about the 6 per cent. of those who have been excluded who have been identified as having clinical problems, and the 4 per cent. with serious emotional problems. That demonstrates that we cannot look at behaviour in isolation. We must be able to diagnose the causes, just as a GP does. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said that we cannot look at problems of indiscipline in isolation. Often there are real causes and we must be tough on them, as well as on the crime itself.
Money is also a factor. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) is not alone in belonging to an area where people feel that funding has been unfair. The Government said in 1997 that they would look at this problem, and they have kept their promise. However, we have a real problem in Staffordshire because the four recommendations that have been made all make Staffordshire worse off than before, and that needs to be addressed.
I want to make a few recommendations to the Minister and I would appreciate him giving them some thought. Acoustics in a classroom are important. When I taught in a laboratory, which had a wooden floor and wooden benches, discipline went a bit. The reason was that people at the back could not hear me properly, and the louder I spoke, the more it echoed. Some schools are investing in carpets and other acoustical devices to ensure that there is not too much echo and that not too much noise comes in from outside the classroom. Has any research been done on whether there is a correlation between indiscipline and classroom acoustics? When children cannot hear what the teacher has to say, it can lead to indiscipline.
Another issue is the continuity of teachers. The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that I was a supply teacher. I was not; I was at the school for a year. I like to think that I gave a little continuity to the class. Whether they enjoyed that is another matter. No doubt some of my

1205
former pupils will write to me if they hear about this debate; I dread to think what they might have to say. However, continuity is important. The general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, John Dunford, said:
"The huge expansion in the market for supply teachers in the last three years has sent the market out of control. The Department for Education and Skills should put in place a Licensing system for supply agencies, with a Code of Practice and clear sanctions if the agencies fall below accepted standards."
That is important, but even more important would be not to need supply teachers.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: If only.
Michael Fabricant: I know how the Minister feels. It is important to have continuity within a school.
The subject of grammar was raised earlier. A previous occupant of the Chair cut me off in mid-stream, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I did not say what I wanted to say. I can well understand why certain pupils would not want to learn how to parse a sentence or understand the structures of the English language. I found grammar immensely boring when I was taught it at school. I only became interested in it when I learned German. I make a little cri de coeur—which is French—a Schrei des Herzes: if only there were enough German teachers, it would be a good idea for German, instead of French, to be the first foreign language taught in schools, because it helps people to understand English grammar better.
Mr. Pound: What about Latin?
Michael Fabricant: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is impractical in this modern day and age. [Interruption.] If he disagrees with me, I can accept that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we need silence at the back of the classroom.
Michael Fabricant: Thank you for your protection headmaster—I mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This has been a good, thoughtful debate. I do not think that anyone has made party political points, which is good. Everyone has spoken about what would benefit pupils and teachers. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
1.46 pm
Mr. Chris Pond: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I am sure that all of us would agree that he managed to achieve his 80 per cent. entertainment quotient. We are all still pondering the image of a sea of hands of those in his class who wanted voluntarily to receive the strap. No doubt the lines that he was going to give them would have been even more devastating for them.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his opening remarks. His speech was wide ranging, and gave us plenty to work on. I also pay tribute to him for being the Member of Parliament for the Enfield, Southgate constituency, where
1206
I went to school. The school has since closed, but I promise not to blame him for that if he does not blame me.
The hon. Member for Lichfield referred to the need for resources to deal with problems in some parts of the country from which complaints have been received. I do not want to shatter his illusion that no party political points have been made in the debate, so I shall not ask how he expects more resources to go into education, given that the Conservative party said only a few days ago that it refuses to match the spending plans that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce on Monday. We expect him to give significant extra resources to education.
In one sense, it is right that the debate is not about resources. We know that more resources will go into education, and we desperately need that investment, but without the changes that are necessary to deal with disruptive behaviour, we will not get the high standards of education that our young people deserve. We know that the stakes are high. Disruptive pupils can seriously damage the education of other children by disrupting the programme of teaching, undermining staff morale, absorbing a disproportionate amount of staff energy and resources, and undermining other students' enthusiasm to learn.
If disruptive students are out of school, because of exclusion or truancy, the community pays a heavy price. We have seen that in today's figures on street crime. We must find a way of dealing with disruptive behaviour without excluding children from school, and thus from the hope of an education that will give them a future.
A factor that has not featured in the debate is the effect of children's employment. I raised that issue in a private Member's Bill in 1998. I was concerned about the evidence from a number of sources, which showed that about 40 per cent. of school-age children have some form of employment. Some of it is regulated, but three quarters is illegal because of its nature or the hours that the children work. The evidence was that unregulated and illegal child employment had a significant impact on children's education, partly because of the time they spent out of school and partly because when they were in school they were often tired and could be disruptive as a result. I urge the Minister to establish, along with his colleagues in the Department of Health—which for reasons I cannot understand is responsible for that area of policy—whether regulations can be introduced to update the law established by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
I have talked to teachers in my constituency, as, no doubt, have other Members. They have made it clear to me that disruptive behaviour is increasing. Yesterday It received a letter from one of the most respected head teachers in Kent and, probably, the country. Mr. Simon Harrison is the head of Ifield special school in Gravesham, a beacon school described by the Office for Standards in Education as
"outstanding with some excellent features",
and the recipient of an award from Sport England. He has been a head teacher in Kent for 16 years, and has worked in special education and with pupils exhibiting difficult and challenging behaviour for 29. He is widely regarded as one of the most innovative and successful head teachers.

1207
Mr. Harrison wrote:
"Children in general have become much more difficult to deal with in the last few years and are less responsive to the range of creative strategies we employ to correct their behaviour. It is more difficult to engage parents in the partnership required to help students exercise greater self-control. The reasons are complex and really related to us living in a more selfish society where 'I' is a much more important word than 'you', and treating other people as you would like to be treated yourself has become a rather quaint notion within a culture of get what you can."
Mr. Harrison also pointed out that many children voluntarily give service to their communities—they do so very willingly, in fact—and that the problem must be kept in perspective. It is a growing problem and a serious problem for many schools, but we should not use it to demonise all children and young people.
One problem mentioned by Mr. Harrison, and by Members today, is that teachers may have too few sanctions at their disposal. I am not sure whether Mr. Harrison or I would be in favour of some of the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Lichfield, but exclusion is often seen as the only possible sanction. Most schools see it as the ultimate deterrent, but one that fails.
Michael Fabricant: In fact, it is often not a deterrent. Some children actively seek it, which causes a real problem.
Just for the record, I did not advocate any form of capital punishment—
Mr. Pound: Capital?
Michael Fabricant: I mean corporal punishment. I merely suggested that the issue should at least be looked at.
Mr. Pond: I take the point, and I know that the hon. Gentleman did not advocate either capital or corporal punishment in schools. I also accept that many children would be happy to be on the streets rather than at school, because they themselves have given up. I think that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knareshorough (Mr. Willis) observed that disruptive children often have a bad self-image and low self-esteem, and are keen to get out of school for that reason. We must, however, establish a range of constructive measures, short of exclusion, to deal with this serious problem.
I welcome the initiatives announced by my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State—including the £66 million package announced in April, which is intended to deal with truancy and other bad behaviour and will include the introduction of new or expanded learning support units, as well as pupil referral units.
Westcourt primary school in Gravesend has tried hard to deal with the problem of disruptive and difficult children, and has managed to do so quite successfully. It has made considerable progress in recent years, lifting itself out of "special measures" status, but it faces the continuing challenge of disruptive pupils. It decided that it was worth investing its own resources to set up an internal learning support unit. It cost the school £45,000 a year, but the impact was significant, not only for the 10 or 11 children who were in the unit—about 8 per cent. of the children in the school—but for the rest of the children, who were able to learn in a much more conducive atmosphere.
1208
The unit was set up by the head teacher, Mrs. Jean Everest, in April 2000 but, sadly, it had to close in April 2002 because the school could not continue to find the resources internally. As soon as the unit closed, three of its 10 children were excluded, three went into part-time education because no full-time alternative was available and the others were transferred. Therefore, the cost of closing the unit was probably far higher than the £45,000 that it cost to keep it open.
I lobbied Kent county council's education authority to see whether it would help with the cost of the unit. It wrote to me and said that
"the LEA is currently engaged in a review of provision for pupils with behavioural difficulties in the County. As part of that process, some consideration is being given to the possibility of establishing a primary Learning Support Unit which could support a number of schools in the locality, including Westcourt. Discussion was taking place about whether this unit could be on the Westcourt site."
If those discussions develop, that will be significant and important. Most of the units are focused on the secondary sector, but most of the problems of disruptive behaviour begin in the eight to 11 age group. We need to find a way of dealing with the problems where they begin, rather than trying to address them after they have been established in the secondary sector. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to see whether we cannot do more for primary schools in dealing with such matters.
In Kent, as in much of the south-east, there are real difficulties with teacher recruitment. We must ensure that the boroughs that border the London ring can still compete with salaries in London boroughs and that—it is perhaps of equal importance—we can deal with the problem of disruptive pupils, which discourages people from staying in education.
I share with the House another initiative that has been developed by Ifield school—the SMILE centre; I prefer that title to its full title, which is supporting multiprofessional inclusive education. It does some important work. Ifield school set up the unit, which is a resource available to all schools in the borough of Gravesham and beyond. It is a multidisciplinary, multi-agency approach to help to deal with children with special needs and with difficult and disruptive behaviour.
One concept that I would like the Minister to take away from the debate is that of the smiley boxes—literally, boxes containing resource materials that can be used by parents and teachers on a range of issues, whether it be asylum seekers, conditions such as autism and difficulties with literacy, numeracy and thinking skills. The initiative acts as a way of improving the ability of all schools to deal with those issues.
We are in the middle of autism awareness year. We need to think carefully about the role of special needs in this issue. Often, children with special needs can be perceived to be difficult and disruptive, partly because of the way in which they operate in a school, but partly because of the reaction of other children to them.
Michael Fabricant: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on mentioning autism. Will he also bring to the attention of the House a subsection of autism, Asperger's syndrome, which is far more difficult to diagnose, is not autism as one would normally understand it, results in behavioural problems that can result in the very issues

1209
that we are discussing today and needs the attention of teachers and others so that they are able to diagnose and deal with it?
Mr. Pond: Like other types of autism, Asperger's syndrome can produce social and communications problems for children that can be perceived as difficulties. We need to make sure that teachers and schools can properly identify when that is the problem, as such cases cannot be addressed by disciplinary measures, and certainly not by exclusion, although we know from evidence that that often happens.
Finally, let me underline a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). We cannot expect teachers to carry the burden of dealing with these problems on their own. We appreciate the work that teachers do and the skills that they use, but very often those skills are undermined because parents are not fully engaged in the process. We need to take tough measures against abusive and aggressive parents. We need to use measures such as parenting orders, and in extreme cases where parents are colluding in truancy to take the toughest possible measures. However, we also need constructively to engage parents. We must create an atmosphere that allows parents and young people to feel that they can engage with the schools and their staff. If we treat young people as though they were casual observers, we will not tackle the problem of disruptive behaviour.
In common with many schools around the country, Painters Ash primary school in Northfleet in my constituency has a school council. Not only does it help to establish the boundaries of acceptable behaviour but the children themselves devise the sanctions to be imposed. They have not yet come up with anything equivalent to that mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield; the sanctions are low level but very effective as they are devised by the peer group.
Moving to a slightly higher age group, I pay tribute to Gravesham Youth Forum, which is helping to deal with problems involving youth disorder, crime and disruptive behaviour in schools. It has signed an agreement with the local police, the local education authorities and the local borough council to work to meet the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead. I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister showed how important he considered that initiative to be by inviting Gravesham Youth Forum to No. 10 Downing street a few days ago to mark the signing of that agreement.
If we can find constructive ways forward involving young people, parents and schools, we can crack the problem. We must not get it out of perspective and assume that all young people and children will be disruptive and difficult, but we must give those who are not disruptive the chance of getting the highest standard of education by dealing with the few who are.
2.3 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to take part in this debate, albeit very briefly. The subject, certainly in its wider terms, is very important. As the Minister said in his impressive maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in an education debate, the value of education cannot be overestimated or overstated. I should like to explore what that means.
1210
I have the distinction, which is not unique among Conservative Members, of having attended a secondary modern school when I was 11, although I did go on to grammar school for the sixth form. That secondary modern provided me with a good basic education and a lot more. I will never forget what the headmaster used to say every day in assembly. School assembly is still a legal requirement although some schools do not fulfil their legal duties in that respect. He used to remind us that the school was a family, and that sentiment will remain with me to my dying day as it was important. Not only did we learn about history, English and French, but about behaviour, morals and ethics—words that we do not use enough these days. I like to think that that fostered good behaviour within the school because pupils went to learn not only about history and geography, but about how to behave. I do not claim that no one who went to that school went wrong—human nature is such that some did—but it was an important aspect of running the school. However, that was a long time ago.
I was looking through some old papers a few years ago and found a report from my wife's school. My wife enjoys slight superiority to me, and we noticed that in her class she was one of 47 pupils. We now have a rule that classes of a certain age cannot have more than 30 pupils, but it was acceptable then. It was probably easier for the teacher to control the class of 46 or 47 pupils than it is to control a class of 30 now, so something has changed.
One change is that, in those days, pupils were far better behaved, which enabled teachers to control the class with no great difficulty. Those teachers did not have the same burden of paperwork as present-day teachers, and the pupils formed part of a more cohesive family unit. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) back in his place because he made a very useful contribution to the debate. He spoke about special needs, with which I shall deal in a moment, but also about the make-up of families. Although he was not critical of the modern family, he pointed out that new challenges were presented by the fact that families are not what they used to be. The wider family no longer exists in the same way.
When I visit schools—I have regular meetings with head teachers and meet about a dozen every three months—an issue that comes across strongly is that teachers now feel like social workers. The Minister and the whole House will be aware of that. Teachers feel that they are not getting the support to which they are entitled from many families. Teachers are not social workers and should not be expected to fulfil the role of parents. We should not be afraid of saying that.
Teachers are also concerned about their inability to expel—or "exclude", or whatever the modern word is—pupils from school and there is some confusion as to whether they can or should expel and what happens to the expelled pupil thereafter. I am mature enough to realise that the story does not end with expelling a pupil; indeed, that is only the beginning. What does that pupil go on to do? The heads to whom I speak claim, with great justification, that they must have the ability to remove a pupil from school not only to punish the pupil, although that should be part of it, but to protect the education of the other 29 pupils in the class. Another problem is that pupils are aware of their rights. How often do we hear the word "rights" without its being linked to responsibilities? Pupils are aware of their rights and they play on that. Teachers have a heck of a job trying to control classes.

1211
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that, according to the reports that he has seen, only one school in 12 has problems. That, however, is an awful lot of schools. It is a frightening figure, so let us not try to play it down. I come from an area that used to have very high unemployment, which I regret, with one in 10 or 11 out of work. Labour Members used to say that that was a shameful figure. The figure of one in 12 schools is also shameful. I do not entirely blame the present Government, but let us not pretend that there is not a serious problem; there certainly is.
I accept that parents must play their role, but I draw the House's attention to one or two other role models who have not quite played the game as they should have done. I have deliberately used the phrase "played the game" because I refer to footballers, pop stars and even Members of Parliament. Few people are impressed by the yah-boo politics that we sometimes have in the House and they wonder why they send us here. I am all for the dramatic speeches that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and the House would be a much poorer place without such speeches. There was a good deal of common sense and sound politics in what they said. The House will understand when I say that perhaps we, too, should take seriously our duty as role models.
I do not want to be party political, but I have to be somewhat critical of the Government as I deeply regret what they have done concerning cannabis this week. The House is not only about passing laws but about the signals that we send, and reducing the classification has sent a most unfortunate signal to young people. Cannabis is not the same as alcohol or tobacco. The taking of drugs leads to disrupted and mined lives, and to criminal activity to finance the habit. That has a terribly destructive effect on schools.
On the subject of crime, I return to the value of education. This really is a piecemeal speech, and I am trying to get through it as quickly as I can. I understand that 90-odd per cent. of people in prison have some form of mental illness, be it severe or mild, and I think that between 50 and 60 per cent. have virtually no education and are either illiterate or semi-literate. We should be ashamed of that in this day and age, when we spend billions of pounds on education. Too many people come out of school without being able to read and write. That is not an excuse for committing crime, but it is a fact that many of those people do it. We must accept that that is a failure in our society.
I have raised this point with the Minister several times, and I will continue to do so until I get a satisfactory response. I admired the Secretary of State when she gave her verdict on the comprehensive system. I was a victim of the 11-plus—I failed it—but I also stood out against the introduction of the comprehensive system, because I thought it was wrong. She did not condemn all comprehensive schools, and neither will I. My daughter went to a very good comprehensive school—Bournside, in Cheltenham—having left a very poor public school. The Secretary of State made a good point when she said that the system is not delivering what was intended.
If the Government are being brave and enlightened enough to take that line and accept that comprehensive schooling may not be the answer to all society's ills, what is the logic of their programme of the inclusion of children
1212
with special educational needs in mainstream schools? Many such children are included entirely appropriately, but a great many others need special schools for their own sake. It may be convenient to call it inclusion, but if they come out of the school without the proper education that they need, they are excluded from society for the rest of their lives.
I urge Ministers to talk to teachers, heads, parents, governors and, indeed, the children about whether their special schools should be closed. The Government have said that their inclusion policy is not a green light to close special schools. I am sure that everyone is sick of hearing me say it, but the fact is that in Gloucestershire, which is not controlled by the Conservative party, there is a deliberate programme of closure of the special schools. It is a wrong policy. Pupils have come to me in tears because they feel that they are losing not only their school but their best chance of an appropriate education.
The word "appropriate" is the key. I had an appropriate education. It was not a university education—before the sixth form, it was not even a grammar school education—but it was the appropriate education for me. I urge the Minister to look into what is happening in Gloucestershire and tell the Liberal Democrat and Labour groups which control the county council that it is not the Government's intention that special schools should be closed. I urge the Minister, for goodness sake, to go to Gloucestershire and tell the council that it should not be closing those schools.
2.15
Mr. Brady: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a brief response.
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), particularly given his compelling point about the continuation of special schools and their ability to provide education appropriate to children with special needs. We have had a good debate, even though it was interrupted by a statement on a completely different subject. However, because of that, we had almost two debates and have had some useful exchanges. Members who read the record of proceedings this morning will see that there is quite a lot of agreement between Members on both sides of the House about the scale of the problem, its importance and, surprisingly, more agreement than expected about the steps needed to tackle it. There is no doubt that those steps must cover the services for pupils with difficulties who need support before serious problems arise, and improvements in the services for children who have been excluded.
There was also substantial agreement about the need to trust teachers and heads to introduce policies in our schools that will create a learning environment with proper discipline in which behaviour can be improved. I know that the House will want to hear the Minister's response, so I ask Members to forgive me for not referring to their remarks in detail. I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) for missing his contribution, although I have been given notes, and I believe that he said some important and appropriate things.
The fundamental lesson to be drawn from our debate is that teachers and heads must be supported in their mission to raise behaviour standards in our schools. There must be clear, robust guidance for schools and appeal panels,

1213
and there must be genuine trust in the professionals, who have the interests of our children at heart. I hope that the Minister will send a clear message—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury—that drug abuse and violence in schools will not be tolerated. I repeat my invitation to the Minister to issue tough guidance on that, and make it clear that heads will be supported in implementing the policy of maintaining and improving behaviour and discipline in schools.
2.18
Mr. Stephen Twigg: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, albeit interrupted. I shall do my best to do justice to the various points made by hon. Members.
First, may I clarify an important question asked by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)? It slipped my mind earlier, but a subordinate clause is a clause that functions as a noun, adjective or adverb in a complex sentence and is dependent on the main clause.
Mr. Pound: We knew that.
Mr. Twigg: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House did.
I thank Members for their kind remarks about my first speech at the Dispatch Box as an Education Minister. Members on both sides of the House raised specific issues relating to their constituencies, which I shall follow up after the debate. However, I want to pursue a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) about the excellent work of a head in his constituency, Simon Harrison. I can certainly give him the encouragement that he is seeking, and assure him that the Department will do what it can to support the good work of Mr. Harrison and his staff.
Everyone agrees that behaviour in schools is a serious issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is right to quote the latest report from the chief inspector of schools, which states that behaviour in secondary schools in 2000–01 was very similar to that in the previous year. We must be careful not to give the impression that all is doom and gloom. There is not a universal breakdown in behaviour in schools. However, I agree with hon. Members in all parts of the House that it is unacceptable that one in 12 schools has a problem with pupil behaviour. That is why we provided the opportunity for a debate on this important matter in Government time.
Many hon. Members stressed that the issue of behaviour in schools cannot be isolated from wider factors in society—a decline in discipline and in respect, and a certain change in the ethical and moral values of our society. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that some of the materialism and excessive individualism fostered in the 1980s contributed to the change. All of us should join together to rebuild a sense of respect, cohesion and discipline, not only in our schools, but in our wider society.
Many hon. Members referred to the advice that the Government issue to schools in cases where pupils have been excluded. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) who, I know, had to return to his constituency,
1214
asked about the outcome of the consultation on exclusions that was concluded on 19 April. I can inform the House that the responses to that are being fed into the on-going work on circular 10/99, which is being revised as result, and which is also to be revised to incorporate changes in the Education Bill, which comes back before the House on Monday. Those changes are due to be implemented in January 2003, so fresh guidance will be issued later this year for implementation next year.
We are committed to continuing with the independent appeals panels set up by the previous Conservative Government. It is only right that a parent of the child has the right of appeal against a decision permanently to exclude their son or daughter, but we want to send out the clear message to schools and head teachers that we support heads in their management of their schools. We do not want the inappropriate reinstatement of pupils. That is why, in the Education Bill, we are making the changes to the panels.
We want to ensure that independent appeals panels will have at least one member who has direct classroom experience—for example, a teacher or retired teacher. We will ask that in reaching their decisions, panels will balance the interests of the excluded pupil and those of the wider school community, including the other pupils. The panels will not be able to reinstate a pupil solely on the basis of a technicality in the way that they were excluded.
On discipline committees, the trigger for an automatic meeting of a discipline committee will be relaxed from more than five school days in a term to more than 15 school days in a term. We believe that that will help to reduce the burden on heads and governors.
A number of specific cases were raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench. I shall refer briefly to one which I agree is extremely serious—the case that was reported in the press this week of the 14-year-old boy who was reinstated after a sexual assault.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills asked this week for the facts of the case to be brought in for her attention. They showed that the boy is not currently at the school and will not be returning to the school, and that the girls left the school in June, following the completion of their GCSE courses. In the light of that, and the governing body's apology, my right hon. Friend has decided that no further action will be taken, but we have asked that she be kept informed should the situation change. It is worth pointing out that in that case, it was the discipline committee of the governing body that made the decision, rather than the independent appeals panel.
A number of hon. Members expressed concern about the availability of sanctions to schools. Our guidance will take that into account when we issue it later this year.
It is worth making the point that all schools exist within the same framework and some have a much better record in dealing with these matters than others, so the ethos, practice and leadership within the classroom and the wider school community are important factors when considering the policy and what works in particular schools.
I am also pleased to reaffirm what I said in my opening remarks in response to the challenge from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West regarding drugs and alcohol. The important signal that is sent by the

1215
House and by the Government is that schools must be drug-free zones. We shall continue to debate the rights and wrongs of the Home Secretary's announcement earlier this week. I think that he was right, but we can have that debate elsewhere. However, all will agree that that message must be sent out strongly. In my opening remarks I sought to say that we should also seriously address the issue of alcohol.
Mr. Brady: The Government tightened their guidelines for appeals panels earlier in the year in respect of pupils found dealing in drugs. Is the Minister now saying that it is the Government's view that it would be wrong for appeals panels to overturn the view of a head who has excluded a pupil for a drugs-related offence other than dealing?
Mr. Twigg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the change that we made concerned dealing. We are having a wider review of the guidance, and I am not issuing new guidance from the Dispatch Box today. Clearly, dealing is serious and we want to send a strong message from the Department, and I hope from Parliament, that such behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable and will not be allowed.
Several hon. Members today have referred to the importance of listening to young people and providing opportunities for school students and other young people to have their say, whether it be through schools councils or through youth assemblies and councils. That will be important in taking forward the policy initiatives that we have been debating.
I referred in my opening remarks to bullying and, in particular, homophobic bullying, and I welcome the cross-party support from the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Benches for my remarks on that.
Several hon. Members referred to the nature of the curriculum. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred to 13 to 15-year-old boys. The curriculum reforms contained in our Green Paper "14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards" and the 'wider debate on that are vital and we shall return to that soon.
1216
A number of the initiatives to which I referred will begin in those local authority areas that have the most serious problems with street crime and truancy. We are starting there, but we want the good practice established by the setting up of behaviour and education support teams and encouraging more pupil referral units and learning support units to spread elsewhere. I very much take the points that have been made by several hon. Members that if that good practice is to be taken up as part of a universal service, that will sometimes require support in terms of resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) made an important point from the experience of Ealing about the danger that excluded students from a number of schools can all end up going to one or two particular schools. That problem is not specific to London, although perhaps it is more pronounced in London than elsewhere, but part of the work that I am doing on London schools will attempt to address that. It is not an easy matter to address, but it will provide a further set of challenges for a school that might already have challenging circumstances if it finds itself as the school that effectively has to pick up all the young people excluded from other schools in the area.
Many hon. Members have referred to parental involvement and support, and that is clearly important. Several of my hon. Friends emphasised the importance of other programmes, notably the sure start programme, but also mentoring, not just for pupils but for their parents and other adult role models.
This has been a very good debate about an important matter. I hope that the cross-party spirit in which it has been conducted can be reflected afterwards, so that all of us can work both in our constituencies and nationally for the sort of step change in pupil behaviour that we want, to enhance standards in our schools and to make schools a better place for teachers to work in and for students to study in. I thank everyone for taking part.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Greenfield Land (Billericay)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John Baron: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I also thank the Minister for responding on behalf of the Government. He will be aware that yesterday, I sent him a summary of my speech in order to ensure that party politics takes a back seat in our discussions of this important issue and to give him some time to consider his response.
In my constituency of Billericay and district, we are very concerned about the various threats to our green belt and green fields. One of the growing dangers is the illegal development of greenfield land, especially by the travelling community, which buys land and then, very quickly, often in only a few days, develops it without planning permission. The council has tried to combat the problem, but without success. I believe that local authorities are hampered by the law, and during the next 10 minutes or so, I should like to put forward proposals for the Government to consider as to how the law could be updated.
However, I should like first briefly to describe the problem. I shall start by making one thing very clear: my constituents are simply seeking fairness for all under the law, but it is only fair that all those who live in a community should abide by the same set of laws. No one is seeking to discriminate against a minority. Partly because of our historic links with the pilgrim fathers and the Mayflower, as a community we recognise more than most that the mark of a civilised society is the extent to which minority interests are respected.
For example, in Basildon district alone, there are more than 100 authorised sites for the travelling and gypsy communities, while some districts have none at all. Indeed, many of us believe that it was wrong that in 1994, the statutory duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites was removed. As a society, we should provide an adequate number of sites with proper amenities, for which the travellers should pay costs; otherwise, taxpayers would be encouraging people to pursue a nomadic way of life and the settled community would be discriminated against.
In short, we have long accepted this way of life. Residents have no problem with the law-abiding traveller and gypsy communities. However, for some reason that I cannot explain, there is an increasing number of cases in which travellers who are new to the area are buying land, speedily developing it without planning permission and subsequently not living in harmony with their neighbours. That is causing much concern and anger not only in the settled community, but among the more established gypsy communities.
A recent example at Sadlers farm roundabout in Bowers Gifford involved travellers buying the land and then, on a Friday, digging a 6 ft bank around the perimeter of the field before laying hardcore over the centre and bringing in caravans over the weekend. By the time the council reacted some three weeks later with enforcement and stop notices, it was far too late. Needless to say, the enforcement notice is now being held in abeyance because
1218
an appeal has been lodged by the travellers, while the court hearing regarding the stop notice has been adjourned over a technicality.
Consequently, we have now entered a lengthy planning and appeals process, which could take years. Meanwhile, the illegal development continues. Similar situations have occurred in Hovefields in Wickford and Oak road in Crays Hill. Typically, what happens is that the lives of neighbouring residents are made a misery. Many residents, have complained of the local area and ditches being swamped with refuse, rubbish and excrement, which has caused flooding; of intimidation to the point of people being fearful to leave their home, with crime generally on the increase; and of nearby narrow lanes being plagued by under-age youngsters driving recklessly, or by noisy lorries, often during the early hours of the morning.
As the Minister can well imagine, I have received many letters about the issue, as feelings are running high. If the House will forgive me, I shall quote from just a few of them, although the names have been withheld because of fear of intimidation.
A lady in Wickford said:
"Here in Wickford a well organised group of travellers has bought various areas of greenbelt, moved in with JCBs and totally decimated the entire areas covering them with tonnes of building, rubble".
Another lady in Wickford added that
"the situation is already causing problems with flooding to the local area, congestion on what is an unmade road. There are no drainage facilities which raises environmental concerns."
A resident of Crays Hill wrote that,
"as we walked through the Spinney in Oak Avenue, we came across two very unpleasant heaps on the path along with paper, flies etc. There was also about 50 empty beer cans and evidence of drug taking."
Another resident of Bowers Gifford wrote:
"I would like to use the Human Rights Act to ensure my right to a secure and settled family life but fear that if I did, as soon as this action became public knowledge I might not have a home, family or even a life."
Many residents point to the local Labour-run council as the culprit, but I believe that the law needs updating. I have solicited views from the Government, Basildon district council, the police, various research and environmental bodies, the House of Commons Library, residents, gypsies and councillors—and at this point, I would like to pay particular thanks to Councillor David Dadds, Mark Pinner, Councillor Malcolm Buckley and Julie Stainton.
I do not believe that the council could have stopped the illegal development of Sadlers Farm roundabout in the early days as, by law, it had to take account of the personal circumstances of the travellers and ensure accurate drafting of notices for fear of the financial implications of adverse court rulings. A further factor that delays councils is the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Minister knows that I raised the issue with his Department by letter on the 24 April. In his response, after describing the enforcement powers available to councils, the Minister said that
"the enforcement powers will only deter unauthorised development if local planning authorities implement these powers in a determined and decisive fashion."
In other words, it is up to the council. I have written again, asking the Minister to reconsider his position.

1219
We may be making progress. The Government recently issued a press release, dated 5 July, entitled "A New Approach to Tackling Unauthorised Traveller Camps", which appears to accept that councils cannot deal with the issue alone. The initiative will apparently produce new guidance on managing unauthorised camping, and provide police with increased powers to move on unauthorised traveller encampments. [Interruption.]
However, it appears that the increased powers will apply only in cases of trespass. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If so, the new guidelines will not help my constituency. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There appears to be a problem with the sound system, which means that we have no recording for official purposes. I shall therefore suspend the sitting for five minutes.
2.44 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Baron: I understand that guidelines will be issued in the autumn, and, with this time scale in mind, I would like to suggest three changes to the law. The first involves retrospective planning applications; the second, stop notices; and the third, injunctions. All are aimed at stopping illegal development early, as soon as it first occurs or is about to occur.
With regard to the first proposal, retrospective planning applications should be restricted where it could be shown that significant harm is about to be, or has been, caused to the greenfield site in question. The council would have discretion whether to act following guidance from the Secretary of State as to what constitutes "significant harm".
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development. However, as we know, a retrospective planning application can be made where development has already been carried out without permission. When a retrospective planning application has been received, any pending or proposed enforcement action is suspended until the application has proceeded through the planning system and/or the courts. In other words, serious and costly delays can occur during the appeals process, and in some cases it can take up to six years, or even longer, before the processes are exhausted. Meanwhile, the unauthorised development remains. In refusing retrospective planning applications, a strong message would be sent out that speedy unauthorised development of greenfield land would not be worthwhile and would not be tolerated. Enforcement action could be immediately carried out in the knowledge that retrospective planning could not be allowed as a ground for appeal.
There is little doubt that the current enforcement system is unduly complex and cumbersome, but the measure would prevent those who seek to deliberately evade or abuse the planning system from doing so. The term "significant harm", as opposed to just "harm", would be appropriate, to ensure that any such amendment complies with the Human Rights Act 1998 and that minor contraventions of planning law were not necessarily penalised by the council.
1220
The second proposal would involve no costs or penalties being awarded against councils who issue a stop notice in relation to any development where planning permission has not been granted. Currently, in part due to the Human Rights Act, inspectors' enforcement decisions regarding unauthorised traveller sites are increasingly being decided against local authorities, with hefty costs or damages being awarded.
That danger considerably discourages councils from using stop notices, or at least delays the issuing of those notices while councils prepare lengthy paperwork, during which time much damage can be done to the greenfield in question. If that danger were removed by preventing costs from being awarded against councils, it would provide a big incentive towards allowing councils speedily to enforce their planning powers where necessary by issuing a stop notice. Again, councils would have final discretion in that.
The third proposal involves injunctions. A letter from my local council says:
"Injunctions, to have any effect, must be served on the named perpetrators and this is fraught with difficulties when dealing with unco-operative travellers of no fixed address. This, therefore, has the effect of making injunctive action ineffective in most cases."
Councils should be made better aware by Government that they can issue injunctions against a person whose identity is unknown—in simple terms, an injunction can be served on the land. Councils would therefore be better aware that they can issue injunctions quickly and stop any unauthorised development in its tracks immediately, subject to the appeals process.
An additional problem is that, often, court sentences for contravening an injunction and for non-payment of fines are too lenient. Penalties available to the courts are limited and they do not act as a deterrent. That also needs to be put right by the Government.
In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a real problem in my constituency, and it is causing much distress and anger. Whereas section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 can deal with trespass, the existing law is essentially ineffective against determined and unco-operative people who buy land and then speedily and illegally develop it.
That problem is getting worse, and it could escalate significantly. Local residents cannot sell their properties or land because of the location of many of those illegal sites, and greenfield land is being sold at knockdown prices to that new wave of travelling communities.
Clarification is required as to whether the Government's latest initiative deals only with trespass. I am also aware that the planning Green Paper has announced that enforcement powers and procedures are being scrutinised. We shall hear more in the autumn.
In the lead-up to the announcements, I urge the Government to consider those three proposals, which aim to put an end to the generally perceived view that there is a two-tier planning system operating in this country. There may be technical issues to address, but these should not get in the way of what I believe are common-sense policies, which, if sufficient political will exists, would tackle the problems.

1221
These proposals would give councils the power to act quickly against the illegal development of land owned by the perpetrators, whether traveller or not, and would therefore create fairness for all. I await the Government's response with interest.
2.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this debate. It is an important matter and I sympathise with much of what he said in terms of the effect of illegal and semi-legal camps on his constituency. It is an issue that most of us have had to deal with on a constituency basis.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment about this being essentially a minority pursuit among the travelling community in the context of more than 100 authorised sites within the Billericay, Basildon and surrounding district. I am grateful that this week's debate—I seem to have one a week, nowadays—is outside party politics and talk of conspiracy about changes. The hon. Gentleman's constituents and the issue deserve better than that.
There are essentially two issues here. The first is the breach of planning control that occurs through the use of land for development which does not have the benefit of planning permission. The second is the fact that the unlawful use is taking place on greenfield land that may also have metropolitan greenbelt status.
The hon. Gentleman said that councils were hampered by the law, and I will return to much of what he said in relation to the unauthorised encampments guidance that has just been issued for consultation. I am grateful for his comments and their context, because they underpin much of what the Department is trying to do. We start from a premise of fairness for all, rights for all and—clearly within that—responsibilities for all. Neither the settled community nor the travelling community has been afforded a status above the law. That is the balance that we are trying to get into the system. All should abide by the law. As the hon. Gentleman said, respect for minority interests is a measure of our civilisation.
Day-to-day policy on development control is the responsibility of local planning authorities. If there has been a breach of planning control in the district, Basildon council has the option of taking enforcement action to bring the unlawful use to an end and to require the offenders to apply formally for planning permission. The planning system provides for appeals to be made against enforcement notices, as well as against refusals of planning permissions. Appeals are considered on their merits and determined in accordance with the development plan for the area, unless material considerations dictate otherwise.
The merits of using greenfield land for development are a matter for the determination of the local planning authority in the first instance, and for the inspector or my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when considering appeals. The Government are committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties and the conversion of non-residential
1222
buildings for new housing, in order both to promote regeneration and to minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. We have more than met those targets in the past.
That means giving priority to re-using such land within urban areas, bringing empty homes back into use and converting existing buildings. That is preferable to the development of greenfield sites. In a planning context, that is the background against which we consider illegal developments and the illegal use of greenfield land. However, not all development can take place within urban areas and, where it has to be located elsewhere, we are looking to the local planning authorities to utilise the most sustainable option. Policies and guidance on greenfield and open land are the next step on from use of brownfield and urban centres.
The Government recognise that gypsies have a right to pursue their own lifestyle. We are committed to ensuring that the planning system treats members of that community as fairly as everyone else. Gypsies make up a tiny proportion of the population of this country, but their land use requirements must be met. That is what much of the new guidance will be about.
Planning policies relating to the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether provided by the local authority or privately, are set out in the then Department of the Environment circular 1/94 "Gypsy Sites and Planning". That advice is now eight years old but remains the legal framework in which planning and other matters are dealt with. The circular places gypsies on the same footing as others in relation to the planning system, while recognising their special accommodation needs, and the desire of many gypsies to buy their own sites to develop and manage. Gypsy sites constitute development, and therefore require planning permission.
The circular emphasises the importance of local authorities and gypsies working together to identify suitable sites, and encourages gypsies to consult local authorities before buying land on which they intend to camp and for which planning permission would be required. Effective liaison is essential if disputes are to be avoided. The lack of availability of alternative sites can be a consideration when appeals against enforcement notices are determined.
It is the responsibility of local planning authorities to judge how they frame their policies, and these of course are open to public scrutiny and comments at inquiry. Development plans must take account of local circumstances. For example, gypsy sites are not among the uses of land that are usually appropriate for greenbelt land, areas of special scientific interest and places of open land where development is severely restricted.
The onus is on the applicant to prove very special circumstances that overcome the harm by reason of inappropriateness. In gypsy cases, special circumstances often include health and educational needs, and those may be human rights considerations. I have participated in two or three debates on this subject, but I am still unclear about the allusions to human rights law. One case revolved around a technicality, with the judge going beyond his brief. We shall explore that further and get back to the hon. Gentleman. We also need to add to what the guidance says about unauthorised sites. We are dealing with three or four different strands of policy, of which the guidance will be one and planning is another.

1223
A difficulty that we have nationally is that there has been little quantitative and sustainable research on the demand for the provision of sites. We are not minded—although this may change as a result of the research—to return to the pre-1994 position in which every local authority had to provide a site of some description.
We have organised a body of research, which we hope will report during the summer, to try to get not just a feel of how many sites there are, their nature and their general upkeep, but a wider picture of demand and the need for temporary or transitory provision. Building on that research, we have said in the guidance that local authorities and the police should devise strategies to deal with travellers in their areas. That will be through a mix of existing sites and provision for emergency or temporary sites, which can often overcome difficulties in some areas.
As a quid pro quo, if local councils devise such strategies, we will provide a stream of funding for those temporary or transitory sites. We have diverted some of the funds from our three-year gypsy site refurbishment grant for that purpose. As a further quid pro quo, the enforcement powers and the ability to move unauthorised encampments in those areas will be far stronger. It is about getting the balance back into the equation: recognising the need for sites and the responsibility to provide them while giving the police greater powers to move people on.
Mr. Baron: Do the enhanced powers apply to cases in which travellers own the land that they have illegally developed?
Mr. McNulty: I will get back to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I understand that in the context of the guidance "unauthorised" means unauthorised in the context of the planning framework. Whether the person owns the land or not, if there is inappropriate land use or development that has not been authorised through planning permission, the ownership of the land is irrelevant.
In the first instance, it is for the local planning authority to determine planning applications against the new backdrop of the guidance. There are of course other elements of the legislative nexus, such as the Children Act 1989—if children are involved—and social services. All that is taken into account in the guidance that we have issued, and the balance, hopefully, has been restruck.
The fact that gypsies own their land does not mean that planning permission need not be applied for. It should be obtained before development takes place and before the land is occupied. I think—but I will write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail—that there cannot be a qualified position on the principle of retrospective planning. As the hon. Gentleman said, retrospective planning applications should be restricted where it can be shown that significant harm could be done to the land in question, but retrospective planning applications and subsequent provisions are dealt with in exactly the same planning framework. If an existing application came in for a greenfield development that would mean inappropriate use of that greenfield open site, it should not be allowed as a future application. Those are the rules that prevailed for previous applications. We cannot lock qualifications on to retrospective planning; either we have retrospective planning applications in principle or we do not.
1224
The other important principle is established use, meaning that approval for an application for land that has been used for that purpose for 50 years is fairly automatic because it is determined under the older rather than the new framework. Anything from now on should be dealt with, albeit retrospectively, in the context of whatever the framework is at the time. I cannot envisage many cases in which action that would either cause significant harm or be counter to what the General Development Procedure Order and planning policy guidance currently say about greenfield and green-belt developments would be permitted simply because it was retrospective.
Mr. Baron: Will the Minister clarify his last statement? Increasingly, people buy land and then quickly develop it, knowing that they will subsequently put in a retrospective planning application. That has the effect of instigating the appeals process, and everything else—including enforcement action—is held in abeyance. If we restricted retrospective planning applications, such people—whoever they may he—would know that they could not act in that way. It would constitute a major deterrent.
Mr. McNulty: With respect, that could be described as tackling things the wrong way round. The hon. Gentleman probably wanted me to clarify the relationship between the planning process—whether retrospective or otherwise—enforcement notices, and what starts and what stops, what is suspended and what is not suspended. We are trying to speed up the enforcement process and to make it more flexible: that is part of our response to consultations on the planning Green Paper. I will get back in touch with the hon. Gentleman on that. However, I do not think that shackling or restricting powers at that end—I mean retrospective planning applications—is necessarily the right way in which to deal with the relationship between planning application and enforcement or stop notices and difficulties.
We want to streamline the system. I am not sure why, but stop notices are used less and less and injunctions more and more. I do not know whether that is because they are a clumsy weapon, or simply because they are no longer appropriate. Happily, I am not a lawyer. I do not know the ins and outs of it, but I should not think it appropriate to lose the notion, for public authorities or others, of costs to prevent malicious or capricious use of the law.
There may be some other way to do it. I will certainly investigate the notion of serving the injunction on the land rather than the title owner; I had not heard of it before and I had the great pleasure, perverse or otherwise, to be on a planning committee for 11 years. I will have a look at that and get back to the hon. Gentleman.
We need to get to a position where everyone who lives in Crays Hill, Wickford and Billericay lives in peace without fear of molestation or antisocial behaviour, whether from the traveller community or the settled community.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 702W, on Nepal, if she will make a statement on the failure of the Nepalese Government to allow journalists and aid agencies access to the western districts of Nepal. [69513]

  Clare Short
  UK funded development assistance, and that of other donor agencies too, continues throughout Nepal, including in many of the Mid-and Far-Western districts of the country where the conflict situation is worse. However, development staff based in Kathmandu do not, for security reasons, visit areas of active conflict. There are no Government restrictions per se.

  There has been some press coverage recently of visits made by journalists to districts in the west of the country. However, the current State of Emergency is deterring many journalists from visiting parts of the country.

  World Bank
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 613W, on World Bank loans, how much the UK Government contributed to the 12th Replenishment of the International Development Association IDA-12; and how much it contributed to IDA-13. [69515]

  Clare Short
  The British Government contributed £511 m to the 12th Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA-12), equating to a 7.3 per cent. share. This made the UK the joint fourth largest donor to IDA.

  The UK's contribution to the 13th Replenishment of IDA (IDA-13) has not yet been finalised. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 613W, on World Bank loans, what provisions are in place to ensure that the level of overall IDA resources does not decrease in future as a result of the conversion of some loans to grants; and if she will make a statement. [69514]

  Clare Short
  Around 40 per cent of the International Development Association's (IDA's) resources currently come from re-flows from previous loans being repaid. During negotiations for the 13th Replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA-13), the British Government argued consistently that if some loans were to be converted to grants under IDA-13, IDA donors 1226W
  should ensure that a scheme was agreed to compensate IDA for the resulting future loss in re-flows. Such a scheme would require donors to start putting aside a small amount of resources now and during future replenishments.

  Very regrettably, IDA donors have not yet managed to agree such a scheme, despite strong UK pressure to do so. Donors have, however, accepted the principle that extra resources do need to be put aside in advance of future shortfalls. They have agreed to make a final decision on what sort of scheme should be used during the Mid-Term Review of IDA-13, which is scheduled to begin in around six months' time. The British Government will continue to press hard to ensure a satisfactory outcome which will protect IDA's long-term financial sustainability.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Service
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the collection of fines by the Court Service; [62600]

  (2) what the level of arrears of fines was, and what percentage of fines had not been collected within the due time (a) in the last 12 months and (b) in the 12 month period before the change in the collection system; and if he will make a statement. [62601]

  Yvette Cooper
  Fines are imposed by both Magistrates' Courts and the Crown Court. The Crown Court is part of the Court Service, which is an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Court Service does not collect fines. Fines are collected by Magistrates' Courts and their staff, which constitute an independent local service with statutory powers for the enforcement and collection of financial penalties.

  The Government are committed to improving the enforcement of financial penalties. Variations in performance across the country are too wide. We have transferred lead responsibility for warrant execution from the police to Magistrates' Courts Committees, on 1 April 2001.

  We have established an information sharing scheme, which enables Magistrates' Courts to obtain basic information on defaulters from the Department for Work and Pensions. We have set performance targets for 2002–03 and Magistrates' Courts Committees have also been given nearly£10 million extra from April 2002, ring-fenced for enforcement purposes. We will monitor the position carefully to check that performance improves.

  Magistrates' Courts Committees have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just the fines from the total.

  Arrears is described as the total of missed lump sums or missed instalments on impositions where deferred payment was allowed. The latest available figures for the level of arrears of all debt are:
  1227W
  (c)£246 million as at 31 March 2002;

  (d)£226 million as at 31 March 2001.

  Data are only collected on the financial value of the debt, not the number of fines. Fines are normally payable from the moment of imposition unless time to pay is Year granted.

  Since the transfer, the write-off rate has reduced from 19 per cent of total debt imposed in 2000–01 to 15 percent. of total debt imposed in 2001–02, which was equivalent to£19.5 million.

  Judiciary (Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Cases)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will amend the rules of the Supreme Court to ensure that a woman judge is a member of appeal courts hearing a case concerning(a) rape, (b) other sexual offences and (c) domestic violence. [65211]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government have no proposals to amend the Rules of the Supreme Court on the composition of courts hearing appeals.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to ensure that judges receive equivalent training about rape offences to that recommended for police and prosecutors by the HMIC/CPSI thematic inquiry into rape. [65213]

  Yvette Cooper
  Judicial Training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) which is an independent non-departmental public body. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller.

  The Board provides specialist training to those judges authorised to hear cases of rape through its regular Serious Sexual Offences Seminars.

  The Criminal Committee of the JSB will be considering the comments made in the Joint Inspectors' Report over the coming months.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he will take to ensure that the recommendations of the Sentencing Advisory Panel on rape are implemented by the judiciary. [65210]

  Yvette Cooper
  The decision on whether or not to issue guidelines based on the Sentencing Advisory Panel's advice to the Court of Appeal is for that Court.

  Fines
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fine-defaulters were in receipt of income support and income-related jobseekers allowance in each year since 1990. [65119]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is not possible to provide proportions of fine defaulters who were in receipt of Income Support (IS) or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA IB). The table below shows numbers of IS/JSA (IB) claimants at a point in time each year since 1228W
  1994, with a deduction in force on their benefit for fines recovery. It is not possible to provide historical figures back to 1990 as fines recovery data was not collected.

  Year

  IS Claiments(1000s)

  JSA (IB) Claiments (1000s)

  May 1994

  7

  —

  May 1995

  9

  —

  May 1996

  16

  —

  May 1997

  14

  8

  May 1998

  13

  7

  May 1999

  13

  6

  May 2000

  12

  5

  May 2001

  13

  4

  Feb 2002

  14

  4

  Notes:

  1. Based on 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling variation.

  2. IS figures from May 1994 to May 1997 include unemployed claimants claiming Income Support.

  3. JSA (IB) replaced IS for the unemployed in October 1996.

  4. Some Income-based JSA claimants may also have entitlement to benefit via the contributory route.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fines imposed by Sussex magistrates were(a) paid, (b) written off, (c) cancelled and (d) in arrears in each year since 1990. [65120]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates' Courts Committees have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just fines from the total.

  Sussex Magistrates' Courts Committee IT system includes cancellations in the write off figures. The figures available for Sussex Magistrates' Courts Committee are as follows:

  2001–02—Imposed:£7,990,163 (a) £4,106,942 (b) £2,462,123 (d)£3,441,695;

  2000–01—Imposed:£9,066,983 (a) £4,648,440 (b) £3,475,773 (d) £2,728,719;

  1999–2000—Imposed:£8,094,313 (a) £5,611,954 (b) £3,406,299 (d) £7,404,347.

  Prior to 1999, the Magistrates' Courts Committees were not asked as part of their data collection to provide full-information on the amounts imposed, paid or cancelled. The national data for the period 1996–1998 for amounts "written off" were only collected for the last quarter of each calendar year; while the "amounts in arrears" show the position as at 31 December for each year.

  1998—(b)£572,651 (d)£4,544,567;

  1997—(b)£451,266 (d)£4,461,302;

  1996—(b)£712,100 (d)£4,807,596.

  For the period 1993–1995 only figures for the total arrears at the year's end are available:

  1995—(d) £4,062,847;

  1994—(d) £4,859,747;

  1229W

  1993—(d) £2,086,118. (Data only provided by East Sussex.)

  Prior to 1993 data were not collected centrally.

  Electoral Systems
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on(a) the (i) timing and (ii) structure of the proposed review of the new voting systems in the devolved administrations and (b) the report of the Jenkins Commission. [65572]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on Tuesday 3 July 2001 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 93W.

  Magistrates' Court, Liverpool
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total level of fines imposed by Liverpool Magistrates' Court was in each year since 1998–99. [66689]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates' Courts have responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed through the courts, including not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not possible to separate out just fines from the total.

  Liverpool Magistrates' Court has imposed the following amount of debt:

  April 2001–March 2002—£3,754,209

  April 2000–March 2001—£5,053,315

  April 1999–March 2000—£5,523,974

  April 1998–March 1999—£5,459,562

  The fall in impositions over the period April 2001 to March 2002 was due to the fact that under the Human Rights Act introduced in October 2000 some of the accommodation at Liverpool was judged to be unsuitable and so work had to be transferred to other courts within Merseyside while remedial building work was completed at Liverpool.

TRANSPORT

  South West Trains
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for how long the Strategic Rail Authority has been in negotiation with South West Trains for its franchise renewal; [67427]

  (2) when he intends to announce the South West Trains franchise renewal. [67425]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) signed heads of terms with Stagecoach in April 2001. Negotiation of a new franchise agreement is continuing. On 1 July the SRA announced that, while negotiations for a long-term franchise continue, the existing South West Trains franchise has been amended to provide a £29 million package of improvements for passengers including new Desiro trains.

  M1
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason a tall fence is being erected adjacent to the hard shoulder on the southbound carriageway of the Ml motorway south of junction 25; what the total cost is of the works; who authorised the same; and who is bearing the cost. [67764]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Highways Agency has received numerous complaints from local residents living adjacent to the M1 south of junction 25 about the high level of traffic noise. As part of the Government's "New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". revised criteria and a ring fenced annual budget have been established to help the Agency to deal with some of the most serious and pressing cases of noise from the motorway and trunk road network.

  Following an initial assessment of sites on the network, the M1 junction 25 was identified as an area with a particular noise problem and was subsequently included in the list of locations to be prioritised for treatment published in Hansard in November 1999. This was followed by a detailed Scheme Identification Study to determine the most appropriate and viable method of reducing the noise problems at this location. Environmental barriers were found to be the most cost effective solution. A local consultation exercise was carried out in October 2000.

  The estimated final cost of the works is £1.2 million, but this includes an element for the upgrade of part of the motorway communications network (approximately £130,000), which is being carried out at the same time. The work was authorised and is being funded by the Highways Agency.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on application of the legislation on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68596]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The mandate of the ground handling committee is to advise the Commission when member states apply for exemptions from the ground handling directive. There are no cases currently being considered by the committee and so there is no date set for its next meeting. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility on access to the groundhandling market is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vessels with hazardous cargoes have been allowed to transit a compulsory pilotage district since 12 December 2001(a) in total and (b) without an authorised pilot on board. [68763]
  1231W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Department does not hold this information nationally. The new arrangements for pilotage on the Humber began on 12 December 2001: it is understood that no vessels with bulk hazardous cargoes have been allowed to transit that pilotage district since that date without an authorised pilot on board.

  Humber Pilots
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the countries of origin of the pilots' certificates of the Humber Pilots employed by ABP; and if he will make a statement. [69544]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The criteria for pilot applicants is a matter for the competent harbour authority, in accordance with the Pilotage Act 1987.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those schemes supported by the Rural Bus Challenge competition identified by his Department as providing best practice examples. [69352]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Research commissioned by my Department on the impact of the rural bus grant schemes introduced in 1998–99 is currently on-going. This work includes consideration of examples of good practice supported under the Rural Bus Challenge. The research report is expected by the end of this year and will be published.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) fatal motor vehicle accidents, (b) fatalities, (c) motor vehicle accidents resulting in serious injury and (d) motor vehicle accidents requiring the attendance of an ambulance there were on the (i) A47 between Uppingham and Leicester and (ii) A52 between Barrowby and Bingham in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [69516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of fatal accidents, fatalities and serious road accidents for the stretches of road requested are shown in the tables below. Information is not available on the number of accidents requiring the attendance of an ambulance.

  Personal Injury Road Accidents and Casualties on the A47 Uppingham1 to Leicester2

  Year of Accident

  Fatal accidents

  Fatalities

  Serious accidents

  1997

  2

  3

  1

  1998

  0

  0

  6

  1999

  2

  3

  8

  2000

  2

  3

  5

  2001(P)

  4

  5

  7

  1 Uppingham is taken as OS reference {48639,30066}.

  2 Leicester is taken as OS reference {46145,30540}.

  (P) Figures for 2001 are provisional.

DEFENCE

  Munitions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) factors and (b) criteria were used by Defence Estates Organisation in their table-top evaluation of the likely sale value of Dean Hill Munitions Depot. [68912]

  Mr. Ingram
  In June 2001 Defence Estates SW provided an outline desktop valuation of the Dean Hill Munitions Site to advise the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Investment Appraisal.

  The valuation was based on the estimated realisation price, assuming that the sites had been subject to a Phase 2 Land Quality Assessment. It had been proposed that the eventual value for the site would be abated by the cost of the remedial work once known. Site inspections were permitted. However, in view of the sensitivity of the issues and as the purpose was to inform an investment appraisal, no approach was made to the local planning authority at that stage.

  Due to the absence of clear planning guidance, with the exception of the residential property and agricultural land, the possible future uses of the remainder of the site were limited, The value was established by assuming disposal of the residential and agricultural property, and based on the limited redevelopment and re-use of the remaining area for potential employment uses.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Consultative Document (D/DM/72/46/1) dated 24 June were printed; and if he will list the locations to which they were distributed. [69422]

  Mr. Ingram
  131 hard copies of the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Consultative Document were printed. These were distributed to:

  46 to National Trades Union officials at various locations nationwide, 57 to civilian employees at Defence Munitions (DM) Dean Hill, 21 to the Ministry of Defence Police Officers stationed at DM Dean Hill. One copy each to the DM Whitley, Vice Chair and Vice Secretaries at DM Longtown (Cumbria), DM Beith (Ayrshire), DM Kineton (Warwickshire) and London.

  Three copies for internal MOD distribution (one Bath, one Andover, one Wethersfield (Essex).

  In the interests of openness, efficiency and better use of resources, the Consultative Document itself has been posted on the Defence Munitions Web Site where it can be viewed by MOD staff as required. It was also sent electronically to each Defence Munitions establishment at Beith, Crombie, Glen Douglas, Gosport, Kineton, Longtown and Plymouth. Each DM Depot reproduced sufficient hard copies from this for their local needs as appropriate. Main MOD customers and stakeholders were advised of the existence of the Consultative Document on the DM Web Site.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Director of Military Operations participated in Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2. [68908]

  Mr. Ingram
  Director of Military Operations did not participate in the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2. The study drew its knowledge of anticipated Tri Service munitions requirements from both the current and
  1233W
  future munitions equipment owners who were asked to take into account the latest output from the Ministry of Defence's Stockpile Planning Group.

  Other MOD customers and internal stakeholders (particularly Strike Command given the nature of the RAF tasks currently undertaken at Defence Munitions Dean Hill) have been made aware of the proposal to close DM Dean Hill.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the recommendations of Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 will achieve a 20 per cent reduction in operating costs by March 2004. [68914]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Munitions is part of the DG Defence Supply Chain (DG Def SC) that, in turn, is part of the Defence Logistics Organisation. Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 identified a number of potential efficiency initiatives pertinent to the Defence Munitions environment, including the proposal to close Defence Munitions Dean Hill. Taken together as a package these initiatives will, if implemented, contribute towards the DG Def SC Strategic Plan which is designed to deliver a 20 per cent reduction in operating costs by Financial Year 2005–06.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications were made to the terms of reference for Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 after 11 September 2001. [68913]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no modifications made to the Terms of Reference for the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 after 11 September 2001.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the team responsible for Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 presented their final report. [68910]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 presented their final report to the Defence Munitions Management Board in February 2002. There then followed an internal Departmental approvals procedure which culminated in a submission to Minister (Armed Forces) in June 2002.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 included a strategic analysis. [68909]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 was in itself a strategic analysis of the Defence Munitions business. Among those elements addressed were:

  Capacity versus long-term liability

  Risk to outputs

  Uniqueness of facilities

  Transferability of tasks

  Proximity to customers

  Health and safety and explosives safety regulations

  Scale and quality of facilities

  Cost of transferring tasks

  Remediation

  Potential savings to operating costs

  Potential site realisable value

  1234W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if private sector commercial advice was sought by(a) Defence Estates Organisation and (b) the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 team in their assessment of the likely sale value of Dean Hill Munitions Depot. [68911]

  Mr. Ingram
  In June 2001 Defence Estates South West were requested to provide an outline desktop valuation of the Dean Hill Munitions Site to inform the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Study 2 Investment Appraisal. Given the nature of the valuation requested no external advice was sought.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last refit of HMS Nottingham was; how long she has been deployed on her current deployment; what task she is carrying out; and if he will make a statement. [68771]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Nottingham's last refit began in August 1999 and she returned to the Fleet in February 2001 following sea trials.

  HMS Nottingham deployed from Portsmouth on 18 March 2002 and was scheduled to return to the United Kingdom on 6 December 2002. She deployed for duties as the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) ship but was subsequently assigned to Operation ORACLE in support of the fight against terrorism and was being held at notice for this purpose while deployed to the Asia Pacific to honour our commitments to the FPDA. The main focus of this deployment was to have been participation in the FPDA Exercise STARDEX in September with other FPDA partners (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore). HMS Nottingham was also scheduled to undertake a series of visits in support of Defence Diplomacy, wider security objectives, and Defence Export Services and United Kingdom industry initiatives. Her immediate programme will no longer proceed. The impact on Fleet programming is being assessed.

  Prisoners of War/Unlawful Combatants
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to treat POWs and captured unlawful combatants in the same manner. [69008]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the Government's policy to treat both POWs and unlawful combatants in accordance with their rights under the Geneva Convention.

  Rosyth Dockyard
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the intention of his Department to cease the allocation of surface ship refits to Rosyth Dockyard in 2005; and what plans he has to allocate further refits to Rosyth Dockyard. [69402]

  Mr. Ingram
  The last refit in the programme of surface ship work allocated to Rosyth Dockyard is due to be completed in 2005. There are no plans to allocate further refit work to the Dockyard, as the Department is opening up the wider ship refit and repair programme to competition. Rosyth Dockyard is expected to bid for that work.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received from the UK pig industry about overseas restrictions on the export of British pigs; [64463]

  (2) what representations she has made, and to which countries, to remove restrictions on the export of pigs from the United Kingdom. [64462]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have received a number of letters from the UK pig industry, which is naturally anxious that overseas restrictions on the import of British pigs are removed as soon as possible. The Chief Veterinary Officer wrote to his opposite numbers in other countries on 25 January this year asking them to recognise the UK's foot and mouth disease free status and requesting import certification requirements for livestock and genetic material. Officials in my Department are working closely with representatives from the livestock industry to identify the priority markets and to pursuade those countries to lift any remaining restrictions. The priority countries for pigs and porcine genetic material include Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Thailand, USA. This is being pursued by a variety of methods such as lobbying officials at trade shows, bringing them in on inward missions, getting British Embassies to make representations and through further correspondence.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which interested parties received an invitation to contribute to the consultation on the future of fox hunting; which of those bodies she(a) has met and (b) plans to meet before the consultation finishes; and if she will make a statement. [64362]

  Margaret Beckett
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael) continues to meet with representatives of the three main interest organisations on a regular basis. They are the Countryside Alliance, the Middle Way Group and the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal. In addition to these regular meetings, he is holding a number of meetings with a wide range of groups with more specific interests

  Following my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 21 March, he has written to all Members of both Houses of Parliament, Welsh Assembly members, interested individuals and interested organisations.

  Overcharging
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to implement the NAO recommendation on the pursuit of cases where the Department believes it was overcharged for goods and services and the investigation and resolution of irregularities in contractors' claims. [65188]
  1236W
  Mr. Morley
  The accounts of the principal contractors used by DEFRA during the FMD outbreak have been the subject of detailed examination. This has been an extensive exercise as the contractors concerned carried out work to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds involving the generation of tens of thousands of invoices. This work is on-going.

  It has necessitated DEFRA obtaining legal advice from a number of external law firms as well as the establishment of invoicing panels and commercial teams staffed by forensic accountants and quantity surveyors, all of whom come from external professional firms.

  It is on the recommendation of these panels and teams following examination of the accounts that further payments have been made by DEFRA to contractors and/or deductions have been sought from the contractors' invoiced sums. In many cases, the deductions have been substantial. The process is on-going.

  Wide-ranging issues have arisen on the accounts. These include legal issues such as matters of contractual interpretation, forensic accountancy issues and evidential issues involving the assessment of both a large amount of documentation and proofing of witnesses.

  Some of these disputes will inevitably result in court proceedings although DEFRA remains committed to resolving matters by mediation where appropriate. We will have no hesitation in taking whatever action is required to protect taxpayer interest in the light of forensic examination of the accounts of contractors.

  EU Management Committee
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for poultrymeat and eggs 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. [64889]

  Mr. Morley
  The next meeting of the EU Poultrymeat and Eggs Management Committee will be held on Tuesday, 17 September 2002. UK representation depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive and other devolved Administrations attend as necessary in accordance with their interests. However, there have been no occasions in the last 12 months where the Scottish Executive have sought to have an official form part of the delegation.

  CO2 Emissions
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the implementation of the Directive relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars 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. [66460]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  At present there are no meetings of the Committee of Directive 99/94/EC scheduled. Fuel consumption and CO2 labelling of passenger cars is a reserved issue and

  1237W
  Committee meetings would therefore generally be attended by officials of the Department for Transport only. However, officials will continue to ensure that their counterparts in the Devolved Administrations are kept informed of developments in this area and consulted on any proposals to amend the directive put to the Committee.

  My response on 21 May 2002 to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), Official Report, column 214W–15W, was incorrect. It stated that this Committee had not yet met, whereas it did in fact meet on 15 November 2000 to agree a format for reporting on the effectiveness of the Directive. Since this question was answered, the Committee has met a further time although as yet no proposals to amend the Directive have been received.

  Marine Pollution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the implementation of the Community framework for co-operation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution 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. [66450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Management Committee on Marine Pollution is scheduled to meet on 4 October 2002 in Brussels. Officials from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), part of my Department, represents the UK on the Committee. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average time taken is(a) in the territory of each of her Department's regional offices, and (b) in England, between an animal reacting positive to a test for Bovine TB and that animal being taken for slaughter. [65472]

  Margaret Beckett
  The information requested is given in the table below.

  The average length of time taken to remove TB-infected reactors from farms in each State Veterinary Service region with a breakdown between 21 June 2001 and 20 June 2002

  SVS Region

  Number of observations

  Average no. days between date of reading the tuberculin test and date of slaughter

  West

  968

  30.4

  East

  21

  13.1

  North

  92

  9.7

  England total

  1081

  17.7

  Note:

  The TB-infected reactors reported are animals with a reaction to the tuberculin test that were compulsorily slaughtered and had samples submitted to VLA for microbiology. Provided that they (a) had lesions of TB visible at the slaughterhouse, and/or (b) VLA found the TB organism in the sample.
  1238W
  The time reported represents the number of days between reading the skin test and removing an animal from the farm.

  Figures for West region include cases where animals became reactors in the month before the disruption of normal TB control procedures caused by Foot and Mouth Disease.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff have contributed to her Department's input to the Spending Review. [68680]

  Mr. Morley
  A small team of six staff reporting to the Director of Finance has co-ordinated input to the Spending Review, drawing on material contributed by staff across the Department.

  National Parks
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the report of the Review of National Park Authorities will be published. [70288]

  Mr. Michael
  The report will be published tomorrow. Copies will be available in the House libraries and the vote office. The report will also be available on the Department's website: www:efra.gsi.gov.uk/ countryside-wildlife. The responses to the public consultation will be deposited in the Department's library.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Solicitor-General what category of offences require the appointment of(a) a senior Treasury counsel, (b) a leading junior counsel and (c) a disclosure counsel by the CPS. [68084]

  Solicitor-General
  There are no categories of offence which require the appointment of a particular type of counsel but guidance is as follows:

  (a) Senior Treasury counsel:

  The appointment of Treasury Counsel ought to be considered for prosecutions of the following offences:

  Murder (including attempt/conspiracy/incitement).

  Manslaughter.

  Offences involving terrorism.

  Official Secrets Act.

  Unduly Lenient Sentences.

  Cases where the Director (or the court) wishes to brief counsel as Amicus (Advocate to the Court), e.g. where PII is an issue.

  Obscene Publications Act offences involving difficult questions of law or which are considered "sensitive", e.g. racial hatred.

  Offences of "special rarity", e.g. blasphemy, piracy.

  Serious offences committed by public servants (including police officers) tried at the Crown Court. the magistrates having declined jurisdiction.
  1239W
  Serious offences by a public figure or person in the public eye.

  Serious offences by a CPS employee.

  Large scale public disorder.

  Serious offences where the evidence includes a participating informer/cover police operation.

  Offences where the prosecution is likely to make an ex parte application to withhold disclosure of sensitive material on PII grounds.

  Offences by members of organised crime syndicates, e.g. Mafia; Triads; Yardies.

  Multiple indictable only offences committed by one or more people, e.g. serial/gang rapes

  Robberies where a firearm was discharged.

  Large scale/complex frauds.

  "Sensitive" frauds, e.g. frauds:

  (i) involving foreign government or foreign public bodies;

  (ii) involving British public bodies or public figures in this country as either victims or defendants, e.g. very high profile businessmen; national or local politicians;

  Local government officers; persons holding public office:

  (i) which might generate grave public disquiet, e.g. offences by doctors or pharmacists against hospitals or the NHS;

  (ii) involving national or local government spending and procurement;

  (iii) where public confidence may be undermined, e.g. Pension fund frauds.

  The list is not exhaustive and there will be other cases of sensitivity or complexity, which, regardless of the offence type, may warrant instructing Treasury Counsel.

  Treasury Counsel are appointed by the Attorney General to advise on, and if necessary present, on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service, prosecutions of important and complex cases at the Central Criminal Court and other London Courts.

  (b) leading junior counsel

  The CPS will adopt objective criteria in its decision to instruct a leading junior counsel. This will depend on a number of factors:

  Number of defendants charged on the indictment.

  The volume of the case (pages of documents).

  The weight and complexity of the evidence.

  Whether there are significant factors of gravity, sensitivity complexity or responsibility to warrant a leading junior counsel.

  (c) disclosure counsel by the CPS

  The appointment/instruction of a disclosure counsel is considered by the CPS according to the merits of the individual case rather than by reference to any category of offences.

  The term "disclosure counsel" is not commonly applied across CPS. In a small number of cases, junior counsel can be instructed specifically to assist in complex cases where there are voluminous quantities of unused material to be examined.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Drugs (Sport)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place a copy of Dr. Richard Johnson's report on drugs administration in the UK commissioned by the UK Sports Council in the Library.[69508]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 865W.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 July 2002, c. 515W]The British Tourist Authority is active in Austria, Finland and Saudi Arabia but does not have physical offices in these countries. These markets are operated from the BTA's offices in Zurich, Stockholm and Dubai respectively.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those targets which apply across Government and which are not contained in individual Departments' public service agreements. [64608]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for the following such targets.

  Targets which apply across government have been incorporated into its own Public Service Agreement (PSA) and across Departments through the guidance on Service Delivery Agreements (SDAs) which underpin PSAs. Examples include targets on:

  electronic delivery;

  handling correspondence promptly;

  Civil Service Reform including diversity, interchange, sickness absence and other aspects of managing people.

  Departmental PSAs/SDAs and related guidance are available on the HM Treasury website.

  An area which is not currently included in PSA/SDAs is the National Learning Targets for 2002 which were adopted by the Civil Service in 1999:

  50 per cent of adults to have at least a "level 3" qualification (roughly equivalent to 2 A-levels);

  28 per cent of adults to have at least a "level 4" qualification (roughly equivalent to a first degree).

  These are monitored separately by the Civil Service Corporate Management and Reform group within Cabinet Office.

TREASURY

  Waste Minimisation
  Mr. Lazarowic
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set aside funds in the comprehensive spending review to invest in waste minimisation. [68670]

  Mr. Boateng
  Spending Review 2002 is still under way, and until its completion it would be premature to comment on specific elements.

  Waste growth is part of the broader challenge of reforming waste management in the UK. The Performance and Innovation Unit is currently undertaking a thorough review of waste policy, and waste minimisation is one of the issues that the Performance and Innovation Unit will address in their forthcoming report.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times since December 1998 he has met Ministers from other Government Departments to review progress in achieving public service agreements; and if he will make a statement. [69299]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Cabinet Committee on Public Services and Public Expenditure, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, meets regularly to discuss progress by departments against their PSA targets.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the calculations relating to the provision for Scotland under the Barnett formula are based upon spend per head of population on(a) health and (b) education. [69400]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Barnett formula provides the devolved Administrations with a population based share of comparable increases in spending of UK Government departments, including the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list contingent liabilities incurred by Government departments since May 1997 with the permission of the Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [69349]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts Supplementary Statements. Those for 2000–01 were published on 19 December 2001 (HC 381 of 2000–01) and follow the reporting pattern in the Supplementary Statements for each of the financial years from 1997–98 to 1999–2000. They list all non-statutory contingent liabilities which are reportable to Parliament under the guidance in chapter 26 of Government Accounting. The
  1242W
  guidance requires a department, when reporting a contingent liability to state that the Treasury has approved it in principle. The Supplementary Statements also list all statutory contingent liabilities incurred where they are above £100,000.

  Travel Insurance
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to review the regulation of the selling of travel insurance. [69512]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury will issue a consultation document on the proposed new regulatory regime for the sale of general insurance following the adoption of the Insurance Mediation Directive.

  Silver Items
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his plans are for the future of the Treasury's silver items formerly associated with the Privy Council. [70452]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has agreed to transfer the items concerned to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This will ensure that the cost of holding them is borne by the Department whose objectives include broadening access for all to a rich and varied cultural life. That Department will lend them to the Victoria and Albert Museum, on condition that they are shared with appropriate regional institutions. The transfer will ensure that the items are available to public view for the first time in many years.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many arms export licences have been granted in the last 12 months; how many have been rejected; and if she will make a statement. [66750]

  Ms Hewitt
  Between 1 July 2001 and 1 July 2002 the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation issued 6,449 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 312 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) for items on the military list. During that same period the ECO refused 137 SIEL and 4 OIEL applications in full, for items on the military list.

  Details of all relevant export licences issued and refused are published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls; copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a decision will be made in relation to individual export licence applications numbered 35307, 35313, 35315 and 35316. [68051]

  Ms Hewitt
  Licences to export arms and other items whose export is controlled for strategic reasons are issued by me as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acting through the Export Control Organisation (ECO).
  1243W
  Decisions have not yet been reached on export licence applications 35307, 35313, 35315 and 35316. but will be taken as quickly as possible consistent with the need to give full consideration to the issues involved.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration is given during the deliberation of export licence applications to the recent human rights record of the country to which the items in question are being exported; and if she will make a statement. [68510]

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

  All relevant export licence applications are rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time and taking account of other relevant factors. The consolidated criteria were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 199–203W. The criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be used for internal repression. In making our assessments 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. This will include any relevant information about the recent human rights record of the recipient country.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [65764]

  Ms Hewitt
  The proportion and cost of recycled paper purchased is as follows:

  Year

  Proportion of recycled per cent

  Annual Cost (£)

  1997–98

  18

  55,333

  1998–99

  11

  36,999

  1999–2000

  44

  104,817

  2000–01

  61

  137,985

  2001–02

  68

  141,540

  Information on the proportion of recycled paper in other goods purchased is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Cash terms

  14,172

  14,470

  14,781

  15,582

  16,663

  Real terms

  15.827

  15,656

  15,551

  15,940

  16,663

  (base year = 1999)

  The percentage funded privately (businesses and private non-profit organisations) and publicly
  1244W
  I am fully committed to increasing the proportion of recycled paper that is being used and my Department is working closely with our stationery supplier to achieve this. An environmental switch programme was recently introduced for the purchase of copier paper via the on-line stationery ordering system. This involves an automatic switch to the recycled option whenever copier paper is selected.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set her Department's National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [70222]

  Miss Johnson
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following quality of service and efficiency targets for 2002–03.

  Financial Targets To report a deficit of no more than £310,000 in the Income and Expenditure Account for 2002–03.

  To achieve £566,000 worth of new external income during the next four years.

  Efficiency Target To contribute to continuous efficiency improvement by ensuring that total overhead costs are less than 58 per cent. of total costs.

  Operational Targets To meet the expectations of its customers by completing at least 90 per cent. of European type approvals within 10 weeks.

  To complete European type approvals within an average of 5 weeks.

  To complete calibration jobs within the time requested by customers, with at least 95 per cent. of all jobs (including preparation of certificates) completed within 18 working days of acceptance of the work and an average completion time of less than 14 days.

  To complete 72 per cent. of the milestones schedule for year I of the National Measurement System (NMS) legal metrology programme by their due dates.

  To satisfy all its customers as demonstrated by at least 95 per cent. of them rating NWML's provision of services as satisfactory or better.

  Questions Delegated to the Chief Executive Chief Executive to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the total amount spent on scientific research that has taken place in the UK in each of the last five years; and what her estimate is of the proportions that were funded(a) privately and (b) publicly. [61092]

  Ms Hewitt
  The total amount spent on research and development in the UK in £ billion is as follows:

  (government departments, Research Councils and Funding Councils) is as follows:
  1245W

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Private

  52

  51

  54

  51

  54

  Public

  34

  33

  32

  32

  29

  The balance (14 to 18 per cent.) comes from abroad and includes contributions from the EU. Further information can be found in Table 6.3 on the Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/setstats.

  The increase in the level of R&D investment by the private sector funders indicates that greater "leverage" is being achieved by the Government investment in science, and that the publicly funded UK Science Base is fit for purpose in meeting the requirements of those other groups in society which fund.

  Nuclear Industry (Special Advisers)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many special advisers in her Department(a) have had experience of the nuclear industry and (b) of advising the nuclear industry. [69399]

  Ms Hewitt
  No special adviser in the department has, or ever has had, a commercial relationship with a company in the nuclear industry. However they have experience of working with representatives of the nuclear industry and will consult with them from time to time as part of their current job, just as they consult routinely with other companies, organisations and interest groups.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) date, (b) location and
  (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in her Department to Wales since 1997; and when she next intends to visit Wales. [62071]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. This Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Information in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  DTI Ministers have plans to undertake engagements in Wales before the end of the year.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee on Projects of Common Interest in the Field of trans-European Telecommunications Networks (TEN-telecom) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [68572]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Committee on the trans-European telecommunications networks (TEN-Telecom) pro-gramme is next due to meet on 29 October 2002. One 1246W
  official from the Department of Trade and Industry normally represents all of the UK. Officials from the devolved Administrations are consulted as appropriate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many oral questions she has transferred to other departments in each of the last 18 months. [67048]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  January 2001

  0

  February

  0

  March

  3

  May

  3

  July

  3

  November (2 oral sessions)

  8

  January 2002

  2

  February

  2

  March

  2

  May

  3

  June

  6

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's negotiating position with regard to(a) TRIPS and (b) GATS with the WTO framework. [66867]

  Ms Hewitt
  On TRIPS, we are strong advocates of the need to find a solution by the end of 2002 to the problem of the difficulties which some WTO Members could face in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement as a result of having insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector.

  Beyond that, we support continued discussions in the TRIPS Council on the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and how TRIPS and the CBD can be implemented in a mutually supportive manner.

  We also support the EC position in the TRIPS Council on considering the possible extension of protection for Geographical Indications.

  On GATS, the Government strongly support the current negotiations. The UK is the second largest exporter of services in the world. Our aim is to achieve further steps in the progressive liberalisation of trade in services, which we believe will have a positive impact not only on our own economic interests but also on the development of developing countries. That said, the EC has made clear in its liberalisation requests that it is not seeking the dismantling of public services nor the privatisation of state owned companies. Under GATS, countries cannot be forced to privatise services where it is not in their interest to do so.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses by introducing regulations that would lapse after a certain time period. [69077]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government's policy is always to consider whether sunset clauses ought to be included in legislation it brings forward.

  These are appropriate particularly where technology in a given sector is changing rapidly, where a given piece of legislation deals with a situation which is itself expected to last only for a given period of time (e.g., a road closure), or where an issue is so sensitive that it is considered appropriate that it should be regularly debated and reviewed.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Commission Properties
  Ms Buck
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many Church Commission properties are let on assured shorthold tenancies; and how many tenants holding assured shorthold tenancies have not had these renewed on request in the last three years. [68246]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners have 781 Assured Shorthold Tenancies. No records are kept as to how many tenants do not have their tenancies renewed upon request but it is estimated that there have been approximately 25 such cases in the last three years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time has been between initial decisions in asylum cases and the hearing of appeals arising from them in the last 12 months. [68637]

  Beverley Hughes
  The requested information is not available and could only be obtained by examination of individual cases files thereby incurring a disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers from Zimbabwe have been turned back at point of entry since 15 January. [49967]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to ensuring that this country adheres to its obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and that those who are fleeing persecution are given the protection they need. It is not Home Office policy to turn asylum seekers back at ports of entry to the United Kingdom at any time before their claims are fully considered, unless there is an alternative safe country which should he responsible for considering the claim.
  1248W
  On 15 January 2002, we announced a temporary suspension of returns of unsuccessful asylum applicants to Zimbabwe. We will resume returns only when we are satisfied that it is safe to do so. We are monitoring events in the aftermath of the Zimbabwe presidential election before making a decision on the resumption of returns.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was from first application to initial decison in asylum cases in each of the last six months. [68647]

  Beverley Hughes
  The data requested are given in the table.

  Average time from date of application to initial decision for initial decisions made between October 2001 and March 20021,2,3,4

  Month of initial decision

  Average time (months) to initial decision

  October 2001

  12

  November 2001

  11

  December 2001

  8

  January 2002

  8

  February 2002

  7

  March 2002

  7

  1Excluding dependants.

  2Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded.

  3The average length of time (in months) is calculated from date application is lodged to the date of initial decision, and relates to the month in which the decisions were made.

  4Provisional data. These data are still subject to revision following quality checking.

  The corresponding figure for April 1997 was 20 months.

  The latest provisional data indicate that 53 per cent. of applications' received in the period April to December 2001, inclusive, had initial decisions reached and served within two months'. The data are subject to revision following the results of further data cleansing. Data for 2001–2002 will be published on the Home Office RDS website on 30 August, subject to data quality.

  5The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's (IND's) target for 2001–02 is to reach and serve initial decisions on 60 per cent of applications. These exclude 3rd country cases which may be the responsibility of other European Union member states under the terms of the Dublin Convention,. Details of government targets relating to the proportion of decisions served within two months are provided in the 2000 Spending Review Public Service Agreements White Paper available from http://www.treasury.gov.uk/

  "Two months" is defined as 61 days.

  ASBOs
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ASBOs have been made in Surrey in each of the last 12 months. [68624]

  Mr. Denham
  Anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The data given in the table show the number of ASBOs reported to the Home Office up to the end of December 2001 (latest available).

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued within Surrey from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001.

  1 April 1999–31 December 20001

  1 January 2001–31 December 2001

  Total

  2

  2

  4

  1From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 information collected on the total number of ASBOs issued by police force area only.

  1249W
  We are currently considering whether any further checks are needed to ensure the accuracy of the number reported.

  Pension Schemes
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the police and fire pension scheme in the last five years due to(a) wage inflation, (b) longevity, (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67025]

  Mr. Denham
  In relation to the police pension scheme, which is unfunded, I refer the hon. Member to the answer of 1 July 2002 given by myself to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Andrew Turner),Official Report, column 186W. There is no baseline at present by which to measure the increase in liabilities, but the main driving factors are price inflation, and real earnings growth for current employees and new pensioners.

  Matters relating to firefighters' pensions are for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  ID Cards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce ID cards; at what estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [67203]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House on 3 July 2002, announcing the publication of a consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud. The consultation period will last until 10 January 2003. The Government have made it clear that the introduction of an entitlement card would be a major step and that it would not proceed without consulting widely and considering all the views expressed very carefully.

  The paper includes a number of estimates of what a scheme would cost, depending on the sophistication of the card. A reasonable estimate would be that a scheme would cost around £1.5 billion over a 13 year period covering the three years it would take to set up the necessary Information Technology systems and the 10 year period for which the first cards would be valid.

  This would include much more stringent identity checks than currently apply for passports and driving licences in response to increased levels of fraudulent applications.

  It would also include the costs of using biometric information (fingerprints or iris images) which would uniquely link the card holder with a card.

  This estimate does not include any savings to Government through more efficient administration and reductions in fraud. The paper also sets out how the costs might be recovered through increases in fees for driving licences and passports and charging a fee for entitlement cards issued to those who did not qualify for or who did not want to apply for a card in the form of a photocard driving licence or passport card. It would not be the Government's intention to use funds allocated for investment in public services for a card scheme.

  Brixton Cannabis Experiment
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the objectives and criteria for success were of the Brixton experiment on policing cannabis use. [67191]

  Mr. Ainsworth
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the key objective for the Lambeth cannabis pilot study was to allow police officers to devote more time to deal with serious crimes by reducing the amount of time they spent at the police station completing the necessary paperwork associated with persons arrested for the possession of cannabis.

  During the initial pilot period, a total of 13:50 hours were saved.

  Over the period of the pilot there was a 10 per cent. increase in arrests for Class A dealings, and a 44 per cent. increase in arrests for dealing crack.

  Police
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people died in police custody in 2001. [68017]

  Mr. Denham
  Sixty-four people died in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police during 2001. Two of these deaths occurred in police stations.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the overall crime detection rate for each police force in England in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02; if he will rank each force in order of highest to lowest detection rate for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [66883]

  Mr. Denham
  Details for the calendar years 1990 to 1997, and financial years thereafter, were published in table 2.11 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000", and are given in the table.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which increased the total number of crimes counted in each police force area, and therefore may have affected the detection rate. Detection rates after this date are therefore not directly comparable with previous years.

  There was a change in the counting rules for detections on 1 April 1999, the new instructions providing more precise and rigorous criteria for securing a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation. For example, detections obtained by the interview of a convicted prisoner were no longer included. Numbers of detections before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  As different police forces have different crime mixes, comparing overall detection rates between forces is of limited value. This is because different types of crime tend to have different detection rates, and so a police force with which has a higher proportion of types of crime with high detection rates will tend to have a higher overall detection rate. Also, police forces may give priority to tackling particular types of crime, with the detection rate of those crimes having some effect on the force's overall detection rate.
  1251W

  England and Wales 1990–2000/01 Percentages

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1997–81

  1998–92

  1999–20003

  2000–013

  Suffolk

  41

  37

  39

  37

  35

  34

  33

  37

  39

  41

  36

  35

  Devon and Cornwall

  32

  29

  18

  25

  27

  27

  30

  32

  34

  36

  35

  34

  Cumbria

  43

  40

  37

  38

  37

  40

  36

  40

  41

  44

  39

  34

  Durham

  34

  30

  30

  30

  32

  30

  30

  31

  30

  33

  32

  34

  Northamptonshire

  35

  31

  30

  27

  31

  28

  34

  35

  35

  33

  33

  33

  Gloucestershire

  33

  35

  24

  20

  24

  27

  23

  24

  26

  31

  31

  31

  Northumbria

  40

  35

  17

  20

  22

  23

  24

  26

  26

  30

  31

  31

  North Yorkshire

  40

  36

  33

  30

  25

  23

  25

  26

  26

  33

  31

  30

  Wiltshire

  44

  40

  37

  35

  36

  32

  29

  32

  32

  38

  33

  30

  Cheshire

  50

  41

  29

  26

  30

  31

  34

  36

  34

  37

  31

  30

  Hampshire

  32

  28

  26

  26

  27

  28

  28

  30

  30

  35

  32

  29

  West Midlands

  36

  31

  27

  27

  25

  24

  23

  24

  25

  30

  27

  28

  Leicestershire

  36

  29

  30

  28

  30

  29

  31

  34

  34

  34

  30

  28

  Surrey4

  27

  23

  22

  20

  30

  31

  29

  33

  35

  40

  32

  28

  Merseyside

  44

  45

  42

  39

  33

  27

  29

  31

  31

  31

  26

  28

  Kent

  25

  23

  27

  25

  29

  26

  32

  31

  31

  34

  33

  28

  Bedfordshire

  19

  19

  20

  21

  22

  22

  33

  35

  35

  33

  25

  27

  West Mercia

  46

  35

  34

  29

  29

  28

  26

  28

  27

  34

  29

  27

  London, City of

  21

  20

  20

  22

  27

  23

  27

  26

  28

  33

  32

  27

  Lancashire

  44

  40

  37

  35

  33

  34

  33

  29

  29

  34

  29

  27

  Essex4

  29

  32

  29

  32

  36

  33

  29

  27

  28

  29

  30

  26

  Norfolk

  37

  37

  34

  28

  34

  31

  32

  37

  36

  37

  30

  26

  Derbyshire

  32

  28

  22

  21

  21

  20

  21

  25

  26

  31

  28

  26

  South Yorkshire

  44

  36

  26

  20

  24

  24

  23

  29

  32

  32

  25

  25

  Dorset

  35

  41

  32

  33

  30

  28

  27

  29

  30

  31

  26

  25

  Lincolnshire

  43

  46

  39

  37

  32

  39

  42

  46

  40

  28

  25

  Cambridgeshire

  38

  36

  27

  25

  25

  19

  24

  27

  28

  29

  25

  24

  Hertfordshire4

  30

  33

  26

  21

  24

  28

  30

  32

  33

  34

  27

  24

  Sussex

  26

  23

  23

  24

  24

  28

  29

  26

  26

  25

  25

  23

  Staffordshire

  39

  37

  30

  29

  31

  32

  34

  35

  34

  32

  22

  23

  West Yorkshire

  34

  28

  25

  18

  20

  21

  24

  27

  27

  27

  25

  23

  Warwickshire

  29

  24

  23

  21

  24

  25

  24

  27

  29

  26

  22

  22

  Thames Valley

  26

  22

  19

  21

  22

  23

  25

  24

  25

  25

  20

  22

  Greater Manchester

  32

  36

  35

  34

  34

  24

  17

  20

  20

  25

  23

  22

  Avon and Somerset

  29

  24

  17

  17

  21

  23

  24

  26

  26

  24

  22

  22

  Cleveland

  25

  33

  32

  27

  19

  25

  24

  25

  23

  23

  22

  21

  Humberside

  37

  32

  23

  16

  17

  19

  20

  20

  21

  22

  19

  21

  Nottinghamshire

  35

  27

  26

  29

  28

  23

  28

  28

  26

  25

  21

  20

  Metropolitan Police4

  17

  17

  16

  17

  23

  25

  23

  26

  25

  22

  16

  15

  England

  31

  29

  25

  25

  26

  26

  26

  28

  28

  28

  24

  24

  1 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the coverage and rules in use until 31 March 1998.

  2 The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  3 Revised detections guidance was implemented on 1 April 1999. The new instructions provide more precise and rigorous criteria for recording a detection, with the underlying emphasis on the successful result of a police investigation.

  4 On 1.4.2000, parts of the Metropolitan police area were transferred to Surrey, Essex and Hertfordshire. This may have had an effect on detection rates in those areas.

  Police Custody
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) fatalities and (b) suicides have taken place among those in police custody in each year since 1992. [68234]

  Year

  Total number of deaths in police custody

  Deaths that occurred in police stations

  Inquest verdicts of suicide

  Inquest verdicts awaited

  1992

  48

  17

  6

  0

  1993

  31

  16

  4

  0

  1994

  39

  17

  12

  0

  1995–96

  50

  22

  12

  0

  1996–97

  57

  16

  5

  0

  1997–98

  69

  11

  11

  0

  1998–99

  67

  16

  12

  1

  1999–2000

  70

  7

  10

  1

  2000–01

  53

  5

  3

  8

  1252W
  Mr. Denham
  The Home Office publishes annual statistics of deaths in police custody or otherwise following contact with the police. Relevant figures derived from those statistics are shown in the following table. Statistics for 2001–02 are currently being finalised.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what level he plans to set the crime fighting fund in future years; and what plans he has to fund an increase in the number of police officers. [68040]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the Government's Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative, forces have been allocated funding for 9,000 recruits over and above their previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003 which will ensure a total 130,000 officers by April 2003.

  £454 million has been provided to cover the cost of officers recruited under the scheme during these three years. In addition, the Spending Review 2000 also provided £272 million for 2003–04 to meet the continuing cost of officers recruited under the CFF initiative.

  Provision for funding CFF officers beyond 2003–04 is a matter for the current Spending Review. Further provision for the Crime Fighting Fund or other central government funding specifically to increase the number of police officers will be determined in the light of the outcome of the Spending Review 2002.

  Police Authority Budgets
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what adjustments he proposes to make to the base budget of police authorities relating to funding for officers. [68039]

  Mr. Denham
  Total Standard Spending for police authorities will be determined in the light of the outcome of the Spending Review 2002. It is for police authorities to determine their own budgets in the light of funding available to them.

  PC Taiwo Oduntan
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police service and inspectorate is reporting to him on the assault on British Transport police constable Taiwo Oduntan. [68074]

  Mr. Denham
  Sussex Police are investigating the matter on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service, as agreed by the Police Complaints Authority. The Police Complaints Authority inform us that the agreed terms of reference are:

  To investigate objectively and thoroughly the circumstances surrounding an incident that took place on 22 April 2002, when Taiwo Oduntan was arrested at his home address by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service, detained at Uxbridge Police Station, and suffered injuries;

  To investigate specifically the allegation that the actions of the officers were racially motivated;

  To take full account of the perspective of each party to the investigative process; and

  To ensure that the investigation itself is non-discriminatory.

  There is no involvement of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary at present but the Police Complaints Authority informs us that any issues of concern will be highlighted to them at the conclusion of the investigation.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role Baroness Blackstone has in overseeing the street crime initiative of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [67692]

  Mr. Denham
  The cross-government Street Crime Action Group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed that it would be helpful for each of the 10 street crime areas to be supported by a minister. As one of the sponsor ministers Baroness Blackstone is undertaking visits to Avon and Somerset to meet with and support local agencies, to promote a shared approach to tackling street crime at local level, and to identify any issues on which further action by government agencies would be helpful.

  Illegal Working
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for illegal working have taken place in the last 12 months; and with what results. [68644]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is not available centrally, as illegal working is a circumstance rather than a specific offence and the Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not hold information on offence circumstances. However, in the year 2000, 32 persons were prosecuted under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. This section makes it an offence for employers knowingly or negligently to employ persons aged 16 or over who are subject to immigration control unless they fall into one of two categories. They must either have current and valid permission to be in the United Kingdom which does not prevent them taking the job in question, or they must fall into a category where such employment is otherwise allowed.

  Information on the number of prosecutions in 2001 is due to be published in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 2001" in late autumn of this year.

  Heart Detector Machines
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time staff are employed at(a) Dover and (b) Folkestone to operate a heart detector machine. [68629]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are the equivalent of 68 immigration officers, based on the number of staff days worked in a typical week, deployed on freight searching duties at Dover. The officers operate the heartbeat detector as well as other methods for detecting clandestine illegal entrants, such as dogs and carbon dioxide detectors.

  The heartbeat detector is not deployed at Folkestone. However the Immigration Service deploys 56 officers in the United Kingdom Control Zone at Coquelles to operate the heartbeat detector and other detection methods.

  Robbery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost to public funds is of the failure to achieve the Public Service Agreement target to reduce robbery. [68777]

  Mr. Denham
  The Public Service Agreement target is to reduce robbery in the Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, West Midlands and Metropolitan Police Service areas by 14 per cent by 2005. The target is ongoing and the forces concerned are continuing to work towards its delivery.

  Police Treatment of Detainees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the PACE Code of Practice on police treatment of detainees will be issued for consultation; and how long the consultation will last.
  [68789]

  Mr. Denham
  A draft revised version of the Police and Criminal Evidence Code of Practice (PACE) Code of Practice C on the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers was issued for consultation on 12 June 2002. The consultation period lasts until 16 August.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of domestic violence have been prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last three years. [63585]

  Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  In 1999, the CPS prosecuted 6,404 cases of domestic violence. In 2000, the CPS prosecuted 7,680 cases of domestic violence. In 2001, the CPS prosecuted 7,996 cases of domestic violence. The figures include cases where a defendant agreed to be bound over and are based on the CPS monitoring system of annual 3-month snapshots carried out between 1999 and 2001.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Diplomatic Missions
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were committed in 2001 by persons entitled to immunity by virtue of their employment by a diplomatic mission or an international organisation, and by their dependants. [70289]

  Mr. Macshane
  From a community of over 19,500 persons entitled to immunity, 21 serious offences, allegedly committed by such persons, were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2001. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the 1985 White Paper on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges—i.e. as offences that would, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months or more imprisonment.

  Non-Domestic Rates
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom that owed more than £10,000 as at 5 April in respect of national non-domestic rates for office premises. [70290]

  Mr. Macshane
  Most diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom meet their obligations and pay the NNDR requested from them. However, as at 5 April 2002, the following missions owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR:

  £

  Country

  Amount

  Bulgaria

  117,511.13

  Iran

  97,352.55

  Sierra Leone

  48,274.76

  Algeria

  43,194.62

  Mozambique

  31,116.14

  Cameroon

  27,646.19

  Uganda

  24,760.37

  Bangladesh

  20,636.91

  Syria

  20,004.66

  Zambia

  19,276.56

  Senegal

  14,600,98

  Jordan

  13,154.29

  Cote d'Ivoire

  12,066.16

  Total

  489,595.32

  Eleven additional diplomatic missions who each owe more than £10,000 in respect of NNDR have made arrangements with the Valuation Office Agency to clear their outstanding debts have not been included in the list. These eleven missions owe £729,731.66. The total amount outstanding from all missions, therefore, is £1,219,326.98.

  Traffic Offences
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the number of outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions during the year ended 31 December 2001. [70291]

  Mr. Macshane
  At the end of 2001, unpaid fines in respect of parking and other minor traffic violations incurred by Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations in the United Kingdom totalled 5,842 (£276,410.00). In April this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all affected Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations giving them the opportunity either to pay their outstanding fines or to appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £62,931.00 were received, leaving a total of 4,485 (£213,479.00) unpaid fines for 2001. The attached table details those Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations that have more than 10 undisputed fines unpaid.
  1257W

  Unpaid parking and minor traffic violation fines—2001— diplomatic vehicles

  Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation

  No. of fines outstanding

  Amount in £

  Angola

  1088

  44,470.00

  United Arab Emirates

  287

  14,150.00

  Libya

  222

  10,710.00

  China

  156

  6,400.00

  Egypt

  151

  7,030.00

  Mozambique

  147

  5,940.00

  Iran

  140

  8,250.00

  Ukraine

  140

  7,949.00

  Qatar

  122

  5,790.00

  Greece

  111

  5,650.00

  Ghana

  96

  4,090.00

  France

  95

  5,330.00

  Turkey

  87

  4,980.00

  Algeria

  69

  3,840.00

  Morocco

  68

  3,830.00

  Zambia

  64

  3,710.00

  Russia

  51

  2,800.00

  Ethiopia

  47

  1,990.00

  Jamaica

  43

  2,670.00

  Jordan

  42

  2,480.00

  International Maritime Organisation

  40

  2,000.00

  Vietnam

  40

  2,280.00

  Cyprus

  39

  1,790.00

  Mongolia

  39

  2,630.00

  Georgia

  38

  2,250.00

  Brunei

  37

  1,540.00

  Kazakhstan

  37

  2,180.00

  Philippines

  37

  2,000.00

  Albania

  35

  1,430.00

  Afghanistan

  34

  1,940.00

  Hungary

  32

  1,390.00

  Poland

  31

  1,250.00

  Bahrain

  30

  1,650.00

  Malaysia

  30

  1,360.00

  Yemen

  30

  1,410.00

  Pakistan

  29

  1,680.00

  Peru

  29

  1,680.00

  United States of America

  27

  1,010.00

  Cuba

  26

  950.00

  Oman

  26

  3,010.00

  Portugal

  25

  3,550.00

  Dominican Republic

  23

  1,390.00

  Romania

  22

  1.140.00

  Rwanda

  20

  850.00

  Tunisia

  20

  1.200.00

  Uganda

  20

  840.00

  Kenya

  19

  730.00

  Sierra Leone

  19

  2,120.00

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  18

  1,400.00

  Kuwait

  16

  6,810.00

  Sudan

  16

  760.00

  Cote D'Ivoire

  15

  1,810.00

  Barbados

  15

  600.00

  Belgium

  15

  780.00

  Brazil

  14

  950.00

  Zimbabwe

  14

  560.00

  Mexico

  13

  1,210.00

  Spain

  13

  1,050.00

  Germany

  12

  540.00

  Bulgaria

  11

  670.00

  Gabon

  11

  780

  Uzbekistan

  11

  470.00

  Total

  4254

  217,699

  Arms Exports
  Anne Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations Her 1258W
  Majesty's Government have undertaken (a) within the UK and (b) with European partners in arriving at the new criteria on arms export components.[69507]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The other factors referred to by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his response to the question from the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 650–52W, were the result of extensive discussion within Government. Since they were an elaboration of existing policy covering a limited category of cases, we did not conduct consultations outside the Government within the UK. But we conducted two rounds of consultations with other EU Member States to check carefully their approach in such cases. Our consultations confirmed that other EU MS recognise the need for a special approach in such
  cases.

  Gibraltar
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reforms put in place since 1996 in Gibraltar in relation to company law and practice; and what deficiencies these were aimed at correcting. [67847]

  Mr. Hain
  Since 1996 the Government of Gibraltar has introduced both new legislation and amendments to existing legislation concerning company law and practice. These legislative changes have been made to implement EU Directives impacting on company law.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reforms put in place since 1996 in Gibraltar in relation to company law and practice; and what deficiencies these were aimed at correcting. [69353]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the above answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.

  Sheik Hamad bin Jassin bin Jaber al-Thari
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date his Department was informed of payments made by BAE Systems for its predecessor British Aerospace to his Excellency Sheik Hamad bin Jassin bin Jaber al-Thari; and if he will make a statement. [61120]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The first reference we have been able to trace in our records is a report in 1998 which stated that Shaik Hamed bin Jassin bin Jaber al-Thari had received commissions in connection with a defence equipment package signed in 1996 (for which BAe were the lead contractor).

HEALTH

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many three star hospitals have indicated a willingness to become a foundation hospital. [64325]

  Mr. Lammy
  Thirty-one of the acute National Health Service trusts that were awarded 3 stars in the NHS performance ratings announced in 2001 have expressed an interest in foundation status. The first wave of NHS
  1259W
  foundation trusts will be selected from among the cohort of NHS acute trusts that achieve 3 stars in the performance ratings to be published in July 2002.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were employed in the NHS in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001, broken down by nationality. [64336]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect data on individual nationalities of doctors but does collect the countries in which they qualified, broken down into United Kingdom, the rest of the European Economic Area and elsewhere.

  The table only shows hospital medical staff working in the National Health Service in England. The country of qualification for dental staff is not collected.

  Hospital medical staff by country of qualification

  numbers

  England as at 30 September

  2000

  2001

  All countries of qualification

  65,374

  67,838

  United Kingdom

  45,016

  46,205

  Rest of EEA

  3,643

  3,662

  Elsewhere

  16,715

  17,971

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  The following table shows data for general practitioners. The Department does not collect data on doctors by nationality. Information is provided by country of primary medical qualification.

  General medical practitioners in England by country of first qualification, 2000 and 2001

  headcount

  2000

  2001

  Total

  Total

  All practitioners1

  31,369

  31,835

  of which:

  UK

  25,367

  26,002

  Rest of EEA

  1,204

  1,253

  Elsewhere

  4,798

  4,580

  1All Practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars. Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  Data as at 30 September 2000 and 2001.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Beta Interferon
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the discrepancies between health authorities in prescribing beta interferon and Interferon for MS; and if he will make a statement. [64459]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received the hon. Member's letter of 20 June. According to the Department's records we have not received any other recent representations about prescribing discrepancies under the risk-sharing scheme 1260W
  for drugs for people with multiple sclerosis announced on 4 February. The scheme started to operate on 6 May and the guidance in Health Service Circular 2002–04 recognised that it may take 18 months or longer for treatment to be initiated for all eligible patients.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans are in place and what the timetable is to introduce the beta interferon risk-sharing scheme to Hertfordshire. [68107]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Health Service organisations in Hertfordshire are close to finalising arrangements to meet the requirements of the guidance in health service circular 2002–04 so that patients who meet the criteria developed by the association of British neurologists benefit from treatment with Beta Interferon.

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he proposes to(a) start and (b) finish the consultation exercise on social service department fines as set out in paragraph 8.10 of Delivering the NHS Plan; [64514]

  (2) if he will set out his plans for social services departments who are consistently fined under his proposals in Delivering the NHS Plan, paragraph 8.10. [64517]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on the 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 235W.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66921]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the buildings owned by his Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66943]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which voluntary groups are assisting the Government develop and deliver its teenage pregnancy strategy. [66711]

  Ms Blears
  The teenage pregnancy unit has invited a wide range of voluntary organisations to become members of a non-statutory forum, which meets twice a year. The organisations are listed below.

  ACET

  Barnados

  Black Health Agency

  British Pregnancy Advisory Service

  1261W

  Brook

  The Children's Society

  Crisis

  Education for Choice

  Fathers Direct

  The Foyer Federation

  fpa

  Gingerbread

  Girls Friendly Society

  The Guide Association

  Health Action for Homeless People

  Homestart

  Image in Action

  Marie Scopes International

  Maternity Alliance

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  National Childbirth Trust

  National Children's Bureau

  National Children's Home

  National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations

  National Family and Parenting Institute

  National Foster Carers Association

  National Housing Federation

  National Newpin

  National Council for One Parent Families

  National Pyramid Trust

  NSPCC

  Parentline Plus

  Parenting. Education and Support Forum

  PIPPIN

  The Princes Trust

  Relate

  Save the Children

  Trust for the Study of Adolescence

  Working with Men

  YMCA

  YWCA

  Professionals from the voluntary sector also attend the independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy where, in their personal capacity, they provide advice on the teenage pregnancy strategy.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the religious organisations which are involved in helping the Government deliver their teenage pregnancy strategy; and if he will make a statement on their role. [66707]

  Ms Blears
  Development of the teenage pregnancy strategy was informed by consultation with individuals and organisations representing a wide range of faiths.

  To ensure on-going dialogue with faith groups during the implementation of the strategy, the teenage pregnancy unit has established an inter-faith forum. The forum meets twice a year to discuss particular aspects of the teenage pregnancy strategy, to consider what role faith members can play in supporting its implementation and to share examples of work in practice with faith communities. The forum has over 40 members and includes representation from the following faiths.
  1262W

  Church of England

  Roman Catholic

  Methodist

  Moslem

  Hindu

  Jewish

  In addition to the inter-faith forum, there are two members of the independent advisory group on teenage pregnancy who provide advice on the strategy from a faith perspective.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding mechanisms and funding streams for the delivery of his teenage pregnancy strategy. [66704]

  Ms Blears
  Since April 2002, funding to support implementation of local teenage pregnancy strategies has been routed to top tier local authorities through the teenage pregnancy local implementation grant. The resources support locally agreed teenage pregnancy strategies and action plans, developed jointly by health and local authority partners, with the aim of pump-priming promising approaches and new developments, and facilitating effective local co-ordina-tion. The local teenage pregnancy partnership board, with representation from the local authority, primary care trusts (PCTs) and other key local partners, make recommendations on the use of the grant and oversee implementation of the local action plan.

  Local teenage pregnancy partnership boards also liaise with the local authorities, PCTs, and other local organisations to secure additional mainstream sources of funding to support implementation of the strategy.

  In addition to the local implementation grant, the teenage pregnancy strategy is supported by other relevant Government initiatives such as the Connexions service, neighbourhood renewal and the children's fund, and funding from other Government Departments, including:
  teenage pregnancy standards fund to support school age parents in continuing with their education;
  sure start plus and childcare pilots to provide better support for pregnant teenagers and teenage parents;
  approved funding from the housing corporation for 1,500 new units of supported housing for teenage parents.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding the Government are making available for reducing teenage conceptions, broken down by non-statutory group funded in the current financial year. [66710]

  Ms Blears
  During this financial year, we are investing £16 million to support the implementation of local teenage pregnancy strategies which will include, at local discretion, the involvement of the voluntary sector, and a further £900,000 to support regional coordination. An additional £4 million will be invested in the teenage pregnancy strategy national campaign which includes the provision of the sexwise helpline, through the Essentia Group, and funding for Parentline Plus. In addition, a small number of projects undertaken by non-statutory organisations are supported at national level and are listed below.
  1263W

  £

  National Family and Parenting Institute, for consultation with parents.

  37,000

  GFS Platform Great Yarmouth, for a conference on young parents.

  5,000

  National Children's Bureau, for consultation with young people and to support further developments in Personal Social and Health Education, including Sex and Relationship Education.

  68,000

  Brook, for the development of a quality assurance framework for youth contraceptive services.

  £20,000

  Air Pollution
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs borne by the National Health Service as a result of illness caused from air pollution, in each Government Office Region, in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [67491]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants published a report in 1998 on "Quantification of the Health Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom", a copy of which is available in the Library. The report was based on levels of pollutants in 1995. It estimated that the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people (mainly those with heart or lung disease) may be brought forward and between 14,000 and 24,000 respiratory hospital admissions and readmissions may be associated with short term exposure to air pollution each year. There was insufficient information to allow quantification of other health effects of air pollution.

  The Department's ad-hoc group on the economic appraisal of the health effects of air pollution estimated that the average cost to the National Health Service of a respiratory hospital admission was about £1,3901.

  1For 1994–5 at 1996–7 prices.

  Dementia
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing to help increase the early diagnosis of dementia; what support groups and services there are for people with dementia and their carers in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside and (c) England; and what his Department is doing to increase the availability of information about dementia to the public. [67040]

  Jacqui Smith
  The importance of early diagnosis of dementia is recognised in the national service framework (NSF) for older people, which was published in March 2001. Implementation of Standard 7, on mental health in older people, will increase early diagnosis. Introduction of the single assessment process, also required by the NSF, will also help.

  There are a number of national organisations which provide support and services for people with dementia and their carers, including the alzheimer's society, dementia voice and carers UK. In South Tyneside, there is a network of community services, provided through the
  1264W
  community services department, which support people with dementia and their carers; and other services are being developed. The Alzheimer's Society provides a wide range of support services in collaboration with the personal advisor service which works in local primary health care teams and with the specialist mental health trust. Day care facilities are provided at Palmers Community Hospital in Jarrow.

  The Department is promoting the availability of information through implementation of Standard 2 of the NSF, and of the information strategy which underpins the NSF, and through more general developments to promote patient and public involvement, for example, through patient advice and liaison services.

  Ambulances
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance vehicles were involved in(a) slight injuries, (b) serious injuries and (c) fatal accidents in the last five years. [67435]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on ambulance response times for the Staffordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. [66898]

  Mr. Lammy
  Staffordshire Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has consistently been one of the best performers for "Category A" response times in the United Kingdom. In 2001–02, they not only exceeded the national target of 75 per cent. of calls responded to within eight minutes, but also exceeded the target for 2002–03 of 80 per cent of calls responded to within eight minutes. Their response rate was listed by the National Audit office in figures published recently as achieving an average of 87.5 per cent., the top performer in the UK. The trust is to be commended on their continuing excellent response rates.

  Yellow Card Scheme
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adverse incidents and (b) deaths have been reported under the yellow card scheme since 1997 involving (i) proprietary analgesics, (ii) aspirin-based products, (iii) paracetamol-based products, (iv) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-based products and (v) anti-histamines. [67424]

  Mr. Lammy
  Reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to medicines are collected by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) through the spontaneous reporting scheme, the yellow card scheme.

  The number of suspected ADR reports including reports with a fatal outcome received via the yellow card scheme from 1 January 1997 to 4 July 2002 for aspirin-based products, paracetamol-based products, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) based products and anti-histamines are provided in the following table.
  1265W

  No. of ADR reports

  No. of reports with a fatal outcome

  Aspirin-based products

  572

  41

  Paracetamol-based products

  368

  38

  NSAID-based products

  7833

  256

  Anti-histamines

  1039

  19

  Proprietary analgesics are difficult to define as a group and include aspirin-based, paracetamol-based and NSAID based products, the data for which are provided in the table above. These data should be seen in the context of the very wide usage of these drugs with millions of patients being treated every year in the United Kingdom.

  It is important to note that submission of a suspected ADR report does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Many factors have to be taken into account in assessing causal relationships including temporal association, the possible contribution of concomitant medication and the underlying disease.

  Data from the yellow card scheme cannot be used to measure the frequency of an adverse reaction as it is associated with a degree of underreporting which varies between different medicines.

  The MCA/CSM has provided guidance on safe prescribing of NSAIDs to health professionals in 1994 and most recently in April 2002.

  Cancer
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by the NHS on(a) cancer research and (b) cancer treatment in each of the last three years. [67801]

  Ms Blears
  Total Department and National Health Service expenditure in England for cancer research was £77.4 million in 1999–2000 and £83.8 million in 2000–01. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  The Department does not collect figures on the cost of NHS services in a way that enables an accurate figure to be calculated for the cost of a particular disease.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of Datamonitor's recently published research on five year cancer survival rates. [68279]

  Ms Blears
  The Datamonitor survey was based on survival rates for cancer patients diagnosed over a decade ago. These figures showed that survival rates in this country were lower than for comparable European countries. That is why, in September 2000, we published the NHS Cancer Plan which sets out a programme of action to improve cancer prevention, detection, treatment and research which are intended to bring our survival rates in line with the rest of Europe.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what epidemiology studies his Department have carried out to investigate the causes of cancer clusters. [67136]
  1266W
  Ms Blears
  The Department has funded a number of epidemiology studies on specific cancer clusters. The following studies were commissioned from the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College and all are published in the scientific literature:

  Incidence of cancer of the larynx and lung near incinerators of waste solvents and oils in Great Britain. (Elliott et al., Lancet (1992): Volume 339, pp. 854–858.)

  Cancer incidence and mortality near the Baglan Bay petrochemical works, South Wales. (Sans et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1995): Volume 52, pp. 217–224.)

  Lympho-haematopoetic malignancy around all industrial complexes that include major oil refineries in Great Britain. (Wilkinson et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1999): Volume 56, pp. 577–590.)

  Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. I. Sutton Coldfield Transmitter and 2. All high power transmitters. (Dolk et al., American Journal of Epidemiology (1997): Volume 145, pp. 1–9 and 10–17.)

  Cancer incidence and mortality around the Pan Britannica Industries pesticide factory. Waltham Abbey. (Wilkinson et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine (1997): Volume 54. pp. 101–107.)

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) recommended (COMARE Third Report) an investigation of the geographical distribution of childhood cancer and leukaemia in Great Britain and how the pattern of cases around nuclear installations compares with the national pattern. A study has been commissioned by the Department of Health Radiological Protection Research Programme (RPRP) and is a multicentre study co-ordinated by the childhood cancer research group in Oxford. This study is nearing completion and the Department has asked COMARE to advise on which, if any, nuclear installations in Great Britain have incidences of childhood cancer and leukaemia in their vicinity which are statistically outside the distribution seen nationally. COMARE is hoping to report on this aspect of the study to the Department in 2003. The study is investigating, among other topics, clustering as a feature of childhood cancer. This will be broken down as leukaemia and other childhood cancers and other groupings considered relevant. The study will also relate leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma around nuclear installations to the Great Britain clustering analysis.

  When complete, the database will also allow investigation of other environmental factors and their potential relevance to the temporal and spatial distribution of childhood cancer.

  The RPRP is also funding a study into the possible association between childhood cancer, electromagnetic fields (emf) and powerlines. The Department also contributes to the Electromagnetic Field project, which is examining possible associations between emf and general disease patterns (including cancer).

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women have been diagnosed with breast cancer in the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority in each of the last five years; what the local survival rate is; how much funding has been given to breast cancer treatment in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [67421]
  1267W
  Ms Blears
  Information held centrally on diagnoses of breast cancer in the former Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where the main diagnosis was "Malignant neoplasm of breast" or "Carcinoma in situ of breast", for patients resident in Isle of Wight and Portsmouth & South East Hampshire Health Authority

  Health Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  QD2 Portsmouth & South

  East Hampshire HA

  471

  558

  531

  494

  836

  QD4 Isle of Wight HA

  451

  498

  508

  548

  249

  Total

  992

  1,056

  1,039

  1,042

  1,085

  Notes:

  1. An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Data in this table are adjusted for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 2000–01 which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Additional information on registrations and survival rates can be found in the Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2001, which is available on national centre for health outcomes website. Information on breast cancer is also available on the National Statistics website.

  The mortality rates for the former health authority area have decreased over the last decade but do remain high compared to the rest of the country, as do the average life years lost for women under 75 years. The breast cancer group of the central south coast cancer network is to examine in more detail the apparent variations and to review all treatment protocols to ensure they follow best practice.

  The funding allocated to local breast cancer services is determined by the health authority and, for that reason, figures are not held centrally.

  ADHD
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial resources are available for the treatment of ADHD; how many specialist staff are employed in the NHS to work with children with ADHD in(a) Gloucestershire, (b) England and (c) the average health authority in England; and if he will make a statement. [67141]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally on the expenditure on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) nor on the number of specialist staff employed in the National Health Service who work with children with ADHD.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's increase in licence fees; and if he will make a statement. [67138]

  Ms Blears
  We will consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's proposals when they have completed the wide ranging consultation currently under way.
  1268W
  South East Hampshire Health Authority area is shown in the table.

  Genetic Diagnostics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public consultation was undertaken by the HFEA on pre-implantation genetic diagnostics, prior to their HASHMI decision; what the results of the consultation were; and what conclusion the HFEA reported. [67135]

  Ms Blears
  The decision in principle to allow the licensing of treatment whereby an embryo is tested for its tissue compatibility with an existing sibling by preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a matter for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

  In November 2001 the HFEA and the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) published the outcome of their joint public consultation on PGD which had begun in November 1999 as a joint consultation between the HFEA and the then Advisory Committee on Genetics Testing. This supported the use of PGD, subject to strict licensing arrangements, and concluded that tissue-typing as part of PGD would require further discussion. Following further consideration of the issue by the HFEA's ethics committee, the HFEA announced in December 2001 their decision in principle to allow PGD for serious genetic disease to be used in conjunction with tissue typing. Applications are considered on an individual basis and to date only one licence has been granted after very careful and lengthy consideration of the issues involved.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of(a) admissions to hospital, (b) visits to a GP and (c) other interfaces with the National Health Service that were alcohol related and their combined cost in each of the last five years. [67020]

  Ms Blears
  Data on National Health Service hospital admissions and costs to the NHS are provided in the tables shown. Data are not available on the number of visit to general practitioners and other interfaces with the NHS that were alcohol related.
  1269W

  Table 1

  NHS hospital admissions where there was a primary diagnosis of selected alcohol related disease, England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Primary diagnosis (ICD10)

  number of admissions

  1996–97

  F10

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol

  32,500

  K70

  Alcoholic liver disease

  7,900

  T51

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  2,300

  Total of above

  42,700

  1997–98

  F10

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol

  34,400

  K70

  Alcoholic liver disease

  9,000

  T51

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  2,400

  Total of above

  45,700

  1998–99

  F10

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol

  32,100

  K70

  Alcoholic liver disease

  9,200

  T51

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  2,000

  Total of above

  43,300

  1999–2000

  F10

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol

  32,300

  K70

  Alcoholic liver disease

  10,100

  T51

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  2,000

  Total of above

  44,400

  2000–01

  F10

  Mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol

  27,300

  K70

  Alcoholic liver disease

  10,100

  T51

  Toxic effect of alcohol

  1,700

  Total of above

  39,100

  Notes:

  1. The data include private patients in NHS hospitals.

  2. The data do not include patients admitted with a primary diagnosis not related to alcohol (e.g. an injury).

  3. Data in this table have been rounded to the nearest one hundred admissions. Data for 1996–97 to 1999–2000 have been grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  4. ICD10 = International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Table 2

  Estimated cost of alcohol misuse to the NHS, England and Wales, 1999

  £million

  Inpatient costs—direct alcohol diagnosis

  52

  Inpatient costs—other alcohol related diagnosis

  152

  General practice costs

  4

  Total cost to NHS

  207

  Notes:

  The original study from which this estimate was obtained provided data at 1994 prices. It has been adapted, and updated to 1999 prices by the Department of Health (EOR).

  Source of original study:

  Godfrey C, Hardman G: Changing the social costs of alcohol. Final report to the AERC. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1994.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68692]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Spending Review has covered the breadth of the Department's spending programmes in varying degrees. As such, the Review has required the involvement of a range of staff from across the Department. The Spending Review is closely linked to 1270W
  the Department's on-going work programme and it is not possible to estimate precisely how many staff have been involved.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63131]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 470W.

  Cancelled Operations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled in each quarter of 2001, broken down by NHS trust. [65166].

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on the total number of operations cancelled are not collected. A list of the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons on, or after the day the patient was due to be admitted, broken down by National Health Service trust, will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operating slots have been cancelled at the(a) Kent and Sussex Hospital and (b) Pembury Hospital since May 1997. [67047]

  Ms Blears
  Information on operating slots has not been collected centrally for a number of years. Information on cancelled operations is collected at health authority level and placed in the Library. Information for individual National Health Service trusts is available on the Department's website.

  Herbal Products
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress the Government have made in its negotiations within Europe to amend the drafting of the European Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive to ensure that account can be taken of herbal traditions from outside the EU in satisfying the 30 years qualifying period for herbal products without proof of efficacy; [66852]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the evidence of people being harmed by unregulated herbal medicines referred to by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, European Standing Committee C on 18 June 2002, Official Report. column 11W; [66851]

  (3) if he will list the criteria being used to determine which herbal products will be included on the positive list of herbal substances under Article 16f of the amendment proposed to Directive 2001/83/EC regarding traditional herbal medicinal products; [66773]

  (4) what representations his Department has received to reduce the length of period that a herbal product or combination of herbal products must have been in use to 15 years; and if he will make a statement; [66858]
  1271W
  (5) what estimate his Department has made of the number of herbal products available in the UK that will be excluded under the current draft of amendments to Directive 2001/83/EC concerning traditional herbal medicinal products; [66855]

  (6) what plans he has to inform the public of the difference between a licensed and a registered herbal product; and what this difference will mean in terms of the safety and efficacy of the herbal product; [66859]

  (7) what evidence his Department has received of products that have contained dangerous combinations of herbs; if he will list these combinations; and what harmful effect each combination had on humans; [66856]

  (8) if he will define the terms very high, high and medium in terms of pounds sterling, with regard to compliance costs referred to in the regulatory assessment for the prosposals amending Directive 2001/83/EC regarding traditional herbal medicinal products. [66774]

  Ms Blears
  An assessment of safety issues associated with herbal medicines, whether comprising of one or more ingredients, will be placed in the Library. In summary, safety issues relating to unlicensed herbal remedies leading to public health risk have arisen in the United Kingdom and elsewhere as a result of a number of factors. These include: interactions between herbal remedies and other medicines; the inherent toxicity of a herbal ingredient; the inclusion of toxic herbal ingredients or contamination as a result of poor manufacturing standards; and the adulteration of herbal remedies with other ingredients, such as prescription only cortico-steroids.

  There are a range of possible reasons why a product currently sold as an unlicensed herbal remedy under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act, 1968, might not satisfy the criteria of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products. There are no specific quality or safety standards set under the current regulatory regime for unlicensed herbal remedies and it is therefore possible that in some cases, without adjustment to the product, the safety and quality standards applicable under the proposed directive might not be met. Concerns have been expressed by some respondents to a recent consultation exercise (MLX 283) carried out by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) that some products, currently legally sold as unlicensed herbal remedies may fall outside the scope of the directive as a result of an inability to demonstrate traditional usage as currently defined in the directive. The consultation period has been extended to the end of July specifically to allow those expressing concerns to identify any examples of such products.

  As the MCA's consultation exercise on the proposed directive is still in progress analysis of the results is ongoing. There have, however, been some representations suggesting that the 30 year period for demonstrating traditional use might be reduced. The figure of 30 years as a reasonable indicator of traditional usage was one that commanded wide support among many member states throughout the informal development of the directive. The specific examples which the MCA has asked the herbal sector to provide by the end of July should help to demonstrate whether the proposed 30 year criteria would
  1272W
  in practice present a significant threat to the regulatory position of herbal remedies which could reasonably be regarded as traditional.

  An initial discussion of the proposed directive took place in the Council of Ministers' working group on 10 June. The UK Government indicated their view that the quality, reliability and relevance of the evidence of traditional use was more important than its geographical origin. We will continue to argue this position as negotiations proceed.

  The purpose of the positive list of herbal substances within the proposed directive is to facilitate applications for traditional use registrations so that, where an application complies with the positive list, the applicant need not demonstrate safety or traditional use of the product. The directive proposes that the Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the list. Items will be included on the list where the committee accepts that a particular herbal substance, used within the parameters laid down in the list for example as to strength and therapeutic indication, meet the requirements of the directive as to safety and traditional usage.

  The terms used in the initial regulatory impact assessment of the proposed directive were intended to give a very broad indication of the relative impact of the proposals. The actual costs attributable to the directive are likely to vary widely between companies, depending on many factors. For example, the impact of the directive could be very high on a company which was currently placing large numbers of herbal medicines on the market while not following any systematic quality standards. This assessment of very high regulatory impact is unlikely to apply, for example, to those UK companies which manufacture unlicensed herbal remedies in compliance with various systematic codes of practice operated by a number of trade associations in the herbal medicines and health food sector. Similarly, the potential for increased sales, which may for example flow from increased public confidence in the quality of products on offer and improved product information will depend on the response of individual companies.

  The proposed directive would require product information for a herbal medicine with a traditional use registration to include a statement indicating that the efficacy of the product was not proven. A separate proposal in the review of European Union legislation for licensed medicines would allow companies to state in advertising that a medicine with a marketing authorisation was licensed. Both herbal medicines with a marketing authorisation and those with a traditional use registration would have been assessed by the competent authority as having acceptable safety. The indication for a traditional use registered product would be based on long usage rather than proven efficacy, as is required for a product with a marketing authorisation. The MCA has indicated that it has no present plans to review licensed herbal medicines with a view to assessing whether some might more appropriately come within the category of traditional use registration. This is a complex issue and it is possible that the Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products as proposed in the directive may develop guidance on this area in due course.
  1273W
  Concerns have been expressed by some in the health sector that the proposed quality and manufacturing standards may be over-regulatory. Those expressing such concerns have been invited during the extended period of consultation on the directive to identify which particular standards might be regarded as unnecessary or inappropriate. Further dialogue on this issue should enable the regulatory impact assessment to be enhanced.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to make further representations to the European Commission about the proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive. [67968]

  Ms Blears
  We intend to participate actively in negotiations on the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products and will make representations and propose, support or oppose amendments to the directive as may be necessary in the interests of public health and consumer choice in the United Kingdom. We have extended the period of the Medicines Control Agency's consultation on the directive until the end of July in order to allow those with concerns an opportunity to provide more specific evidence. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and I are meeting representatives of the herbal sector during July to discuss the proposed Directive. In the light of points which may emerge from this further consultation and dialogue, we will consider what additional points we may wish to pursue during the course of the negotiations. We have already highlighted that we wish to see greater flexibility to take account of non-European herbal traditions and that we intend to press for an early date to be specified for the review of the scope of the directive with a view to its possible extension to at least some categories of non herbal traditional medicines.

  Withholding Food and Fluid
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the use of sedation, with specific reference to withholding food and fluid from a patient; [67215]

  (2) what his policy is on withholding food and fluid from patients and the notice to be taken of relatives' wishes; [67214]

  (3) what advice his Department offers on the use of drugs that suppress the symptoms of terminal dehydration. [67216]

  Mr. Lammy
  I am advised that food and fluids should always be offered to patients who are capable of swallowing them. For terminally ill patients in the final days of life the objective is to control distressing and painful symptoms. Achieving such control may result in sedation. Many patients stop drinking and eating during the final days and it will be for clinical judgment to decide what is the appropriate treatment. Where nutrition and hydration have to be provided by artificial means, their possible withdrawal is in all cases a matter of clinical judgment which is undertaken in accordance with professional advice in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion and the general law.

  An adult patient who is capable of making his or her own treatment decision is entitled to do so and can refuse artificial hydration and nutrition just as he can any other form of treatment. In the absence of a valid advance
  1274W
  refusal of treatment, doctors are required to act in the best interests of a adult patient who is unable to make his or her own treatment decisions. Sometimes this will mean that medical treatment (which includes artificial hydration and nutrition) which is no longer beneficial to the patient should be withdrawn. In these circumstances, suitable medical or other care should be provided to ensure that the comfort and dignity of the patient are maintained. In line with good practice, decisions to withdraw medical treatment should be made only after discussions with the healthcare team and those close to the patient.

  Guidance in relation to palliative care (Changing Gear—Guidelines for Managing the last days of life in adults) was issued by the Department of Health in 1998, and advice on withdrawing and withholding treatment was included in the Reference Guide to Consent for Examination and Treatment, published in March 2001. Further guidance is also available from the British Medical Association.

  North Surrey Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) budgeted income and (b) planned expenditure of the North Surrey Primary Care Trust are for 2002–03. [67465]

  Ms Blears
  The North Surrey Primary Care Trust has reported that the current position on the 2002–03 budget is expenditure of £166.640 million. This position takes account of the trust's £2.3 million internal savings programme.

  The trust's income is subject to service and financial framework discussions between Surrey & Sussex Health Authority and the Department's Directorate of Health and Social Care for the South of England, which are still ongoing.

  IT Projects
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the cost to private sector IT suppliers of developing proposals for core ICT demonstrator projects initially supported by his Department, but for which funding was not found; [67976]

  (2) what representations he has received from private sector IT suppliers concerning the provision of funding for core ICT demonstrator projects initially supported by his Department. [67977]

  Ms Blears
  A programme of small-scale pilot projects—electronic record demonstrator and implementation programme (ERDIP) was funded by the Department. These are currently being evaluated to assess progress and lessons learned prior to a decision being taken about further work.

  In addition, joint work between the Department and a number of private sector consortia was undertaken to explore potential large-scale development projects in information technology (IT). Resources were made available by both the Department and the private sector for this but the considerable monies required for the execution of the projects could not be found.
  1275W
  All future IT developments in the NHS are now subsumed into the National Programme described in "Delivering 21st Century, IT Support for the NHS—National Strategic Programme"—copies are available in the Library and at: www.doh.gsi.gov.uk/ipu/whatnew/deliveringit

  The Department will continue to work in partnership with the private sector to deliver IT for the NHS.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the status is of existing NHS ICT procurements at PCT level; and if he will make a statement; [67987]

  (2) if he will publish the guidance which he has issued to PCTs to halt existing NHS ICT procurements; [68003]

  (3) whether he intends to issue further guidance concerning existing NHS ICT procurements at PCT level. [67986]

  Ms Blears
  The new National Health Service information technology programme was outlined in the document "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS: National Strategic Programme", published by the Department in June 2002. The key change of direction is to take greater central control over the specification, procurement, resource management, performance management and implementation of the information and IT strategy.

  Existing local procurements, and the development by local primary care organisations of system specifications and functional requirements, are valuable in the development of a new national approach. Guidance published by the Department in support of the June 2002 document states:
  "Procurements are underway in many places to deliver electronic patient records and other systems and these procurements need to proceed. Certainly by 2008, as indicated in Delivering the NHS Plan, we expect to see all key applications and functionality of electronic patient records in all PCTs and Trusts."

  On 29 April 2002 the NHS primary care information modernisation programme published a guidance document advising local organisations that have not yet begun procurements to await further guidance arising from the new approach to system certification and accreditation. There was no advice to halt existing procurements; instead the programme advised:
  "Primary care organisations that have already begun the procurement of new primary and community information systems should contact the Primary Care Information Modernisation team. This will enable the team to have a clear understanding of all local activity and the impact that this will have on current and future national initiatives. The team will ensure that the primary care organisation is made aware of any other relevant activity, including contact details, and will provide more detailed guidance and support if required."

  As the new procurement strategy is developed, the Department will issue further advice as to how migration to the new arrangements will be made. This will cover all NHS IT procurements, including those relating to primary care organisations, and will take into account developments arising from existing local procurements.

  Primary Care Drug Dictionary
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures were followed in procuring the design, prototyping and population of the primary care drug dictionary; [67992]

  (2) whether tenders were issued for the design, prototyping and population of the primary care drug dictionary. [67990]

  Mr. Lammy
  A drug dictionary has been developed as part of the research phase of the development of PRODIGY, a computerised decision and learning support tool for general practitioners.

  A recent re-procurement of primary care decision support (based on PRODIGY) is near completion as the work moves from research and development to the implementation phase. Reference to the design work and prototyping for an electronic drug dictionary was included as part of the procurement process. This is consistent with European Union procurement rules.

  Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the statistics that are collected by his Department by English parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [67100]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department collects a wide range of statistics, most of which are collected at a local level. They are based on administrative areas such as health authorities, primary care trusts, National Health Service trusts or local authorities that reflect local lines of responsibility and accountability. They are not collected at Parliamentary constituency level.

  Members of the Government statistical service (GSS) in all Government Departments provide a statistical service to the Library.

  The Library provides a tailored service for Members. Statistics that can often be provided at parliamentary constituency level include economic status (employment, unemployment, and inactivity), claimant count, employee jobs, average earnings and census data. Also, many statistics that are available at a lower level can generally be aggregated to parliamentary constituency level. This includes the increasing range of statistics at ward level becoming available through the neighbourhood statistics service (www.statistics.gov.uk/neighbourhood).

  Medical Devices Directive
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to ensure that the European Medical Devices Directive is in accordance with the Furniture and Furnishing Regulations of 1988 with respect to flame resistance tests for furniture. [67637]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Medical Devices Agency, an executive agency of the Department, has consulted the European Commission about the mechanism for requiring manufacturers of orthopaedic mattresses who place their products on the market as a medical device to also meet the national measures relating to the flammability of furniture in the United Kingdom and is waiting a response.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the(a) Chairman of the Council of the BMA, (b) President of the Royal College of Physicians,(c) President of the Royal College of Surgeons,(d) President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists,(e) President of the Royal College of General Practitioners, (f) President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and (g) President of the Royal College of Nursing. [68061]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my Ministerial colleagues and I meet regularly, formally and informally, with key stakeholders, including representatives of the medical and nursing professions and other bodies.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 991W, on NHS-funded activity, if he will share the key findings referred to. [68266]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are considering how best the findings might be made available.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on "The Management of Surplus Property by Trusts in the NHS in England"; and if he will make a statement. [68059]

  Mr. Lammy
  Departmental officials are making substantial progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on "The Management of Surplus Property by Trusts in the NHS in England".

  This includes:
  A letter to all National Health Service trust and primary care trust (PCT) chief executives requiring them to have an estate strategy by 31 December 2002 with progress being monitored by NHS Estates.
  "Amendments to Estatecode" which incorporate the report's recommendations which is being published this month.
  A training session for all staff involved in corporately overseeing sales by NHS trusts and PCTs.
  The publication this month of an information guide to local planning authorities and the NHS on development plans and NHS modernisation.

  European Law
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department takes to ensure that it follows procedures for procurement in accordance with European law. [68048]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department maintains comprehensive guidance covering all aspects of procurement activity, including the European Union Public Procurement Directives. This information and guidance is posted on the Department's Intranet to which all its staff has access.
  1278W
  In addition to written instructions, the Department's central procurement policy and advisory unit exists to instruct and provide support to anyone in the Department who may be engaged in any procurement activity. It is a specific Departmental requirement that all procurements in excess of £50,000 involve the services of a trained purchaser.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 22 April regarding the treatment of bowel cancer. [68289]

  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent on 11 July.

  E-injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on children with(a) repetitive strain injury, (b) text message injury and (c) long-term injuries from playing gaming consoles. [68097]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for medical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC funds research into repetitive strain injury and spent £97,000 on research into this condition in 2000–01. The MRC is not supporting any research into children with repetitive strain injury, text message injury or long term injuries from playing gaming consoles.

  Eden Strang
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role his Department has played in the(a) release and (b) post-release arrangements of Eden Strang; and if he will make a statement. [67854]

  Jacqui Smith
  Mr. Strang was managed as a voluntary National Health Service patient.

  His pre discharge and discharge plan was in line with the care programme approach which in general terms involves a multi-disciplinary assessment of health and social care needs, including risk assessment, and an appropriate care plan.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people benefited from the use of community equipment services in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [68271]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is estimated that 1,300,000 individual people benefited from National Health Service and social services community equipment services in the year ending 31 March 2001. An estimate is not available for the year ending 31 March 2000.

  Defibrillators
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures his Department has put in place to ensure that members of staff at sites where automated defibrillators have been installed have been appropriately trained in the use of such equipment. [68275]
  1279W
  Ms Blears
  A defibrillator advisory committee (DAC) was established at the outset of the initiative to assist the government with the implementation of the defibrillator initiative. One of its tasks was to recommend criteria for the training competencies of those individuals who may be required to use an automated external defibrillator (AEDs) at sites identified. An initial four hour training programme was agreed that covered the training outcomes of basic life support (BLS) and the use of an AED. Trainees are not certified if they fail to achieve the crucial competencies. Refresher training occurs at six monthly intervals to ensure skill and knowledge retention. All trainees who pass the course are issued with a training record card that is certified by the trainer to show they have attended a training course in BLS and the use of an AED; this is updated following the successful completion of subsequent refresher training courses.

  A formal procurement process to purchase training services was undertaken to meet the training requirements of the programme's national roll-out and to ensure the appropriate training of personnel at sites identified. Training contracts were awarded under the direction of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) and in conjunction with medical and educational advisors from the resuscitation council (UK) Training contracts for five National Health Service regions were awarded to ambulance service training departments, St. John Ambulance was awarded contracts for two regions, and the British Red Cross was awarded a contract for one region.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new automated defibrillators have been installed in public places since 1 May. [68276]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1 May 2002, fifty-five automated external defibrillators (AEDs) have been installed across seventeen public sites in England. Since the launch of the first site in April 2000, 542 AEDs have been installed across eighty-two sites.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff at each of the sites where automated defibrillators have been placed have participated in training programmes in their use. [68274]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: By the end of June 2002, 2914 personnel across seventy-five sites identified for the Defibrillators in Public Places Initiative had received training in basic life support and the use of an automated external defibrillator. A breakdown of training activity at each site is illustrated below:

  Site

  Number trained

  1

  MetroCentre

  93

  2

  Leeds Station

  40

  3

  Euston Station

  30

  4

  Liverpool Street Station

  30

  5

  Manchester Piccadilly Station

  40

  6

  Birmingham New Street Station

  30

  7

  Waterloo Station Waterloo International

  51

  8

  Victoria Station

  50

  9

  Heathrow Terminal 4

  53

  10

  Earl's Court Station

  19

  11

  Heathrow Terminal 2

  45

  12

  Liverpool Airport

  51

  13

  Heathrow Terminal 3

  60

  14

  Newcastle Airport

  144

  15

  Reading Station

  40

  1280W

  Site

  Number trained

  16

  Coventry Station

  7

  17

  York Station

  25

  18

  London Bridge Station

  31

  19

  Stansted Express

  29

  20

  Sheffield Station

  16

  21

  Exeter Airport

  38

  22

  Exeter St David Station

  12

  23

  Bristol Templemeads Station

  19

  24

  Plymouth Station

  20

  25

  Barnsley Interchange

  18

  26

  Gatwick Airport

  306

  27

  Continental Ferry Port—Portsmouth

  34

  28

  Crewe Station

  21

  29

  Preston Station

  12

  30

  Stockport Station

  15

  31

  Euro Tunnel, Folkestone

  104

  32

  Sheffield Interchange

  15

  33

  Peterborough Station

  13

  34

  Victoria Coach Station

  21

  35

  West Bromwich Bus Station

  6

  36

  Paddington Station

  19

  37

  Luton Airport Parkway Station

  23

  38

  King's Cross Station

  17

  39

  Newcastle Central Station

  25

  40

  Manchester Coach Station

  13

  41

  Charing Cross Station

  14

  42

  Leeds Bradford Airport

  60

  43

  Ipswich Station

  10

  44

  Albert Dock Company

  24

  45

  Blackfriars Station

  10

  46

  East Midlands Airport

  11

  47

  Bristol Airport

  174

  48

  Doncaster Station

  16

  49

  Norwich Station

  7

  50

  Liverpool Lime Street

  8

  51

  Luton Airport

  41

  52

  Birmingham International Airport

  144

  53

  Stansted Airport

  171

  54

  Manchester Airport

  148

  55

  Heathrow Ground ops & Fire Service

  90

  56

  Heathrow Terminal 1

  65

  57

  Southampton Airport

  31

  58

  Norwich International Airport

  52

  59

  Humberside Airport

  19

  60

  Blackpool Airport

  17

  61

  Sheffield City Airport

  16

  62

  London City Airport

  20

  63

  Teesside Airport

  15

  64

  London Marylebone

  12

  65

  Birmingham International Station

  8

  66

  Birmingham Snow Hill Station

  7

  67

  Bristol Parkway Station

  10

  68

  Clapham Junction Station

  16

  69

  Chelmsford Station

  6

  70

  Digbeth Coach Station

  8

  71

  Ilford Station

  5

  72

  Romford Station

  4

  73

  Hull Paragon Station

  23

  74

  Wakefield West Gate Station

  9

  75

  Carlisle Station

  8

  Medical Records
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Electronic Record Development and Implementation Programme with regards to the national rollout of electronic personal medical records for all patients. [68288]

  Mr. Lammy
  The electronic record development and implementation programme (ERDIP) was established in June 2000 to explore developmental issues around the
  1281W
  electronic record programme specified in the information strategy Information for Health, published in September 1998. The programme consisted of 19 projects, nine of which have now completed. The projects ranged in size from one to exchange information between NHS Direct and general practitioner (GP) systems, to a pan community service covering a health authority (as previously defined), linking hospitals, general practice, ambulance and social care. Two general practices (Bury Knowle and Hatfield) have explored the issues of allowing patients access to their own GP records.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients have access to their electronic medical records. [68287]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: At present no official figures are available on the proportion of patients who have been given direct on-line, secure access to their electronic record. However, there are a number of sites that have taken forward work in this area, which will inform policy development and any future national rollout.

  In addition proposal are currently being considered to take forward the development of an electronic personal health record as specified in the National Health Service information strategy, Information for Health. This will be the patient's own record, separate from the general practice and hospital records.

  Photodynamic Therapy
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make photodynamic therapy an approved NHS treatment; and if he will make a statement. [68292]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) are carrying out an appraisal of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age related macular degeneration. NICE published its final appraisal determination on photodynamic therapy on 12 June. This has been appealed against. An appeal panel will now be convened to hear the appeal and decide the outcome. If the appeal is not upheld, then guidance will be published, however, if it is upheld then the appeals panel will ask the appraisal committee to reconsider the evidence in light of the appeal panel's decision. The earliest guidance could be available to the National Health Service is early August.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of trusts have mixed-sex mental health wards. [67957]

  Mr. Hutton
  All mental health wards generally care for both men and women. To provide the required levels of privacy and dignity for patients, wards are split into single sex bays, or single rooms, or otherwise configured to provide adequate segregation of gender. It is the responsibility of each National Health Service trust to determine the most appropriate configuration to meet their specific requirements.

  The Department has set three objectives which trusts must meet to be deemed compliant. These objectives refer to single sex accommodation and not single sex wards.
  1282W
  The target is for three objectives to be achieved in 95 per cent. of trusts by December 2002.

  The three objectives are:
  To ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  To achieve the patient's charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS; and
  Provide safe facilities for patients in hospitals who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on recruitment and retention as a result of the National Director of Mental Health's working group. [67974]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national director for mental health's working group has taken a number of practical steps related to the recruitment and retention of psychiatrists. The group has initiated an attrition study of psychiatric trainees, a study of flexible trainees in psychiatry, a survey into the retirement intentions of consultant psychiatrists and a study of psychiatrists' workload. The group has provided psychiatric input to international recruitment and work is in progress to recruit psychiatrists through the general global recruitment campaign and the International Fellowship scheme.

  The group has developed a new model of psychiatrists' numbers, tracking recruitment and retention from graduation to retirement and an action plan based on these figures is being prepared.

  Recruitment and retention issues relating to the mental health workforce as a whole are taken forward by the mental health care group workforce team.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many more staff will need to be recruited to acute mental health wards as a result of implementation of the Working Time Regulations; and if he will make a statement as to his plans. [67971]

  Mr. Hutton
  The working time regulations currently fully apply to all staff except for doctors in training.

  The Department is currently in the process of supporting a range of pilot projects to test solutions to implementation of the working time directive. This includes mental health services.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities offer women-only day centres for mental health patients. [68272]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not currently available centrally. The mental health service mapping system is being refined to enable the Department to gauge progress against this NHS Plan commitment.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent community psychiatry and other psychiatry nurses there are. [68156]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-medical workforce information is collected each year as at 31 September, the latest being September 2001.

  As at 31 September 2001, there were 11,040 community psychiatric nurses and 25,930 other psychiatric nurses working in the National Health Service.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the drugs Ziprazidone and Aripipazole will be available on prescription to treat schizophrenia. [65075]

  Mr. Lammy
  Neither Ziprasidone nor Aripiprazole are licensed drugs in the United Kingdom. These products will become available for prescription once the licensing authority is satisfied of their quality, safety and efficacy for the intended use.

  Suicides
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric outpatients from the Portsmouth, South constituency have committed suicide in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [67419]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  MIND
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of MIND's prescribing protocol; and if he will make a statement. [67039]

  Mr. Lammy
  We welcome the MIND prescribing protocol. The themes highlighted are in line with action we are taking to improve the use of medicines in the National Health Service through medicines management schemes and patient partnership.

  Electro-Convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on electro-convulsive therapy in the last two years. [67636]

  Mr. Lammy
  The main Government agency for medical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded via the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC currently supports one research project on electro convulsive therapy (ECT) being undertaken by Dr. M. J. Koepp at the Institute of Neurology. The research started on 1 November 2001 and is expected to take three years.

  The Department directly funds research into policy and the delivery of effective practice in health and social care, and provides National Health Service support funding for research commissioned by the research councils and charities in the NHS. The Department has directly funded research projects relevant to ECT as follows:
  1284W
  Role of ECT: Review of studies and information on service user experience;
  Systematic review effectiveness and adverse effects of ECT;
  The Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy;
  Clinical Effectiveness and cost of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus ECT in severe depression: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial and economic analysis.

  In addition, the Department provides NHS support funding for research councils' and charities' research that is conducted in the NHS. Details of this research can be found on the National Research Register on www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm

  Nurses
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses work(a) as managers and (b) within education services. [68159]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-medical workforce information is collected each year as at 31 September, the latest being September 2001.

  As at 31 September 2001, there are 5,590 nurses with line management responsibility working as managers and 900 qualified nurse education staff working in the National Health Service in addition to those working in universities.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the National Care Standards Commission. [66899]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Care Standards Act the National Care Standards Commission from the 1 April 2002 became responsible for regulating statutory and independent sector care services in accordance with national minimum standards to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection for users of social care some of whom are amongst the most vulnerable people in society.

  In addition to fulfilling its regulatory functions, the Commission is charged with other responsibilities, reflecting its position as a national body well-placed to monitor changes in the provision and quality of registered services across the country. The Commission also has a general duty to encourage improvements in the quality of registered services and will be able to suggest ways in which services improve.

  National standards will promote better quality care and help prevent abuse by grounding practice in the principles of dignity, choice privacy and respect.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Enterprise Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Enterprise Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clause 13,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 14 and 15,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 16 to 20,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 21 to 67,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 68 to 82,

Schedule 7,

Clause 83,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 84 to 87,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 88 to 163,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 164 to 180,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 181 and 182,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 183 to 205,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 206 to 233,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 234 to 236,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 237 to 244,

Schedules 16 and 17,

Clauses 245 and 246,

Schedule 18,

Clause 247 to 252,

Schedule 19,

Clause 253,

Schedules 20 and 21,

Clauses 254 to 260,

Schedule 22,

Clauses 261 to 265,

Schedule 23,

Clauses 266 to 272,

Schedule 24,

884

Clauses 273 and 274,

Schedules 25 and 26,

Clauses 275 to 277.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
We had intended to move day five of the Committee stage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill to Wednesday, 17th July, giving us the next two days in Committee next week. However, that would have caused a difficulty for a number of Front-Bench spokesmen. Therefore, discussions have been held through the usual channels and it is proposed to debate amendments on Part 5 after Part 8. It is likely that that will take place on Tuesday, 23rd July. The order of consideration at present before the House will achieve that.
Moved, That, notwithstanding the instruction of 1st July, it be a further instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill has been committed that the remainder of the Bill be considered in the following order:

Clauses 42 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 49 to 68,

Clauses 102 to 108,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 109 to 140,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 141 to 143,

Clause 69,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 70 to 88,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 89 to 100,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clause 101.—(Lord Filkin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
11.7 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In this year's Budget, and with the legislation set in motion by the Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out for the country the next steps on the road to a modern and productive Britain. Building on a foundation of economic stability, the Bill sets in statute important proposals on enterprise, innovation, the environment and the business of regeneration. Economic stability is the foundation of all that we seek to achieve. This Government have worked hard to establish a record of competence in the management of the economy.

885
Five years ago, our first Budget set out our objectives, our plans for reform and the disciplines to achieve economic stability, higher employment and sustained prosperity. This year, on 17th April in his Budget speech, the Chancellor was able to report 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.
Last year, the main economies of the industrialised world started a synchronised slow-down. In the past, in such a slow-down it is Britain that has entered weaker and suffered longer, unable to act because of higher inflation and higher borrowing.
All that has changed. Britain faced this world downturn with low inflation and sound public finances, both delivered by our new monetary and fiscal frameworks. Therefore, this time 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. With the support of fiscal policy, we have been able to safeguard both economic stability and growth. Our framework for monetary and fiscal stability has now been tested in the bad times as well as the good, and our policies have not been found wanting.
The challenge for British industry and investors at this time is to build on our hard-won stability and accelerate productivity improvements, increasing levels of output, employment and prosperity. While the economy has been stable, it can and must grow stronger.
There is a clear role for government in establishing the conditions necessary for economic growth. The UK is, and will remain, a low-tax environment. The Bill introduces important measures to modernise taxes, to keep pace with real world developments and with the global economy, to promote enterprise and to cut red tape.
Government are committed to addressing the longer-term challenge of enterprise through higher productivity and investment. The net effect of corporation tax changes introduced since 1997 is to reduce the corporate tax burden on business. We now have the lowest corporation tax rates in British history, and, since 1997, we have cut the tax bills of small companies by more than 30 per cent. That includes cuts in corporation tax and targeted measures, such as the R&D tax credit and permanent 40 per cent first-year allowances.
In this year's Budget and in this year's Finance Bill, we are keeping the momentum going. To enable investment in high growth, high technology industries, Clause 53 and Schedule 12 extend an enhanced research and development tax credit to all companies. That means a £400 million boost for innovation and research in Britain. Clause 44 and Schedule 8 set out an exemption for companies disposing of substantial shareholdings. That will enable companies to restructure without an essential business decision being constrained by the tax system. This new relief
886
forms part of the Government's commitment to reform and modernise the corporate tax regime, ensuring that the UK 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 new relief, set out in Clause 84 and Schedules 29 and 30, will encourage business to take advantage of opportunities in the knowledge-based economy. This is another important step in our programme of corporate tax reform.
Reform of the taxation of foreign exchange gains and losses, loan relationships and derivative contracts will create a more modern and user-friendly regime. It will give certainty to taxpayers and remove avoidance opportunities so that all companies pay their fair share of tax and compete on a level playing field.
We have consulted extensively on these measures. They have been designed through dialogue with the business community. As a consequence, they have been widely welcomed.
Small businesses account for 55 per cent of all private sector jobs—more than 10 million jobs in all—and nearly half the economy's output, totalling £1 trillion of economic activity. Small firms are important drivers of growth in the economy. Support for small firms is an important theme running through the Bill. In 1997, we cut the small companies' tax rate from 23 pence to 21 pence; in 1998, we cut it again to 20 pence, with a starting rate of 10 pence; and now, in 2002, Clause 31 of the Finance Bill takes it down again —to 19 pence, with immediate effect.
Clause 32 reduces the starting rate of corporation tax, also with immediate effect, from 10 pence to zero. That means that companies with profits of up to £10,000 will pay no corporation tax. That is the most favourable tax regime for small companies in any of the advanced industrial countries.
To fund the growth of our bright young companies, we need to increase the level of business investment. Private equity investment has doubled since 1997. That is an important contribution to an entrepreneurial economy. There is more to be done. To maintain the momentum, the Bill cuts capital gains tax to 20 per cent for business assets held for one year or more, with immediate effect. For business assets held for more than two years the Bill cuts capital gains tax to 10 per cent. That means that overall, Britain has a capital gains tax regime more favourable to enterprise than that of the United States.
I know that for many small businesses, the cost of compliance is an important issue. The Budget set out proposals to reform the administration of VAT; to help smaller firms comply with PAYE and to remove unnecessary regulations. Clauses 23 to 25 set out the steps we are taking in the Bill to simplify and streamline the VAT regime. We do not need to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. The emerging consensus around the idea of sustainable development is an opportunity for British companies. Investing now in energy-saving

887
technologies and techniques is the best way of getting ahead of the game and gaining an important advantage over foreign competitors.
To improve business energy efficiency, the Bill sets out further exemptions from the climate change levy for electricity from combined heat and power plants and from coal mine methane in recognition of the environmental benefits of those technologies. To encourage the use of cleaner, more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels, the Bill introduces several vehicle excise duty reforms and duty incentives.
It is only fair that foreign lorries pay their fair share for their use of British roads and the environmental and social costs they impose. The Government therefore aim to introduce a distance-based road user charge for lorries regardless of nationality in 2005 or 2006.
The way we deal with waste says a great deal about our standing as a society. As a responsible government aware of our obligations we are attempting to encourage the sustainable treatment of waste. The Bill increases the standard rate of the landfill tax from £12 to £13. Clause 122 sets out the details.
The Bill also includes important amendments to the operations of the aggregates levy and provides for the phased introduction of the scheme in Northern Ireland. We have responded to the concerns of the sector. The phased introduction will give them time to improve their performance.
It is not all business. Clause 58 and Schedule 18 introduce a package of tax reliefs for community amateur sports clubs and those who donate to them, supporting the valuable role played by community amateur sports clubs in promoting the health and cohesion of their local communities. Clause 97 extends the relief which the Government introduced in the Finance Act 2000 for gifts to charity of listed shares to gifts of lands or buildings.
Clause 98 introduces a measure to encourage giving through a reminder in the tax return providing a valuable boost to charitable giving. Those measures build on the extensive incentives for charitable giving introduced in Budget 2000, which have increased the amount of money donated to charity and enabled organisations in the voluntary and community sector to do even more good work.
I turn to VAT, taxation of cigarettes and alcohol, and estates. We did not extend VAT to essential goods; neither did we raise the rate of VAT. Duties on beer, wine and spirits are frozen. Airport tax, insurance tax and climate change levy are all frozen. For public health reasons, on cigarettes there will be the annual inflation increase. All estates below £250,000 will be exempt from inheritance tax. That is 96 per cent of all estates.
To ensure fairness for taxpayers and businesses, we must also 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; to put an end to three artificial schemes for VAT avoidance, and to review the complex rules of residence and domicile.
888
The UK will remain a low-tax environment, favourable to business and enterprise. The overall tax burden is lower than the EU average and lower than each of our main EU competitors. The atmosphere is right for economic growth. The Bill is a register of our ambition and determination as a government. 'We are ambitious because we believe in a Britain where businesses can grow; entrepreneurs can flourish, and opportunity is open to all.
We believe in a Britain where the Government are responsive to the shifting interests of the business community and legislation keeps pace with developments in world markets. We believe in a Britain where the goals of economic growth and sustainable development are intertwined and where business is the friend of community regeneration. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve; I believe it does. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey
11.19 a.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager.
I am slightly surprised to be the only Back-Bencher speaking today in the debate. One of the reasons for that maybe the lateness that it was put down on the Order Paper. It appeared only early this week. When I inquired about the Speakers' List at the start of the week that also was not ready. That seems slightly at odds with the ambition to have more widespread debate on financial matters in this House. I also wondered why the Second Reading debate could not have been delayed until after the Comprehensive Spending Review is published next week.
I comment on the length of the Finance Bill, which at 500 pages is the third longest ever. Can we not have less lengthy Finance Bills?
I welcome the following features of the Bill: the cut in small companies' corporation tax rate from 20 pence to 19 pence; and the reduction in corporation tax for smaller companies with profits of less than £10,000 from 10 pence to nil. I ask the Minister whether the Government favour incorporation versus the sole trader. I further welcome the capital gains tax cut for business assets held for more than one year, which is reduced to 20 per cent, and those held for two years and more to 10 per cent; and the exemption of chargeable gains for disposal of substantial shareholdings.
Also to be praised is the extension of the research and development tax credit to large companies. I congratulate the Minister on the extension of reliefs for intellectual property and intangible assets.
This year's Budget, which raised taxes to fund the NHS, was every bit as significant as trailed. It will go down with some of the other big tax-raising Budgets in history. Its overall effect will be to increase net taxes by £6.1 billion next year and £7.6 billion in 2004-05. That, according to a BBC Budget commentary, equates to an average of £6 per week for every household in the country.

889
While the good news was that the tax rises do not come into force until next year, the bad news was on national insurance where there was a 1 per cent increase on employees' contributions below the upper earnings limit, and an additional 1 per cent levy on earnings above the limit. Employers' contributions have also been increased by 1 per cent. Thus the top rate of tax on earnings has been surreptitiously raised from 40 per cent to 41 per cent. That has broken an election pledge not to raise income tax. It could also be a licence for further increases in national insurance if enough money is not raised to fund the health service.
Aware of the impact on middle-class voters, the Chancellor on the other hand extended means-tested benefits to households with up to £58,000 total income, in the form of child and working tax credits, which operate in a complicated way.
Higher national insurance contributions will disproportionately affect companies with large work forces, at a time when profits, particularly in manufacturing, are under pressure. There must therefore be concern, as expressed by KPMG in its Budget summary, that that will make the UK a less attractive place to which to locate in the long term, as those extra costs reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a business location.
The Chancellor made a major assumption that he will obtain extra revenues by predicting an increase in the expected growth rate of 3 per cent to 3½ per cent in 2003 and 2½ per cent to 3 per cent in 2004. For 2002 the growth rate is assumed to be 2 per cent to 2½ per cent. The figures for 2003 and 2004 look optimistic in view of the UK first quarter GDP figures which showed growth of 0.1 per cent, although the second quarter figures were a little better. What particularly worries me is the continued weakness of the stock market and its effect on consumer spending.
The Ernst & Young Budget commentary states that:
"The main worry about the Treasury forecast lies in its view of household spending. Real disposable incomes slowed from 5 per cent growth in 2001 to 1½ per cent this year. The Treasury suggest that consumers will dip into their savings to keep spending growing at 3¼ per cent. We are not so confident now we have seen the shape of the Budget".
While most commentators accept that the Budget commitments are sustainable in the short to medium term, they also query whether the Chancellor's long-term commitments on spending will require additional tax increases in the future in order to continue to meet fiscal rules. Martin Wolf in the Financial Times commentary states:
"The Budget promises are certainly bold. Over the five years to 2007–08, the plans are for total spending on the NHS to rise at 7.4 per cent a year in real terms. Excluding spending on health, current spending is to grow at 2½per cent a year in 2004–05 and 2005–06. Total growth of current spending over those years is to rise at 3.3 per cent. Meanwhile, net public investment is also forecast to rise from 1.8 per cent of gross domestic product in 2003–04 to 2 per cent in 2005–06".
890
Also on the subject of possible tax increases the Financial Times of llth July, states:
"Taxes will probably have to rise by £12bn a year, the equivalent of an extra 4p on the basic rate of income tax, if the government is to meet its ambitions to improve health and other services in the next parliament, according to economists at PwC, the professional services firm".
Commentators also note that the Chancellor's assumptions are based on an upward revision in the trend rate of growth. Groups, including the OECD and the respected ITEM Club, have queried the Chancellor's growth forecasts. It is clear that the Chancellor's upward revision of the trend rate of growth is crucial to determining the extent to which he will have to increase taxes beyond 2005. The Budget 2002 document includes a separate publication on trend growth. That states:
"The analysis concludes that the neutral rate of trend growth over the period covered by the Budget 2002 is 2.75%. However the public finance projections continue to be based on a cautious assumption of a quarter of a percentage point below the central forecast".
That is an annual trend growth of 2.5 per cent.
The IFS highlights the importance of the change of assumptions on trend growth in relation to the Chancellor's ability to appear relatively prudent despite announcing such significant spending increases. It states:
"The net effect of the Budget is to loosen the fiscal stance by £9 billion by 2005-06 relative to what it would have been had not the Chancellor introduced any of the measures contained in the FSBR … It might seem surprising that the fiscal loosening is possible given the Chancellor's desire to meet his fiscal rules with a particular degree of caution. In part, this has been made possible by an increase in projected tax revenues [estimated at £4.6 billion by 2005-06] flowing from more optimistic assumptions about economic growth".
The OECD's recent assessment of the UK economy also queried the Treasury's estimate that the trend rate of growth had risen to 2.75 per cent. The OECD's forecasts for growth are below the bottom end of the Treasury's for this year and below the bottom end of the range for next year.
In addition, the prestigious forecast group the ITEM Club has—using the Treasury's model of the economy—questioned the Chancellor's forecast for economic growth. Peter Spencer, its economic adviser, has strongly queried the Chancellor's decision to raise his estimate of the trend rate of economic growth—the long-term rate consistent with stable inflation—from 2.5 per cent to 2.75 per cent. He argued that that allows him to raise his long-term forecast for expected growth in tax revenue, giving the Treasury free rein to plan higher spending without breaking the golden rule. At the end of April, Professor Spencer told the Financial Times:
"The upward revision seems the opposite to the evidence, which is that the trend rate of the UK economy has been falling rather than rising. The leeway the Chancellor had to cover himself when things went wrong is simply not here now".
The ITEM Club forecast growth of only 1.8 per cent this year—below the Chancellor's forecast range of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent. Next year's ITEM forecast of 2.8 per cent is still below the Chancellor's estimate of 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent.

891
I have several questions for the Minister about the other detailed measures in the Budget. First, why is there a need to tighten up on the United Kingdom branches of foreign banks? Secondly, why is there any need for extra oil company taxation? The Chancellor himself stated in the Pre-Budget Report 2000:
"While it has been put to me that North Sea oil companies, earning higher profits from higher oil prices should be subject to special taxes, I can tell the House that I am determined not to make short term decisions based on short term factors. The key issue is the level of long term investment in the North Sea. And this will be the approach that will guide budget decisions in future".
By this tax rise, he seems to be going against those comments.
What is the message behind the tightening up of the rules on controlled foreign companies? Is that a measure to penalise the tax regime of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? Finally, what is the purpose of the review of residence and domicile?
In summary, I praise the measures in the Budget that are favourable to business. I accept that the National Health Service needs more funding, but I fear that it may be a bottomless pit. The approach needs to be changed to that of a more zero-based budget exercise, with a national debate about what the state needs to pay for.
11.32 a.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, debating in your Lordships' House the Government's economic and fiscal programme is a little like waiting for buses: we do not debate the subject for weeks or months on end; but suddenly within three weeks we have three debates on it. If it is a Friday morning in July, it must be time for the Finance Bill. At least it now seems likely that this will be the last time that the House will limit its consideration of the Bill to a few minutes at the end of a Session. Despite the rather alarmist reports in some newspapers earlier in the week, I understand that the plan to allow the Economic Affairs Committee to consider the Finance Bill from next year and to make recommendations to government is to come before your Lordships' House for approval next week. We welcome that.
The economic background against which the Government's taxation and spending plans must be set is more uncertain now than at the time of the Budget. We have several pieces of good news. The pound has depreciated against the rising euro. Manufacturing output has risen for two successive months, and now appears to be coming out of the slump— possibly because of the pound's changing rate against the euro. Consumer spending has come off the boil and the balance of payments is improving.
But against that, the precipitate fall of the stock markets on both sides of the Atlantic places places a major question mark against the outlook for both the US economy and our own. Confidence in the system has also been rocked by accountancy problems. That is likely to have a knock-on effect on consumer confidence.
892
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that in good economic times and bad the Government have not been found wanting. I fear that that statement, of the kind to which we have become accustomed from the Chancellor, has all the hallmarks of sounding slightly complacent at present—not least in respect of the growth rate. Although to some extent I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, about the growth rate, I disagree with him about the change in the trend rate forecast by the Government.
The change in the trend rate is due almost entirely to expected changes in the level of immigration—or, rather, to a continuation of the higher than usual levels of immigration into the United Kingdom of recent years, which have now been projected forward. Funnily enough, that is one of the few areas in which government policy can determine an outcome. If the Government continue with their current policy of welcoming people with skills in short supply, we will undoubtedly have a higher rate of economic growth. My worry about the growth rate concerns riot that expected change from 2.5 per cent to 2.75 per cent but whether the argument that underlies the figure of 2.5 per cent will be sustained in the face of a major collapse in both the stock markets and consumer confidence.
Of course, in the short term, there is virtually nothing that the Chancellor can do to affect many of the variables that we are discussing today. We accept his oft-repeated principle that long-term stability of direction should be the aim of macro-economic: policy. Unfortunately, the Chancellor does not apply the principle of stability to the tax system itself. This Finance Bill, 494 pages long and including 141 clauses and 39 schedules, is the second longest produced by this Chancellor and, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, said, the third longest ever. It brings to almost 2,500 pages the total provision for additional taxation introduced by this Chancellor since he came to office.
As with previous Finance Bills, many of the measures in this Bill require immensely complicated drafting and are of dubious value. They are often either introduced without consultation or ignore completely views expressed during consultation. Let us consider the tax relief on vaccine research. It has 14 pages and two schedules devoted to it, but it is highly unlikely to produce any of the beneficial consequences for which it is intended. Let us consider the proposal to tax the branches of foreign banks based in London. Whatever the details merits of that proposal, it has been completely ineptly handled by the Government. There has been no prior consultation and the timetable for its introduction next January almost certainly means that it will cause maximum disruption and loss of good will from the sector, which is crucial to the long-term future of the City.
Let us consider the changes in North Sea oil taxation. The Government consulted with industry on that for a prolonged period, but then they introduced the 10 per cent supplementary charge on North Sea profits, which completely ignored everything that the industry said. The effect will almost certainly be that

893
exploration and appraisal activity, investment and, as a result, employment in the sector will fall. The net consequence will be that the Government will not collect anything like the level of additional tax that they predicted in the Budget. They will also do significant damage to a major sector of the economy, especially of the economy of the North of Scotland.
I have one question about that change for the Minister. I believe that the long-awaited consultation paper on the abolition of royalty was published yesterday, but that no date was set for the abolition itself. Will the Minister undertake to urge the Treasury to set that date without further delay, so that at least one area of uncertainty can be removed?
My final example of a tax measure that is not all that it seems concerns community amateur sports clubs. The Government have gone a substantial way towards enabling community amateur sports clubs to gain tax relief, but in order for them to gain the maximum relief, they will be required to become charities. For months, the governing bodies of the principal sports argued that that approach would be too costly and burdensome. The Bill now contains welcome provisions under which clubs can gain certain forms of tax relief. However, in order to gain mandatory rate relief—for many clubs, the most important form of tax relief—they must go for charitable status. The problem is that the Charity Commissioners can and do behave in an authoritarian, patronising and unreasonable way.
I shall take the example of Banbury Cricket Club, which has, for decades, benefited from income from a charitable trust. Recently, the Charity Commissioners decided to send an investigating officer to inspect the club. Despite the fact that the club had 32 different local users, the officer said that it must not plan fixture lists in future because that would undermine the club's ability to offer facilities to other community groups. Such a move would, obviously, be impossible for any serious sports club, such as that in Banbury. The officer also suggested that the club should allow the grass to grow on the pitch to a length of 6 to 12 inches, should place picnic tables on it and should encourage people to have picnics and—I quote—"paint butterflies". That is not charity: it is madness. It is hardly surprising that the England and Wales Cricket Board and other governing bodies urge their members not to become charities, as the Government wish.
That measure and the others that I have raised this morning expose deficiencies in the way in which tax law is formulated and implemented. From next year, your Lordships' House will have the chance to examine the Finance Bill and suggest to the Government ways of improving it. In doing so, we are not seeking to undermine the Parliament Act 1911; the Commons will still have complete control of the rates and structure of taxes. However, we will, at least, be able to expose the Bill to serious scrutiny and play our part in making the tax system more efficient and effective.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, these days, politicians receive little praise. Usually, they get off-hand and uninformed criticism from people who wonder about their motives and their behaviour. So I must say, first of all, that the Hansard reports of the well mannered and illuminating debates on the Finance Bill in another place bear witness to the fact that the House of Commons is overwhelmingly occupied by intelligent and responsible people honestly striving to pursue, by their own best lights, the ideals for which the place stands. It is odd that these days a statement of something that we all know to be true comes almost as a surprise.
Secondly, I must thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, this is, perhaps, the last occasion on which your Lordships' House will be confined to such belated and cursory consideration of the Finance Bill. From next year—if the House adopts the proposals put to the Procedure Committee by the noble and learned Lord following his group's review of working practices—we will have new procedures allowing noble Lords far greater opportunity to comment on the Bill.
That reflects ideas put forward by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, and the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Jacobs, from, respectively, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches, as well as well as several noble Lords who sit on these Benches. They drew attention to the financial expertise in your Lordships' House and the value that it could add to the Budget process. It was, surely, an act of disinterested statesmanship by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to open doors that had been closed for a century and, on behalf of the Government, to invite your Lordships' House to consider the Finance Bill at a much earlier stage. I am sure that everyone with an interest in the effective administration of the national finances will join me in thanking him.
We look forward to the establishment, as envisaged by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, of a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs to review next year's Finance Bill and make comments and recommendations on it. The sub-committee will not, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, consider the incidence or rates of tax; it will none the less have much of value to say. It will need to take evidence. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, with his normal courtesy to the House, will confirm that Treasury Ministers and officials are to give evidence to it. It is a historic step and a clear sign that, as the House is reformed, it can fairly and legitimately claim to exercise functions and roles that the previous—mainly hereditary—House, so despised by the Government, could not. I cannot

895
put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, who dared to hope that the Treasury would take,
"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 be heard",—[Official Report, 4/7/02; col. 427.]
That said, are we mad to want the extra role or is there method in what we are doing? I think that there is. My noble friend Lord Northbrook touched on the matter. On Monday, the two volumes of the Finance Bill arrived majestically in your Lordships' House. The Bill's 1,092 pages of clauses and notes—there are 494 pages of the Bill itself and 604 pages of what are laughably known as Explanatory Notes—arrived neatly tied in green ribbon. As the Bill approached the Table, its weight drew gasps from the assembled Peers. I was reminded of Hilaire Belloc's poetic puff:
"No person, says he,
Will be truly content without purchasing three.
While a parent will send for a dozen or more
And strew them about on the nursery floor".
In fact, the magnificent scale of the Bill is only a continuation of a trend we have witnessed over the past live years. It is worth remembering that the first Finance Bill of my noble friend Lady Thatcher's government, which was commended to the House of Commons by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, ran to just 22 pages. The Bill now before us assures the Chancellor of his place on the Olympic weightlifting podium. He holds gold, silver and bronze medals for raising the three heaviest Finance Bills of all time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the trend towards ever more complex and lengthier Finance Bills is serious. When the Minister talked about modernising tax, he was referring to the fact that, to accommodate that so-called modernisation, Tolley's three standard tax manuals—I gather that they are the bible of tax accountants—now include 855 new pages to explain the Government's new thoughts. The guides, which run to 3,414 pages, are longer than London's residential and business telephone directories put together. Apparently, Tolley's has even had to reduce the print size to cram in more.
So far—I hope that things will be different in a moment or two, but I doubt it—the Government are oblivious to the general clamour about its addiction to meddling, tinkering and over-regulation. Those are the principal complaints of individual and corporate taxpayers alike, for whom the editor of the Financial Times speaks when he complains of a regime of "paralysing complexity". Somebody must hold a torch for simplicity in the system, and it may as well be your Lordships' House. It is true that we will not have the legal power to change anything, but we may, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, said, have the power to embarrass governments into a better performance.
My honourable friends in another place voted against the Third Reading of the Bill, partly because of the unexpected and unwelcome appearance of the
896
supplementary charge on the UK oil and gas extraction industry, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred. On the other hand, the Government listened to some of the comments by our party in Committee, and I am happy to repeat the thanks that my noble friend Lord Northbrook gave for certain aspects of the Bill. However, that should be set against the £6 billion a year of extra taxation with which business has been burdened in the past five years, not to mention the additional £5 billion a year in extra regulatory costs, which were not mentioned in the Minister's speech. A new regulation affecting business has been introduced every 26 minutes of the working day since the Government came into office. That rate is exceeded only by government press releases, emission of which occurs every four minutes.
As a result of what the Minister called modernising the corporation tax regime, UK corporate taxation is now 13.2 per cent of GDP, versus 12.7 per cent in Germany and 9.5 per cent in America. This Bill will take the UK proportion even higher. Meanwhile, individual taxpayers will be poorer as a result of the Bill. The Inland Revenue apparently now projects an increase in the number of people paying the top 40 per cent tax rate from 2 million in the last year of Conservative administration to 3 million next year. Meanwhile, the freezing of basic personal allowances, the oldest stealth tax in the book, has prevented those allowances being where they should be, at roughly double their present level.
The total tax take will therefore rise by many billions of pounds as a result of this Bill. The Government claim that all that is for the benefit of public services. However, no one seems convinced. I gather that in word association tests, the word that people now choose to reflect their view of the Government is "disappointment". Presumably, that is because in the past five years taxes have gone up and public services have remained the same or deteriorated.
The fact is that when the Minister spoke of a low tax environment, which I think was his phrase—I know that he will not contradict it, although his words gave a completely different impression—he perhaps overlooked the fact that tax revenues have increased by £100 billion per year over the past five years. If allowances are made for the changes in accounting practices, the actual share of GDP taken in taxation, according to the Government's own Red Book figures, will have risen by 5 per cent between 1997 arid 2006, from approximately 35 to 40 per cent.
Economists, doctors and the public alike are rightly sceptical that the increase in NHS spending without reform of the system will succeed in improving the delivery of healthcare. They are not wrong. The Government's own figures show that they expect wage and price inflation to eat up most of the extra cash. That is because since 1999 public sector wages have increased 4 per cent faster than those in the private sector.
I conclude by considering two omissions from the Bill, which your Lordships may consider striking. First, the Bill does not address the pensions crisis

897
which perhaps has arisen as a direct result of the Finance Act 1997. The £5 billion per year tax on dividends introduced by that Act created a vicious circle. It directly reduced pension entitlements by the amount of tax and, by greatly reducing the attraction of equities relative to all other asset classes held by pension funds, reduced the demand for equities and therefore contributed directly to the price falls now seen in the stock market. The only reference to pensions in 1,000 pages appears in Clause 29, which provides for a measly £55 million-worth of allowances to be given to pensioners aged 65 to 74.
The other striking omission relates to national insurance and the increases that formed a key part of the Chancellor's Budget Statement. Those were not mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks either. The charm for the Government of putting tax increases into a completely separate National Insurance Contributions Bill, rather than in this Finance Bill, is the public's complete lack of understanding of the working of the contributory system, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, called "complex and opaque". As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said in your Lordships' House the other day, putting tax rises in the National Insurance Contributions Bill, rather than in this Bill, is merely a device for exploiting public ignorance and raising money less visibly, because people dislike the idea of paying straightforward income tax.
By such errors of omission and commission, the Bill threatens all the theoretical economic foundations on which the Chancellor's framework is built, of which the Minister is so proud. The framework's main pillars—the independence of the Bank of England, the symmetrical inflation target and the code of fiscal stability—are all much less solid than the Minister may like to think. Incidentally, any idea that the European code may save us has been dashed by the new French finance Minister, Francis Mer, who said:
"Le code de stabilityé européan n'est pas inscrit dans le marbre".
That is probably just as well, because the reality of our economy is that the private sector, for the first time since 1992, has registered two consecutive quarters of negative real spending growth. The UK has recorded the slowest pace of economic growth of any G7 country in the first quarter of this year.
It is perhaps even more to the point that a more detailed output breakdown, for which I am indebted to my co-author, Dr Peter Warburton—I find this very worrying— reveals that the so-called hot private sector service sectors, that is, business, financial and telecommunications services, have delivered half of all the output growth in the UK economy in the past five years. The other 80 per cent of the economy has grown at 2 per cent per annum or less in every year since 1994. That over-reliance on the output growth of the hot sectors, which is now decelerating sharply, threatens to undermine the Government's objective of steady and stable growth, of which the Minister made so much.
New Labour was right to break away from the simple equation that higher tax rates equal better public services and greater social justice. With this
898
Finance Bill, it has begun to slip back into the old ways of thinking. Only two things are needed to bring back to life the dead body of old Labour. This Bill provides the first—tax. In Monday's comprehensive spending review, we shall have the second—spend. By Monday night, the resurrection will be complete.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short and rather concentrated debate.
I begin with a matter of housekeeping. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, complained about the short notice of this debate. The rules of the House do not allow us to include in the Minutes of Proceedings or future Business any legislation that has not arrived from the House of Commons. This legislation was passed by the House of Commons only late on Thursday night. It therefore came to this House for First Reading on Monday, and the speakers' list could not be produced until that time. I appreciate the inconvenience that that must have caused.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, also referred to the bad timing of the Finance Bill coming here before the comprehensive spending review, which will come before us, if the Opposition choose to have the Statement repeated, on Monday of next week. The timing of the Finance Bill has been known for some time and has been included in the forthcoming Business for all that time. The timing of the comprehensive spending review became apparent only during the middle of this week. Neither the House authorities nor anyone else could have done anything about that. It would have been preferable to debate them jointly—I am not sure in what order—on the same day.
All three noble Lords referred to the length and weight of the Bill. It is true that it is lengthy. However, 300 pages—60 per cent of the total—were published in draft, or consulted upon, substantially before the Budget. That is the benefit of a Pre-Budget Report in November, before a March or April Finance Bill and Budget Statement. Therefore, the opportunity for consultation has been much greater than it was in previous years, when there was no Pre-Budget Report. In addition, the Bill abolishes 200 pages of financial legislation. We therefore have to take the net figure, not the gross figure. In practice, it has worked well. In a press release produced at the end of May, the Chartered Institute of Taxation praised both the Finance Bill and the process of consultation. It felt that, where there has been consultation—it is not always appropriate—it had been carried out well.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for his welcome to a number of aspects of business taxation. He asked whether this meant that we favoured incorporated over unincorporated businesses. The answer to that is no. The difference between incorporation, non-incorporation and sole traders varies under different circumstances. For example, on occasion an unincorporated business can do better in terms of tax relief for losses or pension contributions than can an incorporated business. I have done that myself by using a partnership instead

899
of a limited company for exactly that purpose. The advantage for non-incorporation remains in place. In addition, some of the provisions in financial legislation, such as capital allowances, apply both to incorporated and unincorporated businesses.
The noble Lord and other noble Lords referred to the rises in national insurance contributions. Some criticisms were expressed that those had been introduced in a separate Bill. They had to be introduced in separate legislation because, under the rules set by the House of Commons over many years, the Finance Bill does not deal with changes made to the National Insurance Fund. I should have thought that noble Lords would welcome the fact that the National Insurance Contributions Bill was so transparent and that it drew attention to the changes in national insurance contributions rather than their being buried within a long Finance Bill. We certainly have nothing to apologise for, either in the way that the rises in national insurance contributions have been implemented or, indeed in implementing them at all. They follow the Beveridge principle that those in work should contribute for the benefit of those not in work. If we had introduced, for example, increases in the tax on pensioners' incomes, I think that there would have been some justified complaint. We might have seen lobbies led by Jack Jones outside the Palace of Westminster.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Saatchi, referred to the existence and the treatment of tax credits. Again we have nothing to apologise for in the existence of tax credits, the Tax Credits Bill which has recently passed through Parliament—it will make a major contribution to the reduction of poverty in this country—or for the way in which it has been done in terms of the treatment of tax credits in the national accounts. I do not know whether it is fully realised that because we have adopted generally accepted accounting practices in all of these matters—we are practically the only country in the developed world to have done so—tax credits in particular count as income tax only in very limited circumstances. Only 12 per cent of working families' tax credits count as negative income tax and therefore affect what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, calls the "tax burden", but what I call the "ratio between gross domestic product, taxes and social security payments".
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I accept completely that the public accounts now conform with generally accepted accounting principles. Why did it take the Government five years to reach the position they are in today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the Government Resource and Accounts Act 2000 we had to bring to a successful conclusion the process of the move towards resource accounting, started by the previous government and faithfully carried through by this Government. It is to be implemented this year. One can have generally accepted accounting principles only if one has proper resource accounting instead of cash accounting. I should have thought that by now that would have been a fairly non-party point.
900
Perhaps I may turn back to the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. He thought that we have been optimistic in our forecasts of growth rate. I shall respond by saying that I do not think so. Our neutral estimate of trend growth for the 2002 Budget, medium-term projections, is 2.75 per cent, which falls within the range of forecasts made by respected external organisations such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. The IMF Article IV Consultation, published in 2001, stated that the UK economy would average potential growth of 2.8 per cent over 2001-05, up from an average potential growth of 2.5 per cent over the previous five years. Furthermore, our public finance assumption has been declared reasonable and cautious by the National Audit Office.
Of course we are alert to the risks of the recent fall in the stock market, as we were to the fall which took place after September 11th. We have been exceedingly cautious in our forecasts. We are aware of the potential effect on consumer spending, to which the noble Lord referred, although it must be said that that has not happened yet. We think that there are now clear signs that growth in the economy is strengthening, in particular for manufacturing industry, according to the most recent figures. Furthermore, we are not alone in those beliefs.
The noble Lord queried my comment that the UK has the lightest tax burden. I suppose that he was referring in the main to business tax, although I am not sure. However, it is not true: the UK business tax burden at 7.3 per cent is significantly lower than the European Union average of 10 per cent. That was the figure for 1999, which is the most recent figure published by the OECD. We are confident that our estimates are correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, went on to ask me four specific questions. His first question concerned taxation of UK branches of foreign banks. We have made those changes because the OECD stated that we were out of line with international practice. We believe that it is right to be in line with such practice.
The noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Newby, both asked about oil company taxation. The answer to that question is that there have been two elements of change to oil company taxation. First, there has indeed been a 10 per cent rise, but that increase is justified by the profits being made by oil companies. Of course they are all doing so because they have licences from the UK Government. Secondly, neither the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, nor the noble Lord, Lord Newby, appeared to recognise that at the same time we have been encouraging further exploration by offering the extension of 100 per cent first-year allowances. On balance, those are prudent policies.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, also asked me about controlled foreign companies, in particular with regard to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We have to provide protection against harmful tax

901
practices wherever we can, and that is what we have been trying to do. But these are reserve powers that will be brought into effect only if it is found to be necessary.
The noble Lord asked me about the purpose of the review of the definitions of "residence" and "domicile". This has arisen as a direct response to complaints that have been made by tax planners. The existing rules are unclear. After extensive consultation, therefore, we would aim to make them clearer.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to a number of aspects of good macro-economic news—for which I am grateful—although he accused us of complacency. I hope that I answered that accusation in my response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, about growth rates. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, approved of our policies for longer term stability. I am grateful for that and for a number of his other comments.
As to the noble Lord's question in regard to royalties, we have been in consultation on this issue for a considerable time, even though a formal announcement was made only last week. He asked us to set a date for abolition. Several dates have been suggested but we believe that propriety dictates that we should set a date for abolition only after the formal consultation is complete. In other words, we should hear from everyone before making up our minds.
I am baffled by the noble Lord's reference to community amateur sports clubs and charitable status. I had no idea that the Charity Commission would behave as it has towards Banbury Cricket Club. I shall make inquiries into the matter and I shall write to him about that and the more general issue of whether it is appropriate for community amateur sports clubs to take on charitable status in order to benefit from the changes made in the Budget.
I am grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in regard to the Committee proceedings on the Bill in the House of Commons. It added greatly to the comity between the two Houses, which we are all keen to preserve. I do not have any comments to make on what either he or the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about the report of the Leader's Group and the Procedure Committee. That is a matter for the House to consider on 24th July. Like others, the noble Lord queried the argument in regard to the low tax environment. I hope that I answered his query when I responded to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook.
I am surprised that the noble Lord also queried whether we were tackling pensioner poverty. Yes, of course there was a period some years ago in which the rigid adherence to the formula gave rise to a 75 pence increase in the basic state pension. That created a great deal of anger. But, if we look at the policies as a whole, we can defend the way in which we are tackling pensioner poverty. We are offering extra financial support to the poorest pensioners through a minimum income guarantee; we are rewarding those who have saved for their retirement through the new pension credit, which will take effect from 2003; we are helping
902
all pensioners by guaranteeing a minimum increase in the annual basic state pension; we are providing additional help with the cost of winter fuel; and we are creating a sustainable system of support which will enable today's workforce, tomorrow's pensioners, to plan ahead and make decent provision for their retirement, protecting themselves against poverty in the future. I shall not stray into the debate on pension regimes, which started yesterday and which, no doubt, will continue.
I have dealt with the criticisms made by the noble Lord about tax rises being in the National Insurance Contributions Bill rather than in this Bill.
The noble Lord made comments, as he has done on a number of occasions, about regulation on business and the number of statutory instruments. I should remind him that more than 90 per cent of statutory instruments have no impact on business and that many of the remainder—such as road traffic orders—have only a local or temporary effect. A better measure of the burdens imposed by regulation is the number of regulatory impact assessments produced by departments showing which proposals would have a significant impact on business. In 2001, only 3 per cent of all regulatory measures, including primary legislation, had a significant impact on business. This has been true for a number of years. I am not saying that we should aim only for stability; I am saying that we should aim for a real reduction.
Returning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about charities, the issue of rates relief is for individual authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued a consultation paper. I shall write to the noble Lord on this issue.
The contributions made in the debate have been, on the whole, helpful and realistic. I hope that the House will agree that they have not dented the claims that I made in my opening speech. This Finance Bill is in line with our reputation for stability and prudence and with our ambition for greater wealth, prosperity and justice in our society.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th July), Bill read a third time and passed.

Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
12.17 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In doing so I want, first, most warmly to congratulate my honourable friend Rachel Squire on piloting this humane and long-overdue measure through the House of Commons with such skill and success. Speaking as a serial legislator in this policy area—both as a Private Member and a Minister—I hold her achievement in the highest admiration. By all my tests of the good MP, she is a parliamentarian par excellence.

903
Rachel acknowledged, as I do now, the unfailing support of Caroline Ellis and her team at the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB); of the Government and particularly of Melanie Johnson; of the copyright directorate; and of parliamentarians of all parties in another place. I want also to acknowledge the invaluable help of Rhodri Walters of the Public Bill Office in this House and of Mary Robertson and Chloe Mawson of the office of the Leader of the House.
For me, this is a deeply evocative moment. It recalls the warmth of the all-party support I received, 33 years ago, after publishing my Private Member's Bill that became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The RNIB today describes the Bill as having,
"marked the beginning of a long revolution in the life chances of all disabled people".
It was not a personal achievement. A wide fellowship of people worked with me to enact my Bill. They included many distinguished parliamentarians without whose unfailing help—notably that of my good and abiding friend Jack Ashley, as he then was, the late and much revered John Astor and the ever resourceful Lewis Carter-Jones—it could never even have begun to achieve its purpose. Naturally I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Ashley and I are as one again in this debate.
Of course, both of us well recall that the RNIB also played an important part in and after 1970 and I pay tribute today to two other fellow campaigners and longstanding friends of ours: Colin Lowe CBE, who now chairs the RNIB, and Professor Ian Bruce, its Director-General. To their kind assessment of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill, my response is that this Bill too marks an historic turning-point, one that will open up for visually impaired people throughout the UK—over 3,000 in every parliamentary constituency—a world of information and culture from which they are mostly and quite wrongly now excluded.
Visually impaired people cannot simply walk into their nearest bookshop and choose a book in large print or Braille. While there are a few commercial publishers of large-print and audio books, most publishers do not make accessible copies of works for people who are visually impaired. The most recent research shows that only 5 per cent of the 100,000-plus titles published in the UK in 1998 were available in formats accessible to Britain's 2 million visually impaired people a year later. The majority of accessible copies are produced by voluntary organisations or teachers of visually impaired students. Yet even their ability to make books, magazines and other materials accessible and readily available is massively constrained by current copyright restrictions.
Before accessible copies of a copyright work can be made the explicit permission of the right-holder is required. This is usually granted but, typically, there are significant delays of anything from a month to two years and, occasionally, some outright refusals. When permission is delayed or refused, visually impaired students are unable to complete coursework and members of churches, community and reading groups
904
find themselves excluded from social and cultural activities. Visually impaired people are distressed and rightly feel aggrieved that this most damaging form of social exclusion is still allowed to happen.
One example of its effects is that of a blind choir member still awaiting her Braille copy of Complete Anglican Hymns Old and New. This is because the RNIB has yet to receive copyright permission. There are numerous contributors to the hymn book and chasing them all up is proving expensive. Yet until the blind choir member gets her Braille hymn book, she cannot play her rightful part in the choir's activities and is left doubly disabled and in double despair.
That is but one example of why Rachel Squire introduced her Bill in another place. It was debated there entirely without party animus and unanimously approved, as the speeches of Nigel Waterson, speaking for the Opposition, and earlier of his Front Bench colleague, Eric Forth, clearly demonstrated. Nigel Waterson said that the Bill had:
"the wholehearted support of the official Opposition. The principle that it involves could not be clearer: our visually impaired constituents should have unnecessary obstacles removed from their lives, whether in their leisure activities or their studies. They face quite enough obstacles in their lives already".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/02; cols. 572–573.]
Eric Forth described the measure as:
"a model private Member's Bill. It is focused on a particular problem; it is relatively and properly limited in scope; it is, we now know, uncontroversial … Those are all admirable qualities in a private Member's Bill. The fact that the Bill seeks to correct something which is so patently wrong and does so in a businesslike way is an additional virtue".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/ 02; col. 1198.]
The House of Commons was at its best in the debates there on this Bill and I am sure the response of this House will be no less worthy of its high moral purpose. Indeed, I see the presence here today of my noble friend Lady Andrews to speak for the Government and that of the noble Lords. Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington, to speak for the Opposition parties as a clear guarantee of that outcome.
Many organisations and bodies outside the House are most anxious to see the Bill reach the statute book with no avoidable delay. In addition to the RNIB, which has long campaigned on this issue, they include the Disability Rights Commission, Rehab UK, Scope, St Dunstan's, The Royal British Legion, Sense, Deafblind UK, the Library Association, the National Library for the Blind, the Calibre Cassette Library, the Scottish Braille Press and the Talking Newspaper Association of the UK.
A very wide range of authors have expressed their support, including Philip Pullman, Jilly Cooper, Joanna Trollope, Harold Pinter and Nick Hornby. Many more, including a number of noble Lords, are actively engaged in promoting the right to read by recording Talking Books and by fundraising for RNIB's Digital Talking Book service.
Since last summer Rachel Squire has worked tirelessly with the Patent. Office and all of the interests involved to ensure that her Bill strikes exactly the right

905
balance between the pressing needs of visually impaired people and the legitimate interests of copyright owners. Initially, right-holder groups had some concerns about aspects of the Bill. Responding to their views, Rachel amended her Bill to tackle them. The Minister gave further assurances at Third Reading in another place so that right-holder organisations are today generally supportive of the Bill.
I turn now to a brief explanation of the Bill's clauses, which the Explanatory Notes, prepared by the RNIB with help from the Patent Office and available in the Printed Paper Office, allow me to make all the more succinct.
Clause 1 provides the first new exception to copyright. This allows single accessible copies of copyright materials to be made for the personal use of a visually impaired person without infringement of copyright. A visually impaired person can only have an accessible copy made under the exception where they have lawfully in their possession or are lawfully able to use, such as in a reference library, what is called a "master copy" of the copyright material. Of course, the master copy will generally have involved payment of copyright royalties to the owners. It is not possible to make an accessible copy where these are already commercially available and any copies made under this exception must be accompanied by a statement that they are so made.
Clause 2 provides the second new exception to copyright, allowing multiple copies of a master copy to be made by either an educational establishment or a not-for-profit body. However, as with the first exception, there are a number of conditions. A body cannot make accessible copies in a form that is commercially available and cannot supply any accessible copies to a visually impaired person who would have no problem in accessing a commercially available copy.
Clause 3 states that bodies acting under the second new exception to copyright are allowed to keep an intermediate copy that was necessarily created during the production of accessible copies under the exception. This intermediate copy can be used, but used only, to produce further accessible copies in the future. An intermediate copy that includes the right codes in order to run off a Braille copy may have been expensive to produce, so this is a valuable way of saving money. Moreover, intermediate copies can be transferred to other bodies entitled to make accessible copies under the exception. Copyright owners must be notified of accessible copies made and intermediate copies transferred and must be given reasonable access to inspect records made of accessible and intermediate copies.
Clause 4 enables copyright owners to continue licensing the production of multiple accessible copies, and seeking a royalty for use of their property, the copyright, in this way if they so wish. It provides that the second exception is overridden to the extent that there is a licensing scheme to license the making of particular accessible copies. If such a scheme exists, then a licence must be taken out in order to make that
906
type of accessible copy of the copyright material covered by the scheme. However, a licensing scheme cannot generally prohibit anything that would have been possible under the multiple copies exception.
Clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to make an order that would limit the scope of Section 31B, which allows approved bodies to make accessible copies of copyright material where she believes that copyright infringement has occurred on a scale that would not have happened but for activity under the second exception. An order could prohibit certain bodies from acting under the exception or a licence or limit the description of accessible copies that can be made. The Secretary of State must consult relevant interests before making an order. This offers a vital safeguard for copyright owners, but, of course, great effort will go into promoting compliance to minimise any need for resort to this power.
Clause 6 deals with the key definitions of visually impaired person and accessible copies. And here I am very pleased to say that, as well as people who are blind and partially sighted, the Bill will also help people who have a physical disability which makes them unable to hold a book or move or focus their eyes normally.
Clause 7 makes consequential amendments to the 1988 Act and Clause 8 specifies that the Act will apply across the UK since copyright is a reserved matter.
These provisions rest on the twin principles of respect for intellectual property and the need to acknowledge the right of visually impaired people to read the same materials as everyone else without delay. They will make an immediate difference to visually impaired people in education, work and cultural life and will enhance their status and well-being by improving their life chances.
The good society for disabled citizens is one that strives to reduce the handicapping effects of their disabilities and vouchsafes for them the same rights as other citizens to grow and to learn, to work and create and to participate fully in the social and economic life of their communities on equal terms with everyone else. This Bill —the Rachel Squire Bill—contributes importantly to that end for at least two million disabled people in this country and hopefully, by its example and impact, millions more across the world. Yes, this Bill is also of considerable international importance and I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Morris of Manchester.)
12.32 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I rise to give my strong support to this Bill. Before I begin, I have to apologise to your Lordships' House. A charity event means that I shall be unable to be here for the whole debate. I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I shall be brief because I know that, behind the scenes, much effort has gone into ensuring that this Bill succeeds. I have been very moved by the eloquent way in which the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has introduced it.

907
As we have heard, this is an important Bill backed by many organisations: in particular, by the RNIB and by many professionally involved bodies, such as the Publishers Licensing Society, as well as by many authors. I am pleased that the Government are also hacking it. Successful legislation is achieved through a partnership. This Bill is a very good example of that.
A part of that partnership is Parliament. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for introducing the Bill in your Lordships' House and to Rachel Squire for steering it through another place—not an easy task, given how few private members' Bills reach the statute book.
The Bill is important because it will massively increase the number arid range of printed material for visually impaired people and will speed up the process hugely. It will achieve that by simplifying the copyright process. I was depressed to learn from the RNIB figures that just five per cent of books published in 1998 were available in accessible format one year later. It was also shocking to read that it can take over a year to get the necessary permission for a student to get his/her course notes in audio format. I was also surprised to learn that, although many authors strongly support this initiative, some refuse to allow their work to be made into audio books, which is saddening.
Many people will benefit from this Bill. We have heard that two million people in the UK are blind or partially sighted and many, through physical disability, cannot hold a book. As sight loss is often age-related, it is not surprising that 90 per cent of them are older people. Unless we can prevent age-related sight loss, our ageing population could mean that as many as 2.5 million people will be affected by sight loss by 2025. Already one in five older people, aged over 75, suffer some form of sight loss.
Therefore, it is clear that older people will be the main beneficiaries, particularly those who prefer audio format. Reading for them is a major pastime. They use libraries more and take out more books. Why should they not be able to have access to the latest best-seller in accessible format? We need to ensure that those people, too, are part of the information revolution.
Many people with sight loss are older people who suffer from macular degeneration, affecting particularly the ability to read. That can lead to loss of job and some people retreat into depression, isolation and serious illness. Other conditions associated with ageing affect our sight, such as diabetes and cataracts. We know that the incidence of diabetes is increasing all the time, partly through success in enabling diabetics to live longer. But we have to ensure that the other aspects of life are also dealt with as this happens.
In some ways it is a pity that we need this Bill to speed the copyright process for accessible format printed material, especially for Braille. Publishers could co-operate more under existing law. A relatively small number of blind or partially-sighted people use Braille and 1 doubt whether there is much of a black market in "knock-off" Braille books.
908
As the Bill has already had considerable consultation and consideration, I wish it a swift passage through this House.
12.38 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Morris. It is typical that he should introduce this Bill. He did so with great eloquence and very comprehensively. I am sure there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone listening to his speech about the importance of this Bill. The fact that my noble friend has proposed it is yet another laurel to add to the many he has gained in Parliament. I should like also to congratulate Rachel Squire who piloted the Bill in another place with great skill. That it was accepted on all sides was a. very welcome development.
Caroline Ellis at the RNIB does splendid work on disability. She and her outstanding team have been briefing and helping us on this Bill. I cannot let this moment go without saying how delighted I am that my noble friend Lady Andrews will reply to the debate. She begins a distinguished Front Bench career. We shall listen with great interest to her response and watch her future career with even more interest.
Thirty years ago, disabled people were undoubtedly regarded as second class citizens. ln a sense they accepted it then because there seemed to be no alternative. The barriers were so enormous and immense and there was no move from any government—Labour, Tory, Liberal or whatever—towards significant advances to further the rights of disabled people.
There have been a number of developments since then. With the help of the All-Party Disability Group and many other organisations, we have made enormous progress for disabled people. However, that progress is not comprehensive and there are still many gaps in the provision.
The Bill fills an important gap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said in support of my noble friend Lord Morris, the Figures that we have heard on the treatment of visually impaired people are shocking. It beats me how we have neglected the problem all these years and Parliament has remained passive while visually impaired people have been denied books, newspapers and all kinds of publications. I do not know how we have overlooked it. It is a blot on campaigners and on successive governments.
I feel irritated when I go to a library and have to wait a week for a book. I almost demand instant attention. I feel slightly irritated when people say that the book will be along in a couple of weeks. The research for the Bill has shown that blind or visually impaired people have to wait for up to two years before they can get books. That is staggering. Where has Parliament been all this time? What have we been doing? Why have not the blind and visually impaired people been more vociferous—although RNIB does a good job?
The key figure, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Morris and by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is that only 5 per cent of books published

909
in a year are in an accessible format for blind people. That is staggering. The best way to understand the significance of such a lack of provision is to place it in another context and imagine that all the people in British libraries were told that they could have only 5 per cent of the books on the shelves. That is the equivalent and shows the significance of the situation for blind and disabled people. It beats me how we have tolerated it.
Inevitably, there are fears of a conflict between visually impaired people and copyright owners, who are legitimately concerned about the diminution and dilution of their rights. Happily, because of the good offices of Rachel Squire and her colleagues in the House of Commons, those problems have been ironed out. I am very pleased that the Minister, Melanie Johnson, said that, after all the negotiations, the Bill now provides all the necessary checks and balances, while helping visually impaired people.
There we have it. We could not have a better Bill. It is uncontroversial. Long speeches are an awful bore, so I shall sit down now. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester has clearly and eloquently described the purpose of the Bill and how the clauses will work. As he said, it was tweaked and improved before it went into the legislative process and during its passage through another place to satisfy the copyright holders, who I gather are now happy about the Bill and appreciate the need for it.
The Bill will greatly help towards including visually impaired people in—and keeping them abreast of—society as a whole, making them first class citizens rather than second class ones, as my noble friend Lord Ashley has just described. It follows a long line of legislation sponsored in both Houses over the years by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and his equally tireless colleague, my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke.
I plead with my noble friend Lady Andrews to arrange for this short but useful Bill to move rapidly through its remaining stages, without, it is to be hoped, amendment, so that it can reach the statute book before the recess if possible. I realise that whether amendments will be tabled is not entirely in her hands.
The Bill cannot be described as a giant leap for mankind, but it is an important step in the right direction for those men, women and children who have the misfortune to be visually impaired.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, congratulate Rachel Squire on taking up this important Bill after her success in the Private Member's Bills ballot in the other place. I am delighted that, with his long and successful experience with Private Member's Bills, my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester is going to steer the Bill through this House. I also congratulate
910
the team from the RNIB, whose work on the Bill has been outstanding. It is an essential Bill for visually impaired people and it has my wholehearted support.
This action to redress the appalling injustice faced daily by visually impaired people is long overdue. We have already heard examples of how damaging and demoralising this denial of the right to read generally available published material can be, excluding visually impaired children and adults from educational and cultural life. The Bill will go a long way to address that.
I know from my borough of Hammersmith and Fulham the frustrations that are faced by the visual impairment resource team and, most importantly, by each visually impaired child and their family. To get translations or adaptations for each pupil's work throughout their life, the team has to apply for permission from the publishers. This often involves significant delays and it can be months before they receive a reply. If a pupil is studying for public examinations such as GCSEs, this can mean that they do not receive their text books in accessible format until revision time. That is an appalling injustice.
Hammersmith and Fulham's resource team has recently noticed a tendency for permission to be given with more stringent conditions attached than in the past. For example, one publisher refused to allow illustrations to be described for a Braille reader, making it impossible for that student to access the work. Others have reminded the team that:
"Permission does not include any extraneous copyright material that may be incorporated in the work".
Text books often contain a lot of extraneous material, such as quotations, poetry and magazine or newspaper articles. Under current copyright law, all those with copyright in such work have to be contacted before an accessible copy can be made available. This long overdue Bill will address that issue. It bends over backwards to meet the concerns of copyright holders. It is a wholly welcome, hut very modest Bill.
Almost four centuries ago the law established that a copy of every piece of published material should be deposited with the British Library so that it could be accessible to anyone who wanted to read it. Visually impaired people should have that same right.
Today's production processes mean that nearly all material is published from an electronic format. I look forward to a time when we pass a Bill ensuring that a copy of that electronic format is lodged with the British Library or an appropriate authority for access by visually impaired people, with thorough safeguards to address the copyright holders' concerns. In that way we might ensure that every visually impaired person has the same right of access to every published work in the format that they require.
In the mean time, I wholeheartedly support this long overdue and urgently needed Bill. I hope that we can ensure that it has a speedy passage through this House.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, reading this Bill gives rise to one of those occasions when one gets that horrible, sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach and

911
the question occurs: why was this not done earlier? The delay in passing this type of legislation provides the best possible example of the cock-up school of history. Literature plays such an important part in our lives that exclusion from access to it effectively marks one out as not being a part of the intelligentsia or the mainstream of those who argue and are informed. Despite our best efforts to the contrary, we still pay far more attention to those who can quote someone who had a great thought in the past than we do to those who quite independently arrive at precisely the same thought in the present. It is just the way that we work. It is much easier to change the law than it is to change cultural tradition. So I think that those who have promoted this legislation deserve credit.
It is also nice that, because the other place has done all the work on the legislation and sent it to us, we have only to extend our congratulations. Indeed, I think that this is the first such occasion in my time in the House. I hope that this precedent will help ensure that our task is easier when we next consider disability legislation of any description. I say that more in hope than expectation.
The Bill nicely encapsulates the idea that, if something benefits most people, everyone should have access to it. I cannot see anyone fundamentally objecting to that, with the possible exception of a few lawyers who like drawing up contracts. However, baiting them should become a national sport. I suggest that the Bill will not hurt anyone.
The Bill also points up how much more difficult it is to legislate in the disability sphere because of the diverse range of needs and unintentionally erected obstacles. One idea currently in the air is to bring all civil rights under one heading. I would be in favour of that if it would encompass the great range of disabilities. Although this is not the time to go into that, there are many cases in which sheer ignorance leads to discrimination.
I see no conceivable reason that the Bill should not be passed quickly. As I said, the problems have already been dealt with in negotiations. If anyone on these Benches plans to move an amendment to this legislation, he/she will have to do an extremely good job of explaining to me why we should do so.
12.52 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I also support the Bill. For many years, my wife worked for the Royal National Institute for the Blind; ultimately she was the regional director for Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment to relate the first time that contact with a blind person had a serious impact on me.
Sir John Wall, who was then chairman of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, came to stay with us at home one weekend. We live in a reasonable size farmhouse. At bedtime, I took John up to bed and said, "Everything all right, John? Goodnight". He said, "Robin, don't forget to turn the lights out because I don't need them". That had an impact on me. The next day we went for a drive across the
912
beautiful Irish countryside, into Donegal. I had a great friend with me and we were attempting to describe this countryside to John. It was quite a long drive. When John later wrote to us to thank us, he said, "Arid I really did enjoy seeing your beautiful countryside". That really had a major impact on me and allowed me to have a small insight into what it might be like to lose one's sight.
When it comes to being able to read, both for education and for pleasure as one grows older, not to be able to have access to the world's literature or even to newspapers must be a serious handicap and a terrible thing. It is the sort of issue which people generally do not think about. When one goes to buy a book, one does not think 2.5 million people in this country do not have that opportunity.
I really do think that Rachel Squire and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, have done a fantastic job with their team of helpers from across the board, whom the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for so clearly explaining how the Bill will operate. The Bill is a wonderful example of compromise. I suspect that there was also quite a lot of what we would call at home "wheeling and dealing" behind the scenes in order to get the Bill to this stage. All those who have been involved in that deserve our congratulations and thanks.
I certainly support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. One wonders why such legislation has taken so long to reach this stage. I also agree that it is great that all this work has been done in another place. The Bill is apparently in a very good state. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on another point. I shall do my best to collar any Members of my party who wish to interfere with the course and process of this Bill. I have absolutely no qualms at all about the Bill. In fact, I support it wholeheartedly.
12.56 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to be able to welcome the Bill on behalf of the Government and to associate myself—bearing in mind our joint history—with my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley who have such an outstanding record. I was trying to think of a collective noun for campaigners. All I could think of was "a concentration". My two noble friends, therefore, with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, might be said to constitute a concentration of campaigners.
Noble Lords have spoken with incredible passion and personal conviction and experience, led so notably by the noble Lord, Lord Morris. After his long record of commitment to and action for people with disabilities, his ability to champion this Bill so eloquently is extraordinary. The Bill matches his personal ideals and the collective values not only of the Government but of all parties in this House which have given it such a fair wind today. It is another measure to add to his outstanding record.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken with such conviction and promised the Bill a swift and speedy passage. There have been some kind words today

913
about the work of the House of Commons in relation both to the Finance Bill and to the sterling work done by Rachel Squire and her team. It is terrific to see a Bill come to this House and require no improvement. We are delighted by the partnership exemplified by this Bill, the support it has received, and the expert work of the RNIB to which noble Lords have rightly paid tribute. The RNIB has illuminated the Bill's spirit and detail. It has done a magnificent job.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, very clearly and deliberately took us through the Bill and I shall not rehearse his comments. However, the Bill itself answers the question about why such legislation has taken so long. Its virtue lies in uncovering and repairing this great wrong which has persisted for so many years. Noble Lords spoke of the fundamental human right to read. In a way, that right has changed in recent years. Now, we are talking not only about books or periodicals but about the maps and instructions in electronic format about which so many excluded people have been talking.
It is a catching-up time in many different ways. That has been achieved through the Bill. Visually impaired people have been at a double disadvantage to use the words of my noble friend. They have been unable to obtain, enjoy and make use of much of the material that the rest of us take for granted. The Bill will for the first time overcome the need to obtain copyright clearances to access appropriate formats of copyright material suitable for the use of visually impaired people whether they are students, readers, musicians or craftspeople. I refer to the range of creative activities which are uncovered by the Bill. Visually impaired people will now be able to access those resources in a sensible, timely and fair way.
We have heard examples from all sides of the House of what the provision will mean. My noble friend Lady Wilkins talked of the experience of students in Hammersmith and Fulham who waited a year—right up until their examinations—to get their hands on what they needed. The RNIB has informed us of how long visually impaired people can wait to obtain a library book in a suitable format. What student can afford to wait two years to obtain a key text in a suitable format? However, before the Bill was so ably introduced by Rachel Squire, that was the price that we expected many students to pay; namely, to put themselves at a disadvantage as they strove to overcome disability by ability simply because they did not have the right to access the fundamental material which everyone else had at their disposal. We are deeply indebted to Rachel Squire, to my noble friend and to the whole team. We are particularly indebted to the RNIB for its extraordinary commitment over the years to provide resources. It has been one of the few sources of help that has been available.
The Bill has been warmly welcomed by distinguished authors and librarians. As my noble friend said, a wonderful compromise has been achieved with copyright holders. We have overcome their reservations. The Bill maintains an appropriate and fair balance between the legitimate interests of
914
copyright owners on the one hand and visually impaired users of copyright material on the other. Getting that balance right has been central to the Government's own ability to support the Bill in another place and to play a creative and constructive role in making it as good as it is now. Making sure that the Bill provides a fair balance between those interests also means that it is fully compatible with human rights law. I repeat the assurance given in another place; namely, that the Government are fully satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester took us through the Bill clause by clause. I wish to reinforce the two new exceptions to copyright now contained in the Bill so that everyone is clear about how they will help visually impaired people and the many charitable and voluntary organisations acting on their behalf. My noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris described the range of organisations that are fully committed to the Bill. It is a magnificent range when one considers how many people will be able to help visually impaired people take advantage of the Bill's provisions. The Bill's provisions will also assist with the delivery of the curriculum to visually impaired children in schools and will remove barriers visually impaired students encounter on a daily basis.
The first exception is what might be called the one-for-one exception set out in Clause 1. That permits a visually impaired person who has already obtained a copy of a document which he or she needs but which they cannot actually use, to make a copy in an accessible format for their personal use—for example, in large print, Braille, audio tape or an electronic format. The condition is that there must not be a commercially available copy accessible to that person. That concept is straightforward. I understand that it follows closely agreed industry guidelines about reformatting materials. The exception essentially ensures that any copyright material that is not covered by those guidelines can also be made accessible to individual visually impaired people who satisfy the conditions set out in the exception.
The second exception, the multiple copy exception provided by Clause 2, has attracted more interest as it will deliver something which is not currently available across a wide range of copyright material. That exception will permit educational establishments and not-for-profit bodies to make multiple accessible copies of copyright material and supply them to visually impaired people for their personal use subject to a number of conditions. Those conditions are found in Clause 2 and in Clauses 3 to 5.
However, there is one important point that I should make clear. New Section 31B inserted into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 by Clause 2 limits the exemption from infringement of copyright only to the situation where accessible copies are made and supplied for the personal use of visually impaired people. Accessible copies cannot be made under this new exception to copyright otherwise than in that example. Some of the following subsections narrow that further but do not broaden it. Thus, for example,

915
subsection (7) provides that in addition an educational establishment must ensure that any accessible copy supplied by it to a visually impaired person is used only when that personal use can be considered to meet an educational purpose of that establishment.
The Government have already accepted that, in order to ensure that those acting under that exception to copyright understand the limits to what they can do and the conditions that apply, guidance would be useful. I am therefore pleased to repeat a government commitment to produce guidance that was first given in another place.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for the way in which they have illuminated the debate. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is no longer present. She described the impact that the Bill will have and the benefits that it will bring to elderly people. I refer in particular to the audio formatting provisions in that regard. My noble friend Lord Ashley described how a blot on our provision for disabled people has been removed by the Bill. My noble friend Lord Rea talked of the need for the Bill to make rapid progress through the House and for disabled people to become first-class citizens. I believe that the Bill takes us a long way to achieving that step.
The Government will continue to offer their full support to the Bill. Everything we have heard today suggests that it will proceed swiftly and speedily with the blessing and support of noble Lords in all parties. Without the Bill we would still have a situation where months and even years pass during which visually impaired people are denied simple creative opportunities. We were told of the lady who was denied the right to sing in a choir because no copy of the Anglican hymn book was accessible to her. I refer to other situations: for example, learning a language; sharing in the discovery of a new author; a child being shut out of the inclusion that comes with reading the same books as other children in the class; and the sadness of a grandparent being unable to knit a garment for a grandchild because the knitting instructions are not accessible to them. Those and many other examples will now become things of the past.
We believe that the Bill will deliver real and long overdue benefits to visually impaired people. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester once again on bringing the Bill before us today. On behalf of the Government I am delighted that he has done so.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate, not least my noble friend Lady Andrews, who spoke for the Government, and the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington, who spoke with such distinction for their parties. Their speeches make my task in concluding the debate all the more facile. In Magna Carta it is written that justice delayed is justice denied. Let us all play our parts in ending urgently now a gross and centuries-old denial of justice to people who are disabled by visual impairment.
916
I think all I need do finally is to assure any noble Lord who may wish to raise any point whatever with me about the Bill that he will find my door not only open but off its hinges. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sustainable Development
1.10 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleyrose to call attention to the agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in the light of the report of the Science and Technology Committee What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation (3rd Report, HL Paper 118), and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it was a great honour to be asked to chair Sub-Committee I of the Science and Technology Select Committee of your Lordships' House and it is a pleasure to introduce today's debate on our report, What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation.
I am grateful that we have had a chance to debate the report before the Earth summit in Johannesburg although, because it is a Friday, many noble Lords who would have wished to make a contribution are unable to do so. Although the Government have not yet had the opportunity of giving their considered response to the report, the committee felt that in light of the relevance of our report to the forthcoming Earth summit, which will be attended by the Prime Minister and for which the British delegation is preparing itself, we wanted an opportunity of emphasising to the Government our main areas of concern.
We are most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for responding on behalf of DEFRA. Our report calls on DEFRA to do a number of things. Ten years ago, just before the Rio summit on biodiversity, the Select Committee under the late Lord Dainton reported on the situation of systematic biology research in this country. Systematic biology is the science of identifying and naming living things and determining their evolutionary relationships with other organisms, living and dead. Lord Dainton's committee was responding to concerns that systematic biology was suffering from poor financial support, particularly in relation to grant in aid funding to the major systematic institutions. The committee reported a very sorry situation and highlighted the dangers to the ability of the British systematic community to respond to the demands made on it. A number of short-term measures to stimulate systematic biology were introduced following the Dainton report. The Natural Environment Research Council developed a taxonomy initiative and the Wellcome Trust set up a biodiversity initiative. The UK Systematic Forum was established. All of those schemes had a beneficial effect on the sector but they were fixed term and have now finished.

917
The Dainton report laid great emphasis on the importance of the great collections, which are the result of our imperial past and the enthusiasm and expertise of British amateur and professional biologists over two or three centuries. The recommendation of Lord Dainton's committee to maintain government grant in aid funding to the great collections in real terms was envisaged as ensuring that they would be well maintained for the benefit of biologists in Britain and around the world. The government of the day accepted the recommendations of the Dainton report.
Since then, successive governments have launched many conservation initiatives and undertaken major international obligations in relation to biodiversity, most notably the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—otherwise known as CITES—both of which were entered into at the first Earth summit at Rio. All of this has meant an even greater need for the knowledge and expertise of our systematists.
Worries were raised with the current Select Committee towards the end of last year that the systematic community was still facing many of the same problems outlined 10 years ago. We decided to do a follow-up report, looking at whether the situation identified by Lord Dainton and his committee had improved or worsened. We felt that the matter is even more vital today than it was in 1992 and we felt a duty to find out whether the government had done what they undertook to do. We therefore set out to establish whether systematic biology is in decline in the United Kingdom, and why; clarify whether it matters, and what impact it has on the conservation of biodiversity; and identify what action, if any, is required.
Our committee was blessed with the assistance of a very able and dedicated group of people. Our specialist adviser, Dr Eimear Nic Lughadha of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, gave us an enormous amount of wise counsel on factual matters and helped us identify who we needed to hear from; I am most grateful to her. Our staff team was absolutely wonderful. Their genuine interest in the subject, their good humour in arranging our hearings and their patience over our deliberations were beyond the call of duty. I hope and believe that they enjoyed working on the report and obtained considerable satisfaction from the positive response of the scientific community to the result. I thank them very warmly for their hard and effective work.
I would also like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their patience with me, a "first-timer" in the chair of a sub-committee. They guided me in the right direction, asked extremely perceptive questions and generated very lively and stimulating debate.
The report is the result of evidence from many eminent people, all of them experts in their field; the committee is very grateful to all of them. As a very basically qualified biologist myself, I was often awed, during our investigations, to be in the same room as
918
half a dozen of the world's greatest experts in various species and genera. It was also amazing for me to hold in my hand a glass jar bearing a label with the signature of Charles Darwin. I was in the presence of legends, both living and dead, a good deal of the time during this work.
It is always invidious to pick out a few from many helpful people. However, we received particular help from the Natural History Museum, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—both of which we visited—and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh, which we were sadly unable to visit because of time constraints. The noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, president of the Royal Society and one of the recent eminent Cross Bench additions to your Lordships' House, was also very helpful and gave evidence to us. We talked to scientists, academics, research councils, learned societies, politicians, civil servants, representatives of museums and gardens, NGOs and international bodies; all of them were unstinting with their knowledge and patience.
In the end we came to the conclusion that the threats to the science of systematic biology in this country are still severe. We concluded that it does matter, more so today than ever before, because of the greater and more pressing threats to the biodiversity of the earth. We have made a number of serious recommendations, to which we sincerely hope the Government will respond.
Why do we conclude that the threats still exist? We found that despite signing CBD and CITES, among other international agreements, grant in aid from successive governments to the major UK systematic biology institutions has declined in real terms over the past 10 years by between 15 and 27 per cent in real terms. That is putting the quality of curation of this priceless heritage and invaluable scientific resource at risk. It is also limiting the ability of these great institutions to respond to the challenges and opportunities that modern technology brings for them to share, via the Internet, their unique collections with the rest of the world, in particular those countries that are cash poor and biodiversity rich.
We found that systematic biology is in what some would regard as terminal decline in our universities. Many of our most knowledgeable systematists are approaching retirement and, despite efforts at succession planning, not enough younger scientists are finding the jobs that will give them the chance to develop the same level of expertise. Difficult decisions are having to be made about abandoning work on whole genera. When that expertise is lost and those work programmes are halted, it will cost a great deal more to replace them, if that can ever be done at all.
Evidence was given to us that few universities have a serious taxonomy department. Lord Dainton referred to systematic biology in British universities as being,
"in danger of extinction as a sustainable discipline".
Evidence from Universities UK and the 2001 research assessment exercise supported our conclusion, from replies to our questionnaires, that the situation has

919
worsened. Reported declines were from 10 to 14 per cent. There has been some success in developing masters courses in the past decade but students find it difficult to pursue a research career in taxonomy beyond that because there are few PhD scholarships and post-doctoral positions available. The work that identifies and describes organisms, sometimes called "alpha taxonomy", was under the greatest threat. We put that down to the difficulty of finding the money for the posts for taxonomic work and for equipment needed for the modern techniques that assist today's systematic biologists to identify specimens and reach conclusions about their relationship to other known living things.
In Darwin's day, identification was carried out simply on the basis of the morphology of individual specimens and populations, with the assistance of a hand lens or a light microscope. Today, advances in identification and the understanding of the evolutionary relationship have been invigorated by advances in molecular biology and gene sequencing technology. But it all relies on expensive equipment and the ability of scientists to use the Internet and share information, which requires costly computers and software.
The shining light among all the gloom was the Darwin Initiative. It was set up in 1992 with the objective of helping to safeguard the world's biodiversity by drawing on the UK's strengths in that area to assist countries rich in biodiversity but poor in financial resources and expertise. We heard that the work of the initiative is universally recognised as having been of enormous value. But although the remit has broadened over time, the budget of £3 million per year has not increased with inflation.
As I mentioned earlier, we set out to discover whether all that mattered, and concluded that it did. It matters in a moral sense and a selfish sense. We concluded that systematic biology provides a vital contribution to pure knowledge of the living world. That is of value in itself, but it also provides a significant resource for conservationists. A flourishing systematic biology sector is also vital for identification of species with beneficial medicinal uses, in pest control and veterinary medicine, fish farming, horticulture and in identifying indicator species that help us to monitor environmental change.
A great milestone in the history of global conservation was reached with the agreements made in 1992. The treaties agreed at Rio were in response to growing awareness of the damage man has done and continues to do to the other living creatures with which we share the planet. Wrong in itself, such damage is also short-sighted because in the end it will disadvantage man himself. In the few hundred years since the Industrial Revolution man has damaged the environment to such an extent as to hasten the extinction of hundreds of species. Unfortunately, since we do not know how many species we had to start with, we have little idea of what we have lost, how those losses have impacted on populations of remaining species and what potential value to mankind has been lost with them.
920
While production and wealth have grown at an unprecedented rate in some parts of the world, one third of humanity remains locked in grinding poverty, unable to secure adequate sustenance today, let al one a promising future tomorrow. Furthermore, our ability to address these problems is increasingly threatened by the degradation of the environment on which all of humanity, rich and poor, depends. The loss of natural resources, changes in climate and weather patterns, rising sea levels, decline of fish stocks, pollution and soil degradation will affect us all ultimately, but it is the poor who will initially pay a disproportionate price. That is why the summit scheduled to take place later this year at Johannesburg is the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Its agenda has clear links with that of its predecessor held at Rio.
However. the scientists most vital to identifying the effects on the biomass of man's activities, by identifying the species that make up living populations, are systematic biologists. Those scientists are vital to the actions that still need to he taken to implement the good intentions that came out of Rio and the good intentions likely to come out of Johannesburg.
Of the 11 action points in the World Wide Fund for Nature's wish list for the UK delegation in Johannesburg, at least five concerning sustainable timber, fisheries, fresh water arid the marine environment will require a flourishing UK systematic biology community. And that is only part of one NGO's wish list.
It became clear to us during our deliberations that, while it is both impossible and probably unnecessary to have a complete inventory of the earth's species in order to assist in meaningful conservation, we know worryingly little about some very important taxa. We heard estimates of between 5 and 13 million for the number of species there are in total on the earth; yet only 1.7 million have been described. We know a lot about the flowering plants and vertebrate animals but, even for those groups, estimates vary from one expert to another.
I recently read a new estimate of the number of species of flowering plants made by David Bramwell, a fellow student of mine at Liverpool University in the 1960s and now the director of the botanical gardens at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. He believes that past estimates of 300,000 species are about 40 per cent too low and that 50,000 species remain to be discovered. Others may disagree with him. People are always revising such estimates.
Despite the fact that one of the four aims of the CBD was to indicate species under threat of extinction, the convention of the parties to the CBD identified what it called a "taxonomic impediment" to the achievement of its aim due to a global lack of expertise in systematic biology. Yet the need for that knowledge is urgent and growing. We still have it here in the UK and must preserve it, but not like a desiccated specimen in a herbarium. Rather it needs to be a lively flourishing science taking advantage of all modern techniques.

921
The World Conservation Union recently reported that 24 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds are considered to be globally threatened. Since that organisation's previous assessment in 1996, the number of critically endangered species has increased—a stark warning of the urgent need for action to conserve biodiversity before it is too late. And those are the groups of organisms about which we know most. We heard during the course of our work that we do not know nearly enough about the copepods in the marine biomass that are so important to the food chain in the sea and the fungi on land that are so important to soil fertility, to name just two under-investigated groups.
So what needs to change? We believe that the UK has a particular responsibility in the world, because it is a comparatively rich country with a great deal of expertise in the field and because of the heritage of the great collections cared for by our botanical gardens, universities and museums. Our proposals are addressed both to the Government and to the systematic community itself.
To the Government we have proposed that grant-in-aid funding needs to return to the level of 1992 in real terms, as the government of the day indicated to Lord Dainton that it would, so that the great collections can be preserved. They are not just of historic value but are used every day by biologists all over the world and cannot be replaced. We also recommend that the Government develop and publish a clear, concise summary of their policy on biodiversity conservation activity in the UK and on the international stage.
We believe that it is good to talk. So, in recognition that funds are limited and priorities have to be identified, we recommend that DEFRA takes the lead in setting up a body with the express purpose of bringing together representatives of government departments, ecologists, conservationists and systematic biologists to identify priority areas where taxonomic research is most needed in order to implement government policy on conservation and for other national purposes such as health and agriculture.
We recommend that the systematic community looks seriously at how it can digitise the collections and share information and agreed species' names and descriptions on the Internet. We suggest that a pilot scheme with some priority species be initiated under the auspices of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility of which the UK is a member. That will serve to preserve the information and repatriate it to the countries from which many of the specimens came. It will assist with the development by those countries of knowledge of their own biodiversity which will help them in developing both economically and sustainably. However, it will also serve to improve the image of systematic biology that has suffered from an image of anorak-clad scientists poring over disintegrating specimens in dusty archives. I know that that is not true, but the rest of the world does not.
We also recommend that systematists increase their efforts to demonstrate the relevance and importance of their own discipline, particularly in the presence of the
922
funding councils. We also published recommendations as to how the funding councils themselves can respond to the plight of this vital enabling science. We would like to see the funding for the splendid Darwin initiative increased. It has proved its success and has potential for a great deal more. We would like to see the Darwin initiative's budget earmarked for projects with a significant taxonomic component to help build taxonomic capacity in developing countries, including projects to digitise UK-based collections.
The noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, is very disappointed that he is unable to be with us today as he is busy admitting new fellows. He wrote:
"This careful and thoughtful report is hugely important. I most strongly endorse both of the Select Committee's basic recommendations.
First, we simply need more people and more financial support for the basic task of identifying and cataloguing the diversity of life on earth … Second, the report deserves to be influential in its advocacy for digitising collections in systematic biology at a faster rate than currently prevails".
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his endorsement.
The noble Lord also told me that a study group of fellows of the Royal Society and other interested people has already been set up to evaluate scientifically the variety of methods used to measure biodiversity status and to assess their efficacy for conservation and development.
I await with great interest what the noble Baroness the Minister is about to tell us concerning the Government's initial response to the report. A partnership between the Government and the scientific community is needed now in order to address the problems we have identified.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development in September will be attended by many interested parties, including heads of state. Our own Prime Minister was the first to commit to attend. I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to the issues of conservation and trust that his government will respond positively to the recommendations we have made. Without UK systematists, no commitments that the Government make at Johannesburg can be delivered. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness on moving this debate. As she said, it is the first time that she has led a sub-group of this committee, and I congratulate her on her contemporary style. I believe that we all related to it very well. I also congratulate her on the way that she publicised our report. The extensive press coverage is, indeed, a tribute to her efforts. I express my congratulations, too, to our clerk, Rebecca Neal. The lucidity of our report very much reflects her hard work. I also give my thanks to our special adviser for her guidance.
How many times have your Lordships seen Romeo and Juliet? Is it eight, 10 or 12 times? I saw a performance while we were working on this report. It was then that I became aware of the full meaning of

923
Friar Lawrence's first speech. Noble Lords may remember that he enters collecting plants and speaks of their value to human health.
"Within the infant rind of this weak flower
Poison hath residence, arid medicine power".
But he goes on to speak about the earth and how it is nature's mother. He continues:
"O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies
In plants, herbs, stones and their true qualities;
For naught so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give".
This report is about listing the true qualities of the plants, herbs and stones so that we can eventually know the special good that each doth give. Words such as "biodiversity" cannot match the elegance of Shakespeare's rhyming couplets. But our argument is: how can this biodiversity be protected if there is no record of what on the earth doth give?
As the noble Baroness explained, in the 10 years since your Lordships last looked at the matter of systematic biology, we have found that, during that time, funding has been reduced. Whereas once there were hundreds of specialists doing such work, there are now only a few dozen, and there seems to be a feeling of crisis.
The causes seem to be both a lack of resources and, as the noble Baroness said, the perceived dullness of the subject. Cataloguing and recording differences between varieties of plants and insects is probably not the most exciting area of science, nor one where world-shaking discoveries are likely to be made. Therefore, it is unlikely to attract the spotlight. Equally, the scientists in the field have done little to reverse that; nor have they made their work more accessible through digitalisation.
But that does not detract from the importance of their work. As Professor Charles Godfray of Imperial College said:
"It is an enabling science. It does not itself generate new ideas. It provides a vital database".
Systematic biology could indeed be suffering from a lack of glamour. But in no way should the Minister allow that to detract from its importance.
That is a lesson that we are currently learning in many areas—not least in business. The lesson is that sustainable long-term success is far more likely to be enjoyed by businesses and organisations which are strong on dull qualities. Of course, we shall always celebrate individual achievement, and we all admire the talented stars and the celebrity executives. But research and experience have shown us that, over five or 10-year periods, the best performers were not those stars but often the rather dull organisations that carefully built up their teams, fostered a culture of discipline, self-belief and realism, and used technology, not for its own sake but as a means to an end. It is that kind of atmosphere and ethos which, ultimately, proves to be the most sustainable and successful but the least reported and celebrated.
I put it to my noble friend the Minister that there is a similar situation here. Of course, it took the genius of Darwin to make sense of it all. But would he have been
924
able to make sense of it without the taxonomy which went on before and during his lifetime? No one can doubt the importance of the work of taxonomists. But it is perhaps a victim of its own dullness. Let us not ignore it because of the glitter elsewhere because in science, as in business, the glitter does not last.
I read somewhere that this Government need strategies. The Opposition are short on policies but the Government are short on strategies. One strength of the report is that it is, indeed, strong on strategy. I believe that my noble friend should find that of particular value. The first step in getting things done is to have a strategy.
Our strategy has several elements. We call for an increase in grant in aid to the major institutions which carry out this work in order to support the collections and the databases. At the same time, we say how the Systematics Association and the Linnean Society of London should modernise their work and demonstrate their relevance and importance. It is hoped that not only will that attract yet more funding; it should also make the work more attractive to scientists—both paid and volunteers.
I say "volunteers" because there was a time when much of the work was carried out by enthusiastic amateurs. I was reminded of that only yesterday when the Science and Technology Committee in the other place criticised science teaching for its dullness. I could not help reflecting on how collecting data, as part of a national systematic biology project which includes children, would surely make science lessons more interesting and, it is hoped, stimulate a life-long interest. It may even attract the interest of some of the charges of my noble friend Lord Warner.
We also call on the Higher Education Funding Council to find out whether the way in which its research assessment exercise is run has contributed to the decline of taxonomy by failing to provide sufficient funds. We also call upon DEFRA to take the lead in setting up a body in order to bring together the funding agencies, the museums, the universities and government to identity the priorities. It is hoped that the result of that strategy will be that taxonomists will themselves come together and work towards united objectives. Of course, we cannot do everything. As the noble Baroness told us, millions and millions of species are yet unknown to us. We need a kind of systematic national plan which states our priorities.
Like the noble Baroness, I, too, strongly support the recommendation from Professor Charles Godfray that systematics taxonomy should be digitalised. That would make the knowledge and information more widely available. It would also modernise the image of systematics. We are cautious and recommend a trial first.
It seems to me that this is a sensible strategy. It fosters the dull measures rather than the glitter of which I spoke earlier. It is within the resources and capability of the Government. It emphasises the inherent worth of existing people and does not depend on finding rare talent. It is the thoroughly practical kind of strategy which the Government would expect from your Lordships' committee.

925
The strategy and its objectives are also in keeping with the recent speech by the Prime Minister on science matters. As a supporter of the Government, I am proud of the steps they have taken to increase the spending on and the status of science. But as the Prime Minister said in that speech, we need to do more; I agree. Here is something more which can be done; which is both modest and sensible but is important. In his speech the Prime Minister spoke of the real concerns over biodiversity. It seems to me that our proposals in the report are helpful in two ways: a real "double whammy". They make a positive contribution towards allying the real concerns that people have over biodiversity, and fulfil the Prime Minister's concerns about doing yet more for science to overcome the disastrous period of underfunding and neglect in the past.
Perhaps the Prime Minister will use the summit on sustainable development to announce his support for our recommendations and strategy. The noble Baroness is right in calling attention to the relationship between our report and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The relationship is obvious. How do we save plants and creatures from destruction if we do not know what they are, where they are or why they are there? We must save them for their powerful grace about which Friar Lawrence reminded us.
I cannot conclude without thanking Andrew Makower, who has been clerk of the Science and Technology Committee for as long as I have been a member of it. He has been a tower of strength. I am grateful to him for that and wish him every success in his new job.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that this House welcomes the report. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, not only on chairing the inquiry but on the way she introduced the report so comprehensively today.
The report comes at an historic moment since 10 years ago, in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, the United Kingdom signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. This year, as has been said, the Prime Minister will follow up that commitment by leading the UK delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Part of the summit will be concerned with the conservation of the world's rich variety of living things, how to sustain it, and how to use it in an appropriate manner.
One might ask, as has been asked today, how well the UK has attended to its commitment of 1992. The answer must be that it has not done as well it should have done. The report gives a number of examples where funding for systematic biology has declined in real terms. Support for nature centres, such as the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew and in Edinburgh and other academic institutions, has declined. The number of workers in the field of systematic biology, and especially taxonomy, has decreased in universities,
926
museums and various other organisations. In 10 years the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International, in which I declare an interest, has reduced the number of people concerned in taxonomies from 34 to 8. By any measure that is alarming. There was a time when it was possible to send to the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International specimens for identification. Those would come in from all over the world. It provided an outstanding service in the field of invertebrate biology. Now, much of that has gone, much to the detriment of systematic biology.
One might ask whether systematic biology matters. The answer must be a resounding "Yes". It is an enabling science, as has been stated, and is none the worse for that. It impinges on many aspects of life on earth, including human and animal health, agriculture and, in particular, the environment. A knowledge and understanding of systematic biology is essential to the understanding of the continuum of the biological chain of life from single-celled organisms in the sea to the complex Metazoa, mammals, vertebrates and man. All show an interdependence from which we should be able to read the effect of man's impact on the environment.
If we agree on the importance of systematic biology, it should go without saying that understanding environmental changes is important. To monitor and forecast them demands a knowledge of what is happening at the micro and macro level of ecological systems. It is also important, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, to know with what we are dealing. We need to know what our organisms are. Biologists throughout the ages have identified some 1.7 million species, but it is said that more than 5 million remain unidentified.
There is a constant loss of species. It has been said that 99 per cent of all the species which originally existed since life began on earth have become extinct. However, there is a constant replacement. New species occur the whole time. It is a dynamic situation.
Systematic biology is the discovery, description, naming and classification of living things and the study of the evolutionary relationships between them. It is probable that many biological scientists started off their careers with the thrill of discovering an undescribed species; of naming it; describing it; and publishing and receiving recognition for it. I have been through that process. It always thrilled me to see something which no one else has seen and to be able to describe it.
That still goes on. There are still people who generate that information. However, it has been complemented by new technologies in molecular biology, gene sequencing and electron microscopy. It is an interesting point that that new technology has not replaced the visual morphology conducted with a simple light microscope, but complements it. The decisions made many years ago on classification into genre, families and associations are still valid. So those early observations of Darwin—and fellow scientists since—based on morphology, were perfectly valid.

927
As the report says, morphology and systematic biology provide a common biological language, so that scientists throughout the world know what they are talking about when discussing a given species. There are many common names of species in different parts of the world that can lead to a degree of confusion. It will be even more helpful when modern information technology such as the worldwide web and digitisation of data become more accepted. We recommend that in our report. It will enhance systematic biology enormously.
My particular area of interest in systematic biology is in animal disease, and the danger of the spread of tropical diseases in particular, to the European Community and to the United Kingdom. Some major problems which might face us in the future will be transmitted by insects of various kinds. Can our resident species of insects serve as vectors for diseases of the tropics? Can tropical vectors enter this country? Can we recognise them when they do? Can they hybridise with our own species? Could we recognise that hybrid vector? Can we recognise the vector potential that may well be transmitted from a tropical insect to our own insects?
A few years ago Europe—not the United Kingdom— was threatened with a number of tropical diseases that were insect-transmitted. It was discovered that we had a single entomologist in the country who was an expert on biting midges. He was in great demand. I am not sure if he has retired. But that is the level of our competence in this area.
I turn to the Darwin Initiative. It has been an important source of funding for taxonomists for the past 10 years. It has a budget of approximately £3 million. That sum, alongside other support that was promised and expected for systematic biology, has failed to increase in line with inflation. That is contrary to the Dainton recommendations of 10 years ago.
The Select Committee, as the noble Baroness mentioned, now recommends "earmarking" the current level of spending of the Darwin Initiative at £3 million specifically for taxonomic studies. I have an innate suspicion of "earmarking" or ring-fencing any research funds. So often it leads to the exclusion of excellent research outside the ring fence. The recommendation to earmark Darwin funds for taxonomic work has caused concern in the systematic biological research field, for that very reason—it fears that excellence in research may decrease. The concept of earmarking is derived from the additional fear that taxonomic funds may be eroded further, and that the real value of earmarking will be to safeguard them. What is necessary is an increase in the £3 million that was allocated 10 years ago to the Darwin Initiative fund in line with inflation. That would still allow the best of the Darwin proposals and initiatives to take place, but at this increased level.
The Darwin Initiative is not the only source of funding for systematic biology. Perhaps the Minister can let the House have an up-to-date account of the present funding for systematic biology and where it comes from.
928
The decline in funding of important centres, such as the Natural History Museum and the Botanic Gardens at Edinburgh and Kew, must send the message that this country does not consider systematic biology to be all that important. I believe that to be the wrong message. I trust that this House will conclude that also.
The forthcoming meeting in Johannesburg in South Africa on sustainable development is an excellent opportunity for the United Kingdom to re-affirm its commitment to biodiversity and to the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, to make the commitment valid and credible, investment in systematic biology is essential. That must be done somewhat urgently, and it must be substantial.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I too offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her splendid speech of introduction. Although not a member of the sub-committee, on a number of occasions I was privileged to be able to observe her committee in action, and I had the opportunity to observe her deftness in steering through this timely and valuable report. I also warmly welcome and endorse its recommendations. In doing so I declare an interest as chairman of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum.
I am also sure that all members of the Science and Technology Select Committee would wish to associate themselves with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, in appreciation of our shortly to be replaced Clerk, Andrew Makower.
Systematic biology is concerned with the description and classification and relationships between living things. Worldwide, about 1.7 million animals and plants have been described. That is out of an estimated 12 million. Some parts of the globe, such as the UK, are better known than others. We have a tradition of natural history. But even in the UK only 50 per cent or perhaps 60 per cent of species are catalogued.
Unfortunately, sometimes systematic biology is seen as a relatively unglamorous discipline. In the UK it is pursued by a declining number of staff in major museums and by a declining minority of staff in universities. The fact that it may seem unglamorous does not mean that it is not highly skilled and is not dependent on long experience. The question is, does this matter? Lord Dainton thought so. The committee thinks so, and I have to say that I agree with it.
Some of the reasons for this have already been rehearsed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and by other noble Lords. I shall not repeat them. I shall take a different tack and one that suggests that regardless of other motivations, sheer self-interest tells us that we must take a close interest in systematic biology.
We need to start with a global view. What we see as our environment today—our surroundings containing plants, animals and microbial life—is something that has since time immemorial been continuously changing. As natural balances have shifted, it has changed from place to place and from time to time.

929
Sometimes the changes have simply been oscillations; sometimes they have been unidirectional shifts and not reversed.
The different life forms that are within and part of that environment are each affected by the behaviour of the others and by changes in the oceans, the atmosphere and the solid Earth. In turn, life forms can profoundly modify their physical environment, both on a local and on a global scale. For example, the evolution of land plants profoundly changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere.
We find a system of enormous subtlety and complexity. At a gross level, it is reasonably well understood; but in detail, it is mostly unknown. What is clear is that while in some respects that system is remarkably robust, in others it is very vulnerable. It is also a system that in some respects is highly non-linear. By that, I mean that for a while it may show little or no response to a particular external pressure or stimulus and then suddenly, without warning, may shift dramatically. That is why arguments such as, "Well, we have been all right so far", do not work.
As human beings, we tend to be sensitive to changes that affect animals or plants of a size that we can observe. We can notice thrushes, pandas and camels and become concerned about changes affecting them. That is fine, but even taken all together, all the birds and mammals represent a small fraction of the Earth's animal population. In contrast, most of us scarcely register the existence of the myriad of micro-lifeforms without which the higher animals could not exist. The fertility of our soil depends on earthworms and a teeming microbial population.
I reiterate that the relationships between all of those living things and between them and their physical environment is extraordinarily complex. A small change in one part can have profound and disproportionate effects elsewhere that are poorly understood. But what is new? That must have been the case since earliest times. What is different today is not change but the rate of change. What is different today is that one species, the human species, has increased in numbers faster than any other appears to have done in the history of the earth. Not only that, but it is doing so in a way that is extraordinarily demanding of space and resources.
Humans represent fewer than a billionth of the individual animals living on Earth today. Yet we take for our use approximately 40 per cent of the Earth's annual plant growth and roughly the same proportion of the produce of the oceans. We have occupied and modified to our purposes most of the temperate parts of the globe that have reasonable water supplies. Although that explosive growth in numbers has taken place over a few hundred years, that is but the blinking of an eye in the history of the Earth and the Earth has never seen anything like it before.
By our enormous success in predation—consider industrial fishing—and by taking over land previously available as natural habitats, we are driving many species to extinction. To be sure, it is nothing new for
930
species to disappear in particular places, or indeed to become extinct—perhaps out-competed for space or food by others, by suffering predation, or simply by evolving into a new species. But the present rate of extinction is somewhere between 10 and 100 times faster than that found in the geological past. It is no exaggeration to say that if there were some kind of communal animal sentience and awareness, the speed and scale of disaster brought on animals by human beings would appear to them as would a nuclear holocaust to us in terms of land laid waste and individuals killed.
Although I have spoken largely of the direct human impact on animal life, there are, of course, indirect effects arising from the rapid climate change that seems to be driven by our use of fossil fuels. I shall not talk about those, but we must recognise that human beings have unwittingly triggered a series of global changes that they do not understand. Those changes will profoundly affect the way that and perhaps whether we can live in our world. They are important to us because they may affect soil fertility, and thus our ability to feed ourselves, or they may influence the spread of new or existing pathogens that affect our crops, our animals or ourselves. We simply do not know what will happen.
Furthermore, as climate patterns shift, humans will not be the only economic migrants. A range of organisms is already migrating to seek a better life with us. We are not prepared for them either. That tells us that regardless of moral or other imperatives, it is in our self-interest to understand these changes as fully as possible so that we can anticipate their consequences and, possibly, by quite small modifications in our behaviour mitigate the worst effects.
So what does all that have to do with systematic biology? If we are to understand changes in fauna and flora, we have to observe them, record them and measure them. Systematic biology is one of the essential tools in that process. It allows organisms to be identified and counted and changes to be measured. Of course, by itself that is not enough. Ecology—the study of how organisms interact with each other and their physical environment—then takes over. But without a basis of systematic biology, ecology cannot begin.
So what is to be done? I do not think that we can any longer regard systematic biology as simply one more academic discipline that, like others, will wax and wane over time in a way that will be of interest to few outside the academic community. As other noble Lords have emphasised, we need a national strategy for systematic biology and the political will to carry it through. That strategy must recognise that we cannot do everything. Cataloguing every living thing in the world is not practicable.
But in an area as restricted as the United Kingdom, the situation is better than in many countries. The faunal and floral population is less diverse than in tropical climates and the larger elements have in any case been studied for a long time. Even so, many species remain undescribed and their role in our

931
ecosystem unknown. However, in a country where more than half of the task has been done, a concerted, co-ordinated and focused effort could yield results and understanding that would be invaluable to us and probably to the rest of the world.
At present, UK scientific priorities in that field are left to the inclinations of individual scientists and research institutes. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, the international procedures for formally establishing new species have more to do with the 18th than the 21st century. The main national institutes in which such work is done are funded by different government agencies—as far as we can tell, without reference to each other; certainly without any co-ordinating or prioritising framework; and, above all, without any concept of an important national purpose. In all cases, the funding for curation and general maintenance of collections appears to be inadequate and is lower, in real terms, than it was a decade ago. Furthermore, the way in which we fund universities makes it financially unattractive to nurture disciplines such as systematic biology.
I urge the Government to think seriously about a national strategy, more for loss avoidance than wealth creation. There is an urgent need for additional funding for flagship institutions, but it should be related to a national strategy for future work at home and, as appropriate, abroad. The really good news is that systematic biology is not that expensive. A sum of £10 million a year over 10 years would transform the situation in the UK. I repeat, however, that the money must be carefully managed and targeted. It is such an important investment for the well-being of the nation that there is a role for the Office of Science and Technology to work alongside the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in co-ordinating the work of government departments and implementing the scheme, either directly or indirectly through one of its research councils.
In conclusion, I acknowledge my former colleague, Professor John Lawton, head of the Natural Environment Research Council, from whose recent speech I drew some of the numbers cited earlier. They do not differ greatly from earlier estimates, but they underline the urgency of the situation that faces us. We must do our best to act before the situation becomes even more serious than it is today.
2.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we are deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing a debate on such an important aspect of conservation. It comes at an ideal moment, following the recent publication of What on Earth? by the Select Committee on Science and Technology and just before the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. The noble Baroness lists among her recreations being in good company; I hope that she will feel that, even in a thinly attended Friday afternoon House, she is indeed in good company among those of us who care passionately about the issues.
932
The Anglican Communion is arranging a congress in Johannesburg for the week before the world summit. Church leaders from all over the world will come together to build on the pioneering work on the environment and ecology done at the Lambeth Conference two years ago. I shall be one of two Church of England representatives trying to reflect on, discuss and make plans for the Church's contribution to sustainable development. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, took us back to Friar Lawrence, but it is, perhaps, worth recalling that among the most distinguished pioneers of systematic biology were some remarkably learned and enviably leisured 19th-century English parochial clergy. They did extraordinary work, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.
The report is an excellent document. It presents a balanced and persuasive argument for better support for and co-ordination of systematic biology, as many noble Lords have eloquently said. The report identifies three important objectives of the science: to create a common biological language; to identify, in particular, the species that are of benefit to the human race; and to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. In naming species and understanding how they relate to each other, systematic biology shows over and over again how amazing and how ordered our world is, in ways that fill us with awe and wonder at its infinitely intricate beauty. That response of awe and wonder should engender a sense of responsibility to take care not to disrupt ordered systems for short-term ends.
As has been said, systematic biology is a science in trouble, perhaps in crisis. One of the reasons why systematic biology finds it so hard to fulfil the criteria that would secure significant financial grants is that it cannot easily identify hypotheses to test or finite goals to reach. The subject matter is almost infinite, and it does not lend itself to tidy and manageable research projects of obvious and immediate utility. Many noble Lords have emphasised the fact that many species remain to be discovered. We must all realise—grant-givers most of all—that there is real value in gaining knowledge for its own sake, although it is also true that that knowledge will affect our attitudes and behaviour in countless ways and may contain, in itself, potential benefits for humanity, some of which are obvious, some of which can only be guessed at.
The link between systematic biology and the forthcoming world summit lies in the concept of sustainability. We must welcome the way in which the idea of sustainability has become so widely valued and so often discussed, although its meaning may not always be clear. It is beginning to be sought as an end in itself, not merely a means to human ends. It has great importance for the human race, and the anthropocentric motive for good environmental practice will take us further down the path of virtue than is sometimes acknowledged. We must recognise and welcome the altruistic and the self-interested reasons for pursuing sustainability in every aspect of human existence.

933
The main emphasis at the world summit will be on the need for the developing world to escape from the enslavement of poverty in ways that do not further damage the already deeply scarred and deeply suffering natural world.
Systematic biology explains and demonstrates the vast range of biodiversity. Most of the developing world still enjoys the resource of biodiversity. There are strong arguments for identifying, protecting and nurturing existing biodiversity in the developing world, precisely to underpin its economic development in sustainable ways and to protect developing nations from the temptation to import unsustainable and inappropriate systems that cannot survive local climates or flourish in local landscapes.
The careful preservation of wildlife can itself become a rich source of revenue, as many African countries are discovering. In celebrating and taking pride in their biodiversity, they can benefit from those who come from the great urban centres of the developed world, or from areas of a sterile monoculture, as ecovisitors to share in the awe and wonder that is denied to them at home. I believe that it is important to call them ecovisitors, not ecotourists, because they need to be limited in number and to understand what they have come to see and enjoy. That process, which needs to be managed very carefully, is a very important part of the economy of many developing countries and could become more important.
Systematic biology has led to a growing understanding of biodiversity. That, in turn, has helped us to understand the complex and subtle interrelationships of the whole of creation and how the human race finds its proper place in that complex pattern. We discover a new and very salutary humility. We can no longer credibly claim mastery over the creation. That distorted and arrogant creation theology, which was one deplorable strand of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, has to give way to a sense of real responsibility and shame for the mess that we have made of much of the planet, and to a determination to support and encourage sustainable ecological and economic systems. But if we lose the knowledge base provided by systematic biology, how shall we know whether our actions are hindering or helping the ecosystems on which we depend?
Some of the interventions of the human race— such as intensive agriculture, deforestation on a catastrophic scale, the prodigal use of water, the use of fossil fuel without regard to the consequences—have already done enormous damage to the intricate and detailed web of life revealed to us by systematic biology. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his magnificent speech on that theme.
This science can illustrate our disastrous mistakes and help us to plot a better course in discovering how to meet our needs for food, energy and shelter in ways that are in tune with the Earth's structures and processes. Systematic biology promises no glittering
934
technological prize, no magic solution to grab the world's headlines, but what it reveals and teaches may ultimately be a matter of life and death for the human race. Good science requires maturity, humility and vision. As the report points out, there is a serious dearth of scientists willing to work in this discipline, and the present population of systematic biologists is an ageing one. I believe that a proper understanding of how that discipline connects with the vital areas of agriculture, conservation and the needs of the developing world could attract young people to engage with it, provided that the additional financial resources for which the Select Committee has called are forthcoming. I join other noble Lords in their pleas to the Government to ensure that that is achieved.
The report also makes helpful and sensible suggestions about the enormous potential of the worldwide web in the task of species classification and the sharing of scientific knowledge. Systematic biologists themselves need consciously to build links with those who will benefit from their work, whose needs will at least partly dictate the course of future research.
This report makes it very plain that systematic biology is an academic discipline that needs and deserves much stronger support than it has received in recent years. We all enjoy the benefits of its findings. It is perfectly proper that funding for it should in large measure come from the public purse. We have seen far too many examples of the funding for vital areas of scientific inquiry slipping into the hands of private, profit-hungry organisations, with all the distortion of academic standards and objectives that that may entail.
It is in support of true sustainability—sustainable scientific research, sustainable application of knowledge to particular needs, especially those of the world's poorest people, sustainable economic and ecological systems—that I urge the Government to accept the recommendations set out in this report. The Government have been at pains to offer vigorous support to our brilliant biotechnological research and development. Systematic biology is indeed less glamorous, less sexy, but it is work that must continue to be done, and done well, if the human race is to be able to take its rightful place in the glorious creation of which we are a part and to play its rightful part in conserving it for future generations.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is a pleasure to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her skilful introduction to our debate and for successfully navigating our subcommittee through sometimes choppy waters. I too wish to thank our specialist adviser and staff who have already been named, as well as our resident specialist assistant, Adam Heathfield, who was always on hand and has been extremely helpful.
Although the preservation of biodiversity was a prominent aim of Agenda 21 at Rio and is again on the agenda at Johannesburg, as a member of the Select

935
Committee, I must follow my noble friend Lord Haskel and quote the Bard. As the Prince of Denmark said,
"it is a custom
More honoured in the breach than the observance".
Although attention to biodiversity forms part of the conservation and sustainability package, it is treated almost as an afterthought when it comes to action. That may be because it is not easy to measure the benefits of a rich natural flora and fauna in direct economic terms. Of course it is accepted as aesthetically and morally right to maintain species, unless directly or indirectly they are harmful to man, but public resources for the support of biodiversity as such have always been thin on the ground. Perhaps that is why amateur enthusiasts have always had an important place in the collection of information about the web of life. Funding for systematic biology suffers as a part of the whole deficit in funding for the preservation of biodiversity.
From the time that life first appeared on Earth, species of living organisms have appeared, have survived for variable periods—some for many millennia—and then most have been superseded, sometimes through competition for resources with more efficient species, and sometimes through a failure to adapt to climatic or other environmental changes. Mostly, however, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, pointed out, species have evolved through gradual adaptation; evolution through natural selection has led to different species, although on occasion the original prototype can survive in protected and isolated areas.
Recently, the natural rate of disappearance of species has greatly accelerated due to man's activities and growing dominance. We know what happened to the dodo, the great auk and the giant moa when man rudely broke into their habitats, to which previously they had been happily adapted. We know also that the survival of many other species is precarious. Special steps will need to be taken in order to prevent their extinction. The CITES programme, mentioned by the noble Baroness, is one of the better examples of those efforts. However, once again Hamlet's words apply.
As the noble Lord has already pointed out, of the estimated total number of species in the world, only 1.7 million out of 12 million have been described and classified. That calls to mind a song by Tom Lehrer about the periodic table:
"These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard There may be many others, but they haven't been discarvered".
It is highly likely that, given the present rate of attrition, many species will disappear even before they have been discovered. Those unknown species are likely to be among the less visible, often microscopic or sub-microscopic forms of life, which nevertheless are of crucial importance to our environment.
There is a useful graph in the web of life, a publication produced by the UK Systematics Forum, which no longer exists and which came into existence as a result of the Dainton report. It shows the proportion of the total estimated number of species
936
that are known to exist according to the various biological phyla and taxa. While practically all the chordates—which include mammals, birds, fish, amphibia and reptiles—are known, only 15 per cent of the estimated 8 million insects are known; less than 10 per cent of the 1.5 million fungi have been logged; and even fewer of the 1 million or more bacteria or other microscopic and sub-microscopic forms of life.
Again, following the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, this may seem at first to be of less importance because we are not aware of these forms of life. However, the role played by fungi and micro-organisms in soil fertility, marine and fresh water quality and sustainability is enormous. Pollutants and toxins of many kinds may drastically change the balance of these organisms and thus they can be sensitive indicators or early signs of environmental degradation. For that reason alone it is highly desirable for there to be trained systematic biologists who can identify and measure these invisible micro flora and fauna of the soil, rivers, lakes and oceans.
Unfortunately—this is also to be seen in the graph in the web of life—there are very few professional systematists in the very branches of biology where there is most need of them to describe and chart unknown, but almost certainly important, species. For instance, there are only 20 mycologists—specialists in fungi—where probably 90 per cent of the species remains to be described.
Members of the Select Committee are very grateful to our hosts for devoting time to our visits to the Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. I am sure that the same would have been said of Edinburgh if we had been able to go there. I found the two visits extremely valuable in getting to grips, both with the subject and with staffing and funding problems.
We heard of the need for, but also of the difficulties with and expense of, digitising their vast and unique collections. We also heard of the need to preserve the actual specimens to act as basic reference material. This is not the time nor place to go into the pros and cons of Professor Godfray's proposals to move over entirely to an electronically held database of living things. We discussed his proposals. They are a matter for on-going discussions within the systematics community.
Systematic biologists are now becoming more familiar with modern techniques of molecular and genetic identification. Attached to the botanical gardens at Kew are the Jodrell laboratories, where more and more of the research associates working at Kew spend part or all of their time. This runs alongside traditional, meticulous observation. As has been said, systematic biologists now have less of the "stamp collector" image than they used to. The new skills that they are developing apply particularly to the identification of fungi and microbiological forms of life because it is difficult to identify them through morphological characteristics alone.

937
Surely it has been a serious mistake on the part of successive governments that the funding of the two internationally unique institutions that we visited, plus Edinburgh and other collections throughout the country, should have fallen so much in real terms.
The diminution of teaching of systematic biology in universities has relentlessly continued since the Dainton report 10 years ago. An important reason for that is, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said, the focus of the Research Assessment Exercise, which tends to favour "cutting edge" science. However, there would be no shortage of interest among undergraduates if the opportunities for career pathways in systematic biology were there. The quality of those who apply to do PhDs in systematic biology is very high. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 3.32 on page 14 of the report:
"Nevertheless when people apply for funding for taxonomic work from NERC, they appear to do disproportionately well. The average success rate for NERC's responsive mode funding is 19 per cent. Yet out of 33 applications for responsive mode funding for taxonomic work received by NERC over the last two years, nine were funded, equivalent to 28 per cent success rate"—
50 per cent higher than the average.
I very much hope that senior officials and Ministers, in DEFRA but also in the other government departments mainly concerned, will not only take note of this debate but will also read the report, and especially the evidence on which it is based, extremely carefully. It is more readable than most, thanks to our chairman and her team.
In conclusion, I should like to point out a fact referred to by other speakers. For comparatively little expense, the Government could make a huge difference—far less expense, for example, than the funds that the Export Credits Guarantee Department has laid out on building CO2 emitting coal fired power stations in the developing world. Money invested in systematic biology would bring long-term benefit to the environment rather than detriment, as the coal fired stations have done.
I very much hope that the report will persuade Ministers to enable this branch of United Kingdom science to regain its leading position in the world.
2.33 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like other speakers, I begin by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I congratulate her on the way in which she introduced the debate and on the way in which she chaired the committee.
I was invited to rejoin the Science and Technology Committee because I sat on Lord Dainton's committee which produced the 1992 report. Returning to the subject was in some ways a slightly dispiriting exercise. It was true that the report had had some modest influence. By far the most influential was the Darwin initiative referred to by other speakers. There was the NERC taxonomy initiative, which has now run its course, and there was, from systematists
938
themselves, an attempt to set up a systematics forum which would have acted as a meeting point for all systematists—after all, this is a very wide discipline.
Sadly, the initiative has stuttered to a halt and has failed. If I strike a slightly discordant note, it is with a feeling of slight frustration that systematists have not played their part in trying to bring together a focus for debate as to where systematics can contribute, not just to the understanding of biodiversity but to the opportunities for applied biology based on the knowledge of systematics.
So let me say straight away that I think that there is an onus on the systematics community, on the Linnean Society—I must declare an interest as a fellow of the society—and on the Systematics Association. Indeed, the report includes a recommendation that the association should do what it has failed to do in the past.
In spite of the failure of the UK Systematics Forum to gather momentum as we had hoped, there has been much progress in the intervening 10 years which should not go unrecorded. There has been great progress in the area of molecular systematics, in genomics and in evolutionary development. In other words, it is pointed out just how vibrant this discipline is, and no one should be in any doubt that without the contribution of systematists, progress will not be made in any of those spheres. One cannot look at whole organisms without an understanding of how, in evolutionary terms, they fit into the scheme of things.
Let me follow the example of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who pointed out that we are discussing this report in connection with the hoped-for outcomes of the World Summit in Johannesburg. The section of the community we should particularly address—the same section that the right reverend Prelate looked at—is the poorest section of society. We have heard enough figures about the number of species in the world. Let us think about the number of humans. There are 6 billion people worldwide, of which 1 billion are either starving or malnourished. Those one in six are the population of the world which government and science have failed.
That may sound brutal. Your Lordships may say that it is the fault of government; that if only countries could get their act together, 1 billion people would be able to get access to fresh water, adequate food, energy and shelter, and would enjoy access to medical science. However, I believe it is a responsibility not just of government but of science. Those who are charged by the affluent nations to push forward the frontiers of knowledge have a responsibility to ensure that such knowledge serves humanity and not just those funding research.
The right reverend Prelate referred critically, I believe rightly so, to the privatised sources of funding. Once the priorities of research are determined by shareholders or the vested interests of those funding it, then the considerations of the one sixth of the population of the world are totally excluded from the burgeoning of scientific knowledge. This is why at the world summit we have to ask these questions very

939
firmly: what is it that can be done by science here, where most of the intellectual base resides? What can be done to help in a form of sustainable development those poorest sections of the world?
We come back to a number of relevant disciplines of which systematics is a very important one, but only one. I am sure the water engineers, solar energy specialists and others have important contributions to make. I do not want to overstate the contribution that systematists can make. However, if we wish to reduce human and animal illness and increase productivity, we have to understand better the species with which we share this planet.
When one looks at the species that are most important, they are not those to which we relate most readily. We understand plants and mammals better than we do micro-organisms, parasites or even insects. It was no coincidence that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, when quoting Friar Lawrence, quoted species which tripped the mind. Even the Bard's pen could not make anything very fluent or poetical about parasites and microbes.
Nevertheless, if one looks at the third world's requirements, it is these organisms which probably deserve as much or more attention than the butterflies, birds and plants which we amateurs love to study and which are reasonably accessible and far less demanding in taxonomic terms. One then looks at where this great residue of collections and of knowledge lies in the United Kingdom. This country has a great responsibility in that it holds vast collections such as those in Kew, the Natural History Museum and Edinburgh. Those are three highly important collections, but there are also zoos, herbariums, other botanic gardens and culture collections. If that is put together with our systematics expertise, we have an overview of the biological resource and the collections that it constitutes.
The funding does not take into account the need to take a whole look at our biological resources and how they might complement programmes emanating from Johannesburg or elsewhere. Kew is funded by Defra—formerly by the Ministry of Agriculture—the centre at Edinburgh is funded by the Scottish Office and the Natural History Museum comes under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It would be unrealistic to suggest that that should all be changed. It is historical fact that that is where the funding streams come from. However, it is immediately clear why it is difficult to see a co-ordinated approach on how to use this remarkable national resource, which is a heritage of the empire and of the great interest in botany and zoology in the last century. We are under-exploiting and undervaluing the resource, apparently incapable of putting it forward in a co-ordinated form.
The systematics community, who come from a wide variety of disciplines, seem incapable of putting together the overall co-ordinated policy that is clearly greatly needed. I am sure that the systematists can do it themselves and that our recommendation to the Linnean Society and the Systematics Association will be taken up, but government sponsorship and
940
encouragement will be needed. I would be interested to hear from the Minister which might be the lead department on that.
My plea is that we once and for all banish the spectre of open-ended taxonomy—people working in isolation through taxonomic programmes, trying to get to the end of the list. We have heard many times during the debate that after 200 years we have got to 1.7 million and we think there are 12 million. We can project that forward and say that we will go a bit faster, but that is clearly not a satisfactory programme of work. We need to understand which are the keystone species and which have the most economic or cultural importance so that we can prioritise.
In the context of Johannesburg, it is essential to digitise the collections and the data, expensive though it will be. The Convention on Biological Diversity requires us to repatriate the data to the people from whom it was extracted, because it is most relevant to them. That is central to the World Summit. If the summit recommends that all national and international organisations should understand their obligations to contribute to digitising the data and making it accessible to those who will most benefit from it, something concrete will have come out of Johannesburg.
2.43 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Advisory Committee for the Protection of the Sea. For some years I was chairman. I have now been succeeded by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton. I hope that he will be most successful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and her team deserve the widest possible tributes. They have done an imaginative job and I hope that the Government will give the report proper regard. I share many of the concerns expressed by the sub-committee, particularly on marine issues.
The Advisory Committee for the Protection of the Sea—which I shall hereafter refer to as ACOPS to shorten my speech—works with other countries and the Global Environment Fund, the World Bank and other marine conservationists. It works particularly in Africa and Russia. It will participate in the important deliberations in Johannesburg.
Marine environments are hugely important worldwide, both to jobs and nutrition. We take for granted our seas and the fish that inhabit them; we pay insufficient attention to the threats posed by over-fishing, pollution and other menaces to the environment. For these reasons, we in ACOPS have long urged the United Kingdom to play a larger role in the sustainable development of the seas. That, in a nutshell, is why we are helping, particularly in Africa, to enable developing countries to manage their marine environments. I cannot say too much but what we are doing in that regard is especially important. I wish that the Government would take more notice and participate more actively in affairs affecting developing countries.

941
We should not minimise the widespread threats arising from pollution, habitat damage and overuse of resources. Too often there is deliberate dumping by ships. There are threats from farming where inadequate attention is paid to such matters, and from the atmosphere in the form of heavy metals. Too frequently, the threats are simply ignored, wholly or partly, or our reaction is insufficiently financed and insufficiently co-ordinated. Coral reefs and wetlands are affected. We should all be concerned—concerned about what we are doing or allowing to happen. We should be concerned about the international dimension on which, in my view, Britain does not concentrate sufficiently.
Although the remit of the United Kingdom is necessarily limited, some good things have occurred. The Marine Stewardship Report, published, I believe, a few weeks ago, is immensely helpful. It provides for a real international marine policy. But much more is needed.
The programme has to be properly resourced. Deadlines have to be introduced and, equally importantly, adhered to. The marine environment has to be sustainably managed. By 2006 the Government must deliver an integrated marine Act. Marine protected areas have to be established by representative networks. Such a development would set up an ecosystem-based approach to the management of our seas.
The United Kingdom Government have moved firmly in that direction but they need to be even more decisive and even more internationally orientated. They should support developing countries in making contributions. In that way we would provide a real lead in Europe and, indeed, globally.
2.50 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I heartily congratulate her on the sub-committee's report.
My noble friend Lord Haskel alluded to my "day job" which concerns crime and young offenders. There seem to be some similarities between that field and the one we are discussing in that we find it just as difficult to count crime and offenders as we do to count plants and classify them. I was drawn into the field of plant classification and conservation by my wife's work as chairperson of Botanic Gardens Conservation International which is housed at Kew Gardens. That has helped me better to understand Kew's world-class scientific work as well as its stewardship of beautiful gardens. However, I should say in this distinguished company of scientists that I make no claim to having any scientific distinction and speak as a layman. Indeed, a dense veil should be drawn over my undistinguished school scientific career.
However, what I have seen of the work of Kew leads me to the view—which is very much supported in the sub-committee's report—that there is a crisis of funding for that work. But before I turn to that issue
942
and to the findings of the sub-committee. I should like to say a little more, in terms of the wider context, about some of the work of BGCI, having declared my interest.
BGCI is a UK registered charity founded 15 years ago with the primary aim of linking botanic gardens world-wide into an effective global network for plant conservation. It now has more than 500 member institutions in almost 100 countries, including many poor and developing ones, and an impressive track record in promoting plant conservation, sustainable development and environmental education. Over 25 per cent of the world's plants are grown in botanic gardens world-wide, which are visited by over 200 million people each year. BGCI works towards ensuring that people recognise plants as one of the world's greatest renewable natural resources and it initiates practical programmes to safeguard tens of thousands of threatened plant species.
Most recently, BGCI has played a crucial role in co-ordinating the development of a global strategy for plant conservation and securing its adoption by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at their meeting in the Hague in April this year. That was a particularly significant achievement. Not only did the participating countries agree to the strategy, they accepted a series of well defined and time-bound targets.
The global strategy for plant conservation is important to safeguarding the future of plants on our planet and for the first time targets—a subject dear to the Government's heart—have been set to guide progress under the convention. There are 16 targets. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I shall not plough my way through all of them. However, I want to talk about the first two on which all the others depend and which are of particular relevance to the sub-committee's report.
Target 1 is to prepare and make available a working list of the names of all known plant species. Noble Lords have spoken much today of the extent to which our knowledge of species is far from complete. That is particularly true of the world's flora. New species are being discovered and described daily. When I looked into the subject I was surprised to find that, even disregarding recent discoveries new to science, there is no single comprehensive list of the world's plant species. There is no single publication, print or electronic, where one can look up the name of a plant and find out where in the world it occurs and what else is known about it. In fact, as a result of this lack of a comprehensive listing, botanists cannot even be sure, to within a few thousand, how many plant species there are. The latest estimates run to some 422,000 plant species, which is about 100,000 more than was estimated just a few years ago. So the first target of the global strategy for plant conservation is to make available a comprehensive listing of the world's plant species and where they occur, as a baseline for all other conservation action.
Some of that work is already under way. One of the most significant contributors to that is the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. As we know, Kew is a major

943
international plant science research institute with particular strengths in systematics and conservation—subjects of the sub-committee's report. Because of its strengths in systematics, its unique library facilities and network of collaborators worldwide, Kew is ideally placed to do that work. But at present it can devote only one scientific officer to that task because of severe financial constraints. In the 10 years since 1992, when the UK signed the Convention on Biological Diversity, the demands on Kew's expertise in biodiversity have risen dramatically. Ironically, over the same period, government funding to Kew and the other major UK systematics institutes has fallen in real terms. Kew now receives 15 per cent less grant-in-aid funding than it did 10 years ago. A similar situation can be seen at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Edinburgh: funding is down 15 per cent since 1992. The inadequate level of funding is now having a clear negative impact on the UK's ability to deliver on its biodiversity policy commitments, which a UK charity and the scientific community have championed so ably on the international stage.
A similar scenario is unfolding for target 2 of the global plant conservation strategy; that is, the preparation of a preliminary assessment of the conservation status of each of the world's known plant species. Those individual conservation ratings are scientific assessments of the likely threats to a species based on data such as its distribution pattern and the sorts of habitats in which it occurs. Scientific specialists with years of experience in particular groups of plants are best placed to provide and interpret the data. The literature shows that scientists at the major systematics institutes are the most significant contributors to the global effort to assess all known plant species in that way. But, once again, financial constraints have reduced the UK's ability to contribute in that area. At Kew, for instance, seven recently retired senior botanists, specialists in different groups of plants, could not be replaced upon retirement because of reductions in real terms funding from the Government. That loss represents 20 per cent of the total body of senior botanists employed at Kew and a severe depletion of the UK's expertise in plant systematics.
I have drawn attention to targets 1 and 2 of the global strategy for plant conservation because I believe that they illustrate one of the key points to be drawn from the sub-committee's report: that a sound scientific information base must underlie any rational and worthwhile activity in the area of conservation. We cannot continue to increase the pressure on our major systematics institutions to meet the demands of the Convention on Biological Diversity, while undermining their funding base at the same time. That only exacerbates a situation that is already unsustainable. Recommendation 1 of the sub-committee's report advocates a return to 1992 levels of funding for our major systematics institutions. The conservation and sustainable management of plants is an important part of our stewardship for future generations. In that context, I applaud that recommendation by the sub-committee as a move
944
towards the sustainable development of the UK's policy on biodiversity. I believe that even such a modest increase in funding would give a positive signal not only to the institutions themselves but also to all those around the world who rely directly or indirectly on systematics data. These include the UK Government, other governments, especially those of biodiversity-rich nations, as well as charities such as BGCI and other non-governmental bodies around the world concerned with conservation and biodiversity issues.
This year the Government have chosen the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew as the UK's candidate for World Heritage status. As an experienced public sector manager, I know that you cannot will the ends without making available the means. I urge the Minister to respond positively to the recommendation in the sub-committee's report, particularly recommendation 1. I would find it helpful to know more from her about Kew's financial fate when DEFRA's spending review 2002 outcome is known in the near future.
As the Government reset their spending priorities for the next three years, with impeccable timing the sub-committee has produced its report and given them the opportunity to respond positively and generously to its well-argued recommendations and the persuasive advocacy of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
3.1 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I join the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as one whose scientific education is minimal. I studied little science at school and have studied none since then, so when I first saw on my desk a note from the Chief Whip to say that the debate came under DEFRA and therefore my hat, I was embarrassed. I shall endeavour not to embarrass your Lordships for the next 10 minutes.
I have been greatly helped by the sub-committee's report. When I initially read the first page I thought, "Gosh". When I reread it and got stuck into it as a lay person I found it very readable and enjoyed reading it. I also enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, introduce today's debate. She went a little further in some areas than the report.
However, my interpretation—and, I believe, that of other noble Lords—of What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation is that it is alarming. This is a science that noble Lords—themselves scientists—have said over and again today is vital to our wellbeing in the world and to the maintenance of conservation and sustainable development. But it would appear that that science is on the way down and fewer people are taking part.
Great Britain has a long history of systematic biology; the discovery, description, naming and classifying of living things from Darwin himself to much more recently in 1992 when the Government signed the Convention on Biological Diversity which was ratified two years later. The purpose of the world

945
summit is to adopt concrete steps and identify quantifiable targets for better implementing Agenda 21, which was adopted in 1992. Agenda 21 recommends action on issues such as protecting the atmosphere, oceans—which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned—animal and plant life and promoting sustainable agriculture practices that will feed the world's ever-growing population; a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and my noble friend Lord Soulsby.
A pivotal part of both the convention and the summit is conservation and using the remainder of the world's resources in a sustainable manner. Systematic biologists are essential to that work. My noble friend Lord Soulsby asked how we have done since 1992, and answered his own question, "Not very well", with which I believe we would all agree. He asked whether taxonomy matters, and the tone of today's debate has clearly shown that it does.
Although systematic biology is not the most well known or glamorous field of science—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who is now on the Woolsack—it underpins other scientific research which makes an impact on everyday living. One of its main uses is to provide an international language—as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Soulsby—for the scientific community so that research carried out in America and elsewhere can be used by scientists in other parts of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made the point that, again, self-interest tells us that we should take considerable note of what is happening in the ecology. He pointed out the dramatic increase in human numbers on Earth, which is driving many species to extinction, including, I suspect—as I believe we all suspect—many species that we did not even know existed. We certainly did not know the role that they were playing. As I understand from part of the report, we could lose species without knowing that that was happening. That could then lead to a total loss of a particular ecology.
Systematic biologists or taxonomists have been of use to the medical profession. As I have already said, they have also been of great use in agriculture. I give an example. They helped to solve a farming crisis created by the cassava mealy bug in the 1980s. That bug devastated the cassava crop in West Africa for years until research looked into the origin of the bug in South America and a local wasp was found to control it. Use of the wasp solved the problem within a couple of seasons and saved millions of pounds and many lives. However, it has become clear that, if such a situation were to occur today, there may not be sufficient scientists with the knowledge to solve the problem.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Soulsby mentioned the veterinary situation and the subject of bugs in animals. Not long ago, I heard that, as a result of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, the number of veterinarians who have any experience in that country is minimal. The state of the veterinary profession in this country in
946
relation to tropical animal diseases is also in a rather sorry state. Therefore, it is not only this particular science about which we need to worry.
The right reverend Prelate reminded us that we have a responsibility of care. My noble friend Lord Selborne, together with the right reverend Prelate, pointed out that one-sixth of the world's population is starving. That tells us that all that can be done must be done in order to help us to learn more about how nature works, if I may express it in layman's language.
Taxonomy in this country has been in decline for many years, with many universities stating that it may no longer be a sustainable discipline. The decline has been furthered by the fact that today there are fewer jobs in systematic biology. The Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are diverting funds to fund-raising ventures and thus losing valuable research posts. Many who were experts in the field have been lost to other research projects, and such expertise is in danger of being lost completely.
I suggest that never before has it been more important to understand the implications of the environment in which we live. We need to support the systematic biologist profession in order that it can sustain the rich resources that Britain already holds and undertake more research. That can only be of benefit to this and other countries.
We support the findings of the report and agree with its recommendations. We need urgently to reverse the decline of the profession and use our expertise to help developing countries. We also welcome the idea of collaborating with other scientists by setting up a world wide website and sharing vital information when it is discovered.
We ask the Government what is being done to uphold the promises made at the conference in 1992, how they plan to make Britain a leading country in educating developing countries on conservation and development, and how the Prime Minister will further this cause when he leads the British team to Johannesburg.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest, along with a lack of professional or advance knowledge of the subject. This has been a fascinating, constructive and informative debate on two issues of importance: the forthcoming world summit and the report from Sub-Committee I of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House, entitled, What on Earth? The Threat to the Science Underpinning Conservation. As many noble Lords indicated, that committee was ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Its report was published on 16th May. It is clear from comments made by noble Lords that it will be the first but not the last of such reports and of such distinguished chairmanship.
I congratulate the committee on producing a succinct and useful report. Noble Lords will not be surprised if I am not able to respond formally today

947
because the Government intend to do so in the autumn. We want to give careful thought to the proposals. We must give departments and agencies sufficient time to take account of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review and to plan their priorities in the light of available resources. We must also allow for the world summit in Johannesburg and associated events later this summer. None the less, with those caveats, I hope I may offer some preliminary observations on the findings of the committee.
The noble Baroness and her colleagues investigated the current state of systematic biology in the UK; namely, the discovery, description, naming and classification of organisms and the investigation of evolutionary relationships between them. That involves a wide range of scientific skills, techniques and potential applications, of which biodiversity is one. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is one of many noble Lords who identified the potential developments which could occur in fields as wide as agriculture and medicine.
The committee considered the funding and development of the discipline and makes a number of proposals in the light of contributions made during evidence sessions and in documents. As many noble Lords said, it is important to recognise the contribution which systematic biology makes to our understanding and, as stated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, to our appreciation of the complexity of the world in which we live.
It is extremely important to recognise that the more recent recommendations of the committee identify the need for taxonomy and systematic biology to make their case. The committee recognised the importance of the community taking a lead to raise its own profile and to clarify its priorities. We agree that the scientific community needs to engage more effectively with the users and potential users of taxonomic collections. However, the Government and our agencies have a role to play. The committee made a recommendation to improve co-ordination across the systematic biology community and to ensure that it is focused on the key issues. We shall certainly give that careful consideration.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, raised the background of the issue and the result of developments following the 1992 inquiry. The forum largely set its own agenda. It evolved over time, generating useful data and analysis and some progress in identifying priorities. The funding of the government at the time was intended to be pump priming. My reading is that the then government's response rejected many of the committee's key recommendations in 1992 or made clear that the responsibility for deciding any action lay entirely with individual departments.
Having said that, the forum's spirit has not expired entirely. Strands of its work have been taken up by involvement in the global taxonomy initiative and the global biodiversity information facility. I am not aware of any great enthusiasm in the community to
948
continue the systematics forum. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will correct me should I be wrong on that point.
The sub-committee carefully distinguishes the issues that support the taxonomic collections from matters relating to research, which might be carried out on them. That point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in his evidence. The committee highlights the important issue of translating the collections into electronic images and records.
One issue raised in that context was referred to, among others, by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, my noble friend Lord Haskel, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. It was the issue of funding. We shall consider carefully the committee's recommendations in the light of competing priorities following the strategic spending review.
In answer to points made about levels of funding, it is difficult to obtain figures for funding over time because systematic biology involves different activities and is often embedded in others. There have also been organisational and other changes over time.
The research council funding is increasing because of increased funding for beta-taxonomy, phylogenetics and e-science related activities. That is an encouraging sign. It is important to set in context the funding. I shall return to the issue, for example, of Kew Gardens in a moment. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave £6 million to repair the palaeontology building at the Natural History Museum. Therefore, it is important to set in context the different sources of funding.
It is important to recognise that systematics is just one of many important components necessary to conserve and enhance biodiversity. As such, Darwin has always ranged widely and funded many projects which do not necessarily have that component, but are still beneficial to biodiversity. For example, environmental education and capacity-building and sustainable use in the development of management plans.
In response to a query raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in terms of overall funding, £3 million per annum is only a small contribution relative to the scale of the global biodiversity crisis we face. But Darwin has a strong track record of securing positive impacts well beyond the funding we put in.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, among other noble Lords, raised the issue of funding for research. The funding councils will be undertaking a major review of the research assessment exercise. One option would be to consider the issue as part of that. But we shall discuss this matter further with them before responding later in the autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, asked: why not create a new, ring-fenced pot of money? If we are talking of research that uses the collection, we would be extremely wary at this stage of a specially created pot held by a department agency or some particular body. There is a danger that that might isolate systematics still further and preserve it in

949
a time warp, about which some commentators are already concerned. If we are talking about maintaining the collections, it is difficult to comment further because, in a sense, the major collections are already ring-fenced to a great degree.
In response to my noble friend Lord Rea, and the noble Lord, Lord Oxbrough, government and other bodies plainly recognise at a high level the importance of systematic biology. For example, substantial funding is given to the main and minor collections and the United Kingdom has signed international agreements recognising the contributions that taxonomy can make to diversity.
My noble friend Lord Haskel raised the issue of the education service. The science curriculum already covers taxonomy as part of a strand on living and the life processes of living things. However, I found his suggestion as to how to grab the attention of young people novel. Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I have had contact with young people who have become involved in a major way in studying the environment as part of rehabilitation and re-entering the mainstream—to respond to him in the hat that he was not wearing today.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, also raised the issue of sharing of information on the Internet. We note the Committee's interest in that topic and will consider what more may be done—subject, of course, to funding restraints. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, following the last spending review, we gave the research councils an additional £118 million over three years to promote e-science—that is, global scientific collaboration using Internet technology.
The committee has also, rightly, drawn attention to the successes of the Darwin initiative in protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Like Darwin, we must not forget the importance of other aspects of biodiversity, such as education, capacity-building and the development of management plans. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for pointing out that the issue is not only land-based. We recognise the importance of marine biodiversity study, protection and development and of those areas that may fall between the two, such as wetlands. We hope to develop a new phase of the Darwin initiative at the world summit, sharing the committee's hope that that will lead to access to greater funding.
The committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, draw attention to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and the developing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development proposals for biological resource centres. Those are important international initiatives. We support UK involvement. UK systematic biology and taxonomy needs to be part of those global developments. We have major, world-class collections and truly expert scientific endeavour to offer.
I turn to the world summit. What is to be discussed? What is our approach? And what do we hope to achieve? The international community will gather in Johannesburg in a little more than a month's time. The
950
summit represents a unique occasion, opportunity and challenge. The focus will be to obtain at the highest national and international level a renewed commitment to the outcomes of the UN Conference on Environment and Development—the Rio Earth Summit—and to give new impetus for the continued delivery of those outcomes, in particular Agenda 21 and the internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the Millennium Declaration.
I was delighted to hear of the role that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford will play in the lead-up to the summit. I could not agree more with him and with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. The interrelationship between the outcomes that a successful world summit would deliver—improving people's access to drinking water, reducing illegal logging, making progress towards renewable energy generation, safeguarding the marine environment and stopping the decline in fish stocks—all hinge on the critically important goal of making sure that globalisation works for sustainable development, especially for the poor. At the summit, the Department for International Development will launch the results of a study of the links between poverty and the environment and how mutually reinforcing actions can tackle both issues.
The summit itself will not unpick the carefully negotiated agreements achieved at Doha or at the "Financing for Development" conference in Monterrey. It will not attempt to renegotiate the progress that has been made since Rio on the international conventions agreed there, such as those on climate change and biodiversity. The risk of destroying the progress made through those parallel processes is too great. However, the world summit can build on what has been achieved so far.
The programme of implementation, the world summit document that has received most attention so far, includes strong text in support of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the results of the subsequent conferences of the parties to it. For instance, text in support of the global taxonomy initiative received international agreement at the recent preparatory meeting in Bali. The initiative will help to address the lack of sufficient taxonomic skills, resources and information at the global level.
In general, it is hard to see how a broad global process such as the world summit can address specific issues such as systematic biology. The conferences of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity will continue to be a more appropriate context to take that forward—for example, through the global strategy for plant conservation, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Warner. The key for the world summit itself is to ensure that it does not cut across progress made to date but reinforces it where possible. Of course, debate and events surrounding the

951
summit may cover systematic biology and other topics, and we shall do our best to participate and take account of those.
My noble friend Lord Haskel raised two issues. One was the Government's response. My noble friend knows that we must consider the report carefully. However, we agree that we need stronger links, through co-ordination across the systematic biology community and between that community and the users of the collections. We will consider the options seriously, but the world summit would not he the most appropriate occasion for the Prime Minister to announce his support for the report, as my noble friend suggested he should do. The summit will deal with international commitments and action, whereas the committee's report is primarily—though not totally, I accept—focused on domestic policy.
My noble friend Lord Warner raised the issue of funding for the Royal Botanic Gardens. We acknowledge that funding pressures on the former MAFF and DEFRA have made it difficult to maintain Kew's grant-in-aid in line with inflation. The department has had to re-prioritise rigorously because of competing claims. However, DEFRA continues to be a substantial funder of the institution, providing 60 per cent of its annual income, and we are aware that there is a need, even at this late stage, to continue asserting pressure to ensure that it is part of the case for additional funding. We value its work. It is a nationally and internationally important institution. That is one of the reasons that we nominated it as a UNESCO world heritage site. Those are substantial and important issues.
I conclude by expressing our appreciation of the committee's work and our willingness to engage seriously with its main findings on systematic biology, its role, funding and future. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. My presence today is an example of education being received, it having been delivered by so many knowledgeable experts.
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today's interesting debate. I have found it particularly fascinating and have enjoyed it very much. I also thank the Minister for her response, which was a little like the curate's egg—encouraging in parts.
We look forward to the comprehensive spending review, although I fear the threatening words, "in the light of competing priorities". The Johannesburg conference may not be the most appropriate occasion for the Prime Minister to express his support for the committee's recommendations. However, I hope that he will find an opportunity later in the year to do so.
I also add my thanks to Andrew Makower, the Clerk to the Select Committee, who will shortly take over a new post. He is an outstanding servant of your Lordships' House. I hope that he enjoys arid is fulfilled by his new role.
The publication of the report and our debate today represent only the beginning. We look forward very much to hearing the Government's considered response later in the year and to watching with great interest the work of the study group set up by the Royal Society, the Linnean Society and other organisations that are presently responding to our work.
In conclusion, I thank all members of the committee for their enormous support and help during the work that we undertook. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Police Reform Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before four o'clock.

  Treasury Silver
  Treasury Silver
  Maritime Auxiliary Service
  Maritime Auxiliary Service
  TA Intelligence Specialists
  TA Intelligence Specialists
  Veterans Agency: Targets
  Veterans Agency: Targets
  Disability Rights Commission
  Disability Rights Commission
  Lamb Exports to France
  Lamb Exports to France
  Foot and Mouth Disease Report
  Foot and Mouth Disease Report
  Young Offender Institutions: Educational Provision
  Young Offender Institutions: Educational Provision
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Historical Manuscripts Commission
  Historical Manuscripts Commission
  Brixham Marina
  Brixham Marina
  Government Consultancy Contracts
  Government Consultancy Contracts