Sitting of 15 July 2002

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

  Defence Spending
  Paul Flynn: What progress has been made in achieving an equitable sharing of the burden of defence spending among other allied European countries in the past 12 months. [66958]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The latest available data show that the defence expenditure of European NATO allies, in aggregate, has remained broadly stable, in real terms, over the past 12 months. However, most European allies are planning to make more of their forces useful and deployable for NATO's missions, to ensure that a better sharing of defence tasks is possible in future. That is why the United Kingdom has strongly supported the need to develop military capabilities through NATO and through the EU headline goal process.
  Paul Flynn: Not since the battle of Omdurman has there been such a gulf between the ability of two sides to
  2
  compete. We now have one superpower in the world with enormous power and superior technology. Is it sensible to put pressure on the new democracies in eastern Europe to spend more on defence in order to become full members of the European Community, when they should he spending far more on building their health services and on other useful services, such as housing and education?
  Mr. Hoon: That pressure is, of course, entirely self-generated, as it applies only to those countries that want to become members of NATO. Having visited all the NATO aspirant members, that commitment is a very important part of their political profile at this stage. In those circumstances, we want them to spend more resources on defence. Equally, however, we want them to spend those resources effectively, and we want them to be able to make a successful contribution to NATO.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: Whatever the outcome later this afternoon of the comprehensive spending review, I am sure that all Members will welcome any sensible rise in defence spending. Does the Secretary of State not agree that Europe already spends approximately half what the United States spends on defence, but gets nowhere near it in terms of the bangs for our bucks? The important thing is not how much one spends on defence, but what one spends it on. Will the Government therefore take a lead in ensuring that any increase in European defence expenditure is spent on the right things—along the lines of the strategic defence review that the Government initiated—and not on surplus things?
  Mr. Hoon: That is precisely why the Government have strongly supported the improvement in European defence capabilities, both through the EU headline goal and through NATO's defence capabilities initiative. It is important that spending is complementary, and does not simply duplicate existing military capabilities. The Government will

  3
  continue to set out our determination to see Europe improve its military capabilities so that we can participate effectively in operations led by the United States.
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) last week to the Royal United Services Institute. He said that the
  "EU has dreams of a role as a soft superpower".
  Does he agree that improvement of the capabilities of our European allies will strengthen both European defence and NATO?
  Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. I carefully read the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I was slightly surprised by some of his observations, but, generally speaking, I welcomed strongly his commitment to spend more on defence—although he did not say that specifically, I assume that I can reasonably infer it from his observations about the need to ensure that the United Kingdom has effective military capabilities. I assume that, in due course, perhaps after 3.30 pm, he will be in a position to make a statement that he wants to emulate Government spending on defence over the next three-year period. I am sure that Labour Members will want to give him every opportunity to match that commitment when it comes.
  I entirely agree that one aspect of that defence spending is to ensure that it is effective. My concern about the Conservatives' defence policy is that they do not appear to commit themselves to improving European defence capabilities. Without that commitment, there is a clear risk that we will reproduce and duplicate defence capabilities that are already available to NATO and other allies.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the United States is spending approximately twice as much as the rest of the NATO allies, but that its military output is about eight times as great as that of the continental allies because of the manner of that spending? Does he therefore agree that, although pressure should be brought to bear on some of the NATO allies, who, in the phrase of Senator Warner of the United States, have been "slacking off" in their defence expenditure, an increase in specialisation is inevitable if European allies are to remain relevant?
  Mr. Hoon: I will not agree with the precise statistics, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general argument. If he is going to exert pressure, that pressure might be put on the Opposition Front Bench, as that has been precisely the purpose of the Government's efforts in NATO and as part of the EU headline goal process. The United States is capable of spending all its defence expenditure in one single, coherent direction; we must ensure that the same coherence applies to the defence spending of European nations. That is precisely the Government's policy; sadly, it is not the policy of his party.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Chris Bryant: What measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66959]
  Mr. David Borrow: What measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66966]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Ministry of Defence offers a wide range of support to those experiencing the transition between service and civilian life. For those service leavers eligible to receive standard career transition services, we will introduce on 1 September 2002 a tri-service resettlement manual to align resettlement procedures, policy and structures across the three services. We are also working on replacing the current system for funding resettlement training to allow service leavers greater flexibility for such training.
  Mr. Bryant: Many people in Wales will be delighted that the Welsh Guards will now be based in Wales. That will make a significant difference to the resettlement programme for people who have been in the armed forces. May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider extending the resettlement system to those who are compulsorily discharged so that everyone who is leaving the armed forces gets an equal chance of a job when they leave? Will he also consider the position in Wales. bearing in mind that nearly 10 per cent. of all those recruited to the Royal Air Force come from Wales, but that only one in five of the regiments that recruit in Wales will be based in Wales?
  Dr. Moonie: I listened to what my hon. Friend said about Wales with great care. At present, those being compulsorily discharged are not eligible to receive standard career transition services, despite the fact that they may well make up a large percentage of those experiencing problems following their discharge. We are considering changing the current rules to allow such members of the armed forces to receive specialist advice about finding jobs and accommodation and accessing further support should the initial advice fail. A six-month trial to assess the feasibility of this initiative is under way.
  Mr. Borrow: Surveys have shown that between 20 and 25 per cent. of rough sleepers have been in the services. What is the Ministry of Defence doing to ensure that those who have difficulty coping with civilian life are looked after when they leave the services?
  Dr. Moonie: In addition to working very closely with the rough sleepers unit, we have two specific projects—the spaces programme in Catterick, which is run by the Church of England, and Shelter's project in Colchester—that aim to secure accommodation for people who are compulsorily discharged from the armed forces and who are likely to experience difficulties in civilian life.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware that fast jet pilots are returning to civilian life with all too great alacrity? The challenge facing Her Majesty's Government is to offer them a career structure which will enable them to stay in the services and will match the remuneration that they receive outside. Has he

  5
  any new initiatives to offer? Very few fast-jet Fleet Air Arm pilots are left, and the Royal Air Force is also all too short of them.
  Dr. Moonie: We have a package that is aimed at retaining air crew. I am happy to say that it is beginning to have some effect.
  Dr. Andrew Murrison: In January, the Minister said that he was going to introduce something called a veteran's identity card. I assume that it will now be a veteran's entitlement card, so what will it entitle veterans to?
  Dr. Moonie: It is very dangerous to act on one's assumptions. I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have not, at present, finalised our proposals for an identity card, which is an extremely difficult thing to introduce. He rightly identifies the fact that the card should be worth more than simply another card to keep in one's wallet.

  Departmental Housing
  Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the sale of his Department's housing. [66960]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As the hon. Gentleman will know, most of the families quarters estate in England and Wales was sold in 1996 to a private company, Annington Homes Ltd., under a sale and leaseback agreement. Under the agreement, houses that subsequently become surplus to defence requirements are released to Annington for disposal. The identification of surplus properties for release is a matter for the Department. but the method of subsequent disposal or usage by Annington is entirely a matter for the company based on its commercial judgment.
  Dr. Cable: What estimate has the Department made of the cost to the Exchequer of this privatisation? The property was sold off before the current housing boom, but is now being leased back at market rates or new houses are having to be built. In my constituency, Ministry of Defence houses are in surplus, so they are being rented by the developer at commercial rates at no benefit to the taxpayer or to the armed forces? Is that not a scandal? What are the Government doing about it?
  Andrew Mackinlay: Who is responsible? Who are the guilty men?
  Dr. Moonie: I hesitate to point out yet again that that was a matter for the last Government. It was not the best deal that a Government have made, as I am sure we are all aware.
  There is no action that I can take to affect the sale of houses in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Those houses are the property of Annington Homes and our agreement with it must be
  6
  obeyed. It imposes a considerable cost on our budget to maintain the leaseback arrangements, but I can see no alternative.
  Mr. Robert Key: Before the Minister makes an irrevocable decision to sell off the houses owned by the Ministry of Defence at Dean Hill munitions depot, will he bear it in mind that by doing so he is destroying the heart of a rural community? Will he also have a word with Lockheed Martin, which said of the team that services our Paveway bombs at that establishment and is to be disbanded, that the work force at West Dean are quite simply the best?
  Dr. Moonie: The decision to change the use of that establishment is not a matter for me, but the sale of the houses is. If houses are surplus to requirements, we have a duty to ensure that we receive the best financial deal when we sell them. However, we always take account of social need. Where possible, the houses are transferred to an appropriate agency outwith the Ministry of Defence.

  Regular Army
  Sir Michael Spicer: If he will make a statement on changes in the trained strength of the regular army between 1997 and 2001. [66961]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Army strength stood at 101,199 as at 31 December 1997 and 100,914 as at 31 December 2001.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Given those figures, how can the Government plan a land war in Iraq?
  Mr. Ingram: As we have shown time and again, when our armed forces are called on to defend the interests of this country, they do so.
  Mr. James Gray: That is not an adequate response. There is widespread speculation in the papers and elsewhere that the United Kingdom's contribution to United States' action in Iraq will be one formed division of 20,000 to 25,000 soldiers. The Army is 6,000 under strength and the Government have not lived up to their SDR commitment to recruit 3,500 extras. When will the Army be fully recruited? How confident is the Minister about putting a formed division on the ground in Iraq or anywhere else?
  Mr. Ingram: There are two parts to that question. Our recruitment and retention measures have started to turn around the 15-year downward trend. As of June 2002, the whole Army strength stood at 101,503, which is an increase of 1,356 in the past 12 months. We are confident that we will continue to reverse the downward trend of those years. We have put many measures in place to produce a more positive return and they are beginning to pay off.

  Welbeck Army College
  John Mann: What his plans are for Welbeck army college; and if he will make a statement. [66962]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Following the defence training review, the Ministry of Defence has invited tenders for a private finance initiative contract to provide facilities and to run a defence sixth form college, which will educate potential officer recruits for engineering and other branches requiring technical understanding in the three armed services, and for the Ministry of Defence civil service.
  A final decision will not be made before December 2002, but if the decision is made to go ahead with the sixth form college contract it is likely to open on the site of the former Woodhouse barracks outside Loughborough in September 2005. The current Welbeck college would then be closed and the lease of Welbeck Abbey terminated.
  John Mann: Bearing in mind the fact that we have a national defence service and the shortage of such facilities in my area, will the Minister exercise caution in making decisions to move a facility from the north of England to a site further south? In particular, will he bear in mind the history of Welbeck army college and the importance to the local economy of the jobs that it creates as the 10th largest employer in my constituency?
  Dr. Moonie: I have to say that, as a Scot, I would always object to moving things further south if it could be avoided. [Interruption.] Opposition Members have no sense of humour.
  The move is only about 30 miles, and I can tell my hon. Friend that the Welbeck site is an excellent one, but its owner has indicated that he would like us to terminate the lease there, so we are faced with no option but to look for a development elsewhere. Given my hon. Friend's constituency interest, I should be happy to discuss the matter with him.

  Deepcut Barracks (Deaths)
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: What inquiries he is making in conjunction with the police into the deaths of soldiers at Deepcut barracks in recent years; and if he will make a statement. [66963]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The deaths of Privates Geoff Gray, on 17 September 2001, and James Collinson, on 23 March 2002, at Deepcut, are the subject of ongoing investigations by Surrey police, who have retained jurisdiction in each case. In addition, Surrey police announced on 5 July their intention to reinvestigate the cases of Privates Sean Benton and Cheryl James, who died at Deepcut in 1995.
  Those investigations are independent of the Ministry of Defence, although the Department, through the Army and Royal Military Police, is co-operating fully. Surrey police have been given full access to Army records, and the weapons involved in the incidents surrounding the deaths
  8
  of Privates Gray and Collinson have been passed to the police for ballistic examination. Army boards of inquiry into the deaths of Privates Gray and Collinson will be held in due course, but cannot commence until the associated police investigations are complete. Boards of inquiry into the deaths of Privates Benton and James were carried out at the time and copies of the final inquiry reports were passed to the next of kin.
  Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Minister for that answer. I echo the tributes that have already been paid by assistant chief constable Frank Clark and chief superintendent Gerry Kirby to Army officials, who are co-operating fully with Surrey police, as I learned from the police when I was briefed by them last week. I welcome the help that I have already had from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), and his private office. I hope that I will be able to meet Brigadier Clive Elderton and Colonel Raydon, the Army points of contact for the police.
  As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is a matter of grave concern in my constituency and more widely. When the police have completed their inquiries, will the Army continue to look into any further implications that there may be for military matters?
  Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Recognising his interest in the tragic death of his constituents, we have facilitated his access to the proceedings as much as possible. Clearly, what follows will depend on the outcome of the police inquiries into the deaths of Privates Gray and Collinson and of Privates Benton and James. If the need for any change is highlighted by the police investigations or by the subsequent Army boards of inquiry, we will respond positively, just as we responded to the inquiries in 1995 by making changes.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the Minister's statement. Will the Ministry of Defence set up a confidential phoneline so that members of the armed forces who served at Deepcut can contact the MOD to give information? That hotline should be advertised both to veterans who may have served at the camp and to all serving personnel who have been through it since 1995.
  Mr. Ingram: That is an interesting point, and I shall certainly consider it. However, given the public awareness of the matter and the existence of the ongoing police investigation, I should have thought that anyone with material information should inform the police in the first instance. Perhaps Surrey police, rather than the MOD, will want to take the hon. Gentleman's initiative on board.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister will know that we fully share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and other hon. Members, including the Minister himself, about the individual tragedies and their potential effect on morale at Deepcut and elsewhere. I am sure the Minister agrees that the quicker the inquiry is carried out by Surrey police, the better, but given the importance of maintaining confidence in military investigations, will he tell the House whether he has requested a copy of the report that

  9
  will be produced by Surrey police; whether he will ensure that that report is published; and whether he will undertake to make a statement to the House when that report appears?
  Mr. Ingram: It is for the police to decide what happens to their report. Following their report, the case goes to an Army board of inquiry; after that, if the families so request, and the offer is made to them, they can be given the full report. As I said, in 1995 some lessons were learned and new procedures were put in place, and if there are any new lessons to be learned from the recent tragic incidents, we will act quickly. As for the publication of the full report, the House should remember that it will have to deal with highly sensitive personal issues, and its publication might not be in the best interests of the family.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. John MacDougall: What recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on international terrorism; and if he will make a statement. [66964]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have regular discussions with my United States counterpart about international terrorism, including during our meeting in London on 5 June.
  Mr. MacDougall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Does he agree that the international coalition in the Balkans has been a great success and that the United States of America's intention to reduce the number of troops could influence stability in the area? The three presidents are due to meet shortly to discuss the matter. Premature withdrawal from the area should avoided as it would put at risk the stability that has been achieved. Will he assure me that there will be no threat to stability in the area?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and agree with him that operations in the Balkans have been an outstanding success. However, he will be aware that NATO Defence Ministers—not only the United States—have approved a series of changes to SFOR and KFOR following the joint operational area review.
  The review advocates a regional approach to NATO's peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. Both Bosnia and Kosovo will be treated as a single theatre for military planning purposes. That is because the security situation in the Balkans has changed since the initial deployment of SFOR and KFOR. NATO's operations will be restructured accordingly to provide a smaller, lighter and more flexible force that will be better able to meet current security challenges in the region. However, in no way does that reduction in troop numbers signal any reduction in NATO's commitment to the region. Rather, the changes are a sign of the alliance's achievements to date in bringing security and stability to the Balkans. The UK, with the rest of NATO, remains absolutely committed to
  10
  the security and stability of the Balkans and will continue to play its full role in achieving the international community's objectives for the region.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In his conversations with the US Secretary of Defence, has the right hon. Gentleman received information that convinces him of Iraqi involvement in support for international terrorism?
  Mr. Hoon: There can be no doubt that Iraq has supported terrorism, or that Iraq has sought to undermine the stability of both its neighbours and the wider world. Equally, however, I have not seen any information directly linking Iraq to the appalling events of 11 September last year.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: In the light of mounting press speculation over the past few days, will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the guise of the war against terrorism, British troops are not being situated in the middle east in preparation for participation in a war against Iraq?
  Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to my hon. Friend and the House that absolutely no decisions have been taken by the British Government in relation to operations in Iraq or anywhere near Iraq in the middle east? It follows, therefore, that no decisions have been taken to deploy British forces in that region for that reason. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that any such decision would be properly reported to the House, as right hon. and hon. Members properly expect.
  David Burnside: Has the Secretary of State, in his discussions with his United States counterpart, been made aware of evidence given to the Committee on International Relations—a congressional committee—that one terrorist organisation, FARC, has contributed $2 million since 1998 to the Provisional IRA in exchange for training FARC in urban terrorism? Will he co-operate with his American counterpart and the international policing and intelligence authorities so that if illegally laundered money is brought into the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland and filtered through to Sinn Fein-IRA, legal action is taken against those organisations?
  Mr. Hoon: I am well aware of the material that has been made known in the United States. It is a matter of discussion between the United Kingdom and the United States as to how best to deal with that, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that as this obviously is a matter for other Departments and Government agencies, the UK Government, and not simply the Ministry of Defence, will certainly take appropriate and effective action to deal with the information and links that he rightly set out.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether, under United States influence, the Labour Government are abandoning the policy of the last Conservative Administration and all previous British Governments? During the Gulf war, John Major ruled out, explicitly and repeatedly in the House, the use of British nuclear weapons against Iraq, even in reply to a chemical or biological attack on our forces, on

  11
  the grounds that a proportionate response could be made using conventional weapons and that Britain would never breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
  Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear, as I have made clear to my hon. Friend and the House on a number of occasions, that the British Government's policy in that respect has not changed? We remain committed to a range of international agreements that have been supported by successive Governments. That remains the position, but may I make it clear to him that that position has always been within the wider remit of international law? I have made it clear to him and the House that the British Government would only use nuclear weapons consistent with our obligations under international law.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about the assessment agreed by the United States and the United Kingdom of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda? While there may be no hard and fast evidence of a direct connection, as the Secretary of State has put it, between the Iraqi regime and the events of 11 September last year, is there an agreed assessment of links between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, and what exactly is it?
  Mr. Hoon: We keep an open mind about the allegations of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. I have made it quite clear previously that there is no direct evidence to link Saddam Hussein's regime and the appalling events of 11 September, but if and when new information comes to light, we shall certainly investigate it. Let us not be in any doubt about Iraq. We cannot ignore the threat that it poses to the international community. We have always made it clear that the world would be a much better and safer place without Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. Jenkin: I certainly concur with the right hon. Gentleman's final comments. It is clear that, while no decision has been made about what form of military action, if any, may be taken, the United States and the United Kingdom are making preparations for the deployment of a major force for possible combat operations. In that regard, may I invite the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some reassurance about the latest information on the performance of the SA80A2 rifle, which will obviously be vital in any contribution that we make to a military coalition?
  Mr. Hoon: I emphasise not only that no decisions have been taken as to form, but that no decisions have been taken about military operations against Iraq other than those that are properly conducted to protect the people of Iraq under the no-fly zones—our air crew continue to face real danger in carrying out a humanitarian operation.
  With reference to the SA80A2, there has undoubtedly been a significant improvement in that rifle's capability as a result of the recent upgrade. Equally, as I found for myself on a very recent visit to Afghanistan, there are concerns among the Royal Marines, who face extremely difficult environmental conditions in Afghanistan, about the reliability of the rifle. That is being assessed. The week that I was in Afghanistan—the week before last—a team from the manufacturers and from the Ministry of Defence was there, specifically to put the rifle through
  12
  still more exacting tests. The team has prepared a report, which the Ministry of Defence and I will examine carefully, to determine the best way forward as regards the rifle. I share the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of right hon. and hon. Members right across the House. We must ensure that our armed forces have a weapon upon which they can rely.
  Mr. Jenkin: Again, I fully endorse the Secretary of State's last comments. If we are to make an effective contribution to the military coalition—if there is one—the soldiers whom we deploy must have 100 per cent. confidence in their rifle. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the exercise in Afghanistan involving a platoon of 30, firing 90 rounds each, resulted in 20 out of the 30 rifles jamming? Can he confirm that the concern is that the cleaning regime and the handling regime of the rifle may not have been correct? Will he also confirm that unless he can restore 100 per cent. confidence in the rifle, he does not rule out scrapping the SA80 and replacing it with an alternative?
  Mr. Hoon: I will not go into the details of what is contained in a report that is still being analysed in the Ministry of Defence, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assure the House, that those matters will be properly set out before the House in due course. I want to ensure that there is confidence in the weapon. The hon. Gentleman knows, as do other right hon. and hon. Members from their own military experience, that there is no such thing as a 100 per cent. successful rifle.
  A member of my constituency party with military experience asked me at a recent meeting whether I could confirm that both kalashnikovs and M16s routinely jam. That is the position. In certain circumstances and certain environmental conditions, any rifle will be subject to jamming. We must ensure that our armed forces have confidence in their weapon, and that that weapon is properly tested, and properly used and prepared for the missions that they have to undertake.
  David Winnick: In the context of international terrorism, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate Pakistan's authorities on having brought to justice those responsible and found guilty of the murder of the American journalist? Does my right hon. Friend recall the video that was made by the murderers, including the end of the journalist's life, with his head being cut off? Does that not illustrate how important it is to fight and campaign on an international scale against those vile, evil, racist murderers?
  Mr. Hoon: I was recently in Islamabad, where I had the privilege of meeting the Pakistani President. We discussed the wide range of co-operation undertaken between Pakistan, the United Kingdom and other members of the international coalition against terrorism. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to Pakistan for the efforts that it has made to tackle terrorism. We want those efforts to continue and, along the border with Afghanistan, we want them to be redoubled.

  Armed Forces (Recruitment)
  Chris Grayling: How many people were recruited to the armed forces in 2001. [66965]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): In the last financial year, 23,578 people were recruited to the armed forces. That equates to 95 per cent. of the overall recruitment target. Although improvement is still needed, this figure represents a significant advance over the previous year's achievement, when intake levels reached 90 per cent. of the tri-service target.
  Chris Grayling: A moment ago, the Minister was praising his own recruitment and retention initiatives for the armed forces, yet despite those new entrants, the number of people in the armed forces fell again in the year up to last February. What will the hon. Gentleman do to stop this haemorrhage of experienced, trained personnel from our armed forces?
  Mr. Ingram: We will continue to ensure that we provide the best quality of life and conditions in the armed forces. Major improvements have been made in the past few years—a big step up on what happened when the hon. Gentleman's party was in government. We seek to give personnel the best equipment available, which is why we have a major series of procurement programmes; we value all that we ask them to do for us. Of course, we must recognise that recruitment and retention are difficult against the background of a successful economy. That is part of the issue that we are having to deal with. The Opposition may not want a successful economy, but I think that this country does.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: When considering recruitment to Her Majesty's forces, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the many people in Nepal who are anxious to serve in the Gurkha regiments? Will he explain the future of the Gurkha regiments?
  Mr. Ingram: The Gurkhas have given us good and loyal service for many years, and we anticipate that they will continue to do so for many years to come. We have recently rebrigaded the Gurkhas and I know that that has gone down well in the regiments. I pay fulsome tribute to all that they have done and will do in future.
  Mr. David Laws: With today's spending review setting new targets for the Ministry of Defence over the next three years, will the Minister explain why the Ministry has yet to meet the manning targets that were set for it three years ago?
  Mr. Ingram: I think that I have explained some of the difficulties that we face. Every time Opposition Members say something negative about the armed forces—most of the negatives are based on press speculation—it can be a drag on recruitment and, indeed, retention. The language that is used must be chosen carefully. All of us must recognise that, with a successful economy, it is difficult to recruit and retain personnel in the armed forces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the reality. I hope that he will also accept that, because of all the initiatives that we have taken in recent years, the downward trend of the past 15 years is now being
  14
  reversed. We are working against a difficult backcloth. Some of it is based on success, but it also includes problems that happened in the past, which we are now tackling successfully.

  Racism
  Kevin Brennan: What measures he will take to eliminate racism in the armed forces. [66967]
  Simon Hughes: What measures his Department is taking to increase the number of members of the armed forces from ethnic minorities. [66968]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The armed forces are committed to diversity in general and recruiting from ethnic minority communities in particular. All three services have established ethnic minority recruiting teams or diversity action teams and located them in areas of high ethnic minority population. The services undertake numerous initiatives aimed at encouraging ethnic minority personnel to join the armed forces. They have put in place a wide range of measures to promote equality and eliminate racism. Through strong leadership, education and training at all levels there is a determination to root out any form of unacceptable behaviour. While much has been achieved, it is recognised that there is still more to do.
  Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Three years ago to the day, the son of a constituent of mine was sentenced to 112 days' detention for being absent without leave from the Royal Welch Fusiliers, having been subjected to a catalogue of racist abuse in his platoon, including physical assault. This young man had been awarded an engraved tankard for being the finest of his group of recruits in the armed forces. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that institutionalised racism will not and is not being tolerated in today's armed forces?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not know about the specific instance of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I can say that there is an absolute commitment to zero tolerance of racism in the armed forces. Indeed, since 1998, more than 4,000 senior officers and equal opportunities advisers have been trained in equal opportunities by the tri-service equal opportunities training centre at Shrivenham. Equal opportunities training is also undertaken widely across all three services. We clearly have to ensure proper education throughout all ranks of the armed forces. As I said, the best assurance that I can give him is that zero tolerance is the watchword.
  Simon Hughes: Ministers will be aware that although the Army has recently done very well in increasing the numbers of people it recruits from ethnic minorities, the Navy and the Air Force are still on only about 1 per cent., and officer levels in respect of those with ethnic minority backgrounds are still just over 1 per cent. What is being done to ensure that the Navy and the Air Force move quickly to achieve their targets and to ensure that

  15
  officers — as well as people in the lower ranks on lower pay and with less influence—represent all communities in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Ingram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point, and more has to be done. The more commitment that right hon. and hon. Members bring to that through highlighting the issue and trying to encourage more people from the ethnic communities into the armed forces, the better served we will all be. That said, I point out to him that some 14 events have taken place in his constituency. We have particularly targeted not only his constituency, but London in its entirety, because of the large concentration of ethnic communities in the city and surrounding areas. I hope that we can play out to the RAF and the Navy the lessons that have been learned from the success of the Army, which has exceeded its targets. A lot of commitment is put into the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can engage in the work that is done in his constituency, where we have been particularly active. I shall make sure that he is invited to some of those events.

  Discharges
  Mr. Roger Williams: How many soldiers under 18 were refused discharge as of right because they had completed their training in the last 12 months. [66969]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): None. Discharge as of right is exactly that—a right. No valid applications from soldiers seeking such discharge are refused, although commanding officers may seek to persuade individuals to stay if they feel that they have the potential for a good career.
  Mr. Williams: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the help that he has given me in dealing with a case in my constituency whereby a young soldier committed criminal offences in an attempt to leave the Army because discharge as of right was not readily available to him.
  Does the Minister agree that many young men and women join the Army with great enthusiasm, only to realise that it is not their career of choice? Would not it be better for the morale and effectiveness of the armed forces if discharge as of right was available to all young people up to the age of 18, regardless of whether they had completed their training?
  Dr. Moonie: Up to the age of 18 no application is refused once it is clear that the alternative of trying to keep someone in will not succeed, although that is clearly a difficult step to take. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Many people adjust very badly to leaving home and joining the armed forces, but many of those who leave subsequently rejoin.

  Defence Fire Service
  Angus Robertson: What representations he has received in favour of privatising the defence fire service. [66970]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): None.
  Angus Robertson: I am certain that the Minister shares my concerns about matters of fire safety at RAF bases, especially bearing in mind last week's report by the Civil Aviation Authority into the near collision of three Tornadoes based in my constituency at RAF Lossiemouth. Given that he is unable to name one single supporter of the privatisation of the defence fire service—not even among Labour Members or from the trade union—will he reconsider what even the leader of the Conservative party described as "a privatisation too far"?
  Mr. Ingram: We do not need to take any lessons from the leader of the Tory party on that matter. It is interesting to note the new collusion between the interests of the independent nationalist party and the previously self-proclaimed unionist party.
  The hon. Gentleman uses terminology that I do not recognise—that is why I gave the answer that I did. We are considering the delivery of services across the whole of the air support services. Some areas already use private contractors. There is a mixed economy. The bids that are put in are subjected to in-depth analysis to ensure that we get best value for money and retain the integrity of the vital support that is required from the work force at those bases.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is campaigning for part of the airfield in his constituency to be used by private commercial operators. Who does he think would give support to those commercial operators—private companies or the RAF? He has to get his argument sorted out.
  Jim Knight: When considering the matter, does the Minister differentiate between fire services in support of deployed forces and those that are based permanently in the United Kingdom? I have observed fire services at the secure site at Aldermaston acting effectively. With right my hon. Friend, I have also observed the fire service that was deployed at Kabul airport operating successfully, but clearly not in the private sector. Such differentiation is important.
  Mr. Ingram: I assure my hon. Friend that that will form part of our overall consideration.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Before the Government proceed with that further privatisation, will they consider carefully the alarming anxiety caused in Shoeburyness by their decision to abolish the Ministry of Defence police in September and replace them with a civilian force'? Is not it irresponsible and dangerous to place civilian police, who cannot provide an armed response to protect the public, in charge of a site where a lot of ammunition is stored?
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are consulting widely. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has direct responsibility for the decision, has given all the assurances that he wants.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Has not my right hon. Friend been far too nice

  17
  to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson)? If he and his colleagues had their way and the Scottish people were foolish enough to vote for independence, there would be no RAF Lossiemouth.
  Mr. Ingram: I was enjoying that question so much that I did not want to rise. I note that the leader of the nationalist Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has just entered the Chamber. Perhaps he would like to intervene to explain his party's policy on NATO. Under it, Scotland would not be an aspirant country. Clearly, an independent Scotland would put at risk much of the defence footprint there, which is provided through the United Kingdom.

  Royal Marine Commandos
  Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the future role of Royal Marine commandos in the war against terrorism. [66971]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Royal Marines of 45 Commando are returning from their successful deployment in Afghanistan and will be having a period of rest and recuperation. The vast majority will have returned by 19 July and the remainder, mostly logistics personnel, will return as soon as possible thereafter.
  As I told the House on 16 October last year and most recently on 20 June, this is not a conventional campaign and it will vary in pace and intensity. Any future deployment of the Royal Marine commandos will depend on the situation at the time and the specific capabilities required.
  Michael Fabricant: I am relieved that 45 Commando will soon enjoy some rest and relaxation. The Secretary of State knows that 40, 42 and 45 Commandos have been operational in the past few months. What consideration will he give to a change in the order of battle to create a fourth commando, given the current circumstances and the fight against terror?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right. Elements of 40 Commando remain at Bagram to provide essential support to UK forces that remain in Afghanistan. However, its next role will be to act as the lead commando group for the joint rapid reaction force. The Ministry of Defence and I are always prepared to consider proposals for augmenting the excellent work of our Royal Marines. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion may be one way forward.
  Glenda Jackson: Surely a successful prosecution of the war against terrorism depends on more than the undoubted bravery of Royal Marine commandos. If the British Government support the US Government and engage in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq—an action that many of my constituents
  18
  believe to be illegal and immoral—would not it shatter the international community's current response to the war against terrorism?
  Mr. Hoon: I have already answered that question, not only today but at previous defence questions. To avoid doubt, I repeat that no decisions have been made about military operations against Iraq.

  Russia and NATO
  Mr. David Atkinson: If he will make a statement on steps he is taking to improve the relationship between Russia and NATO. [66972]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United Kingdom, especially my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has taken a leading role in the recent historic transformation of NATO's relationship with Russia. The UK will continue to work to make the new partnership a success. Indeed, the fact that I am leaving for St. Petersburg this afternoon to meet my opposite number, Sergei Ivanov, shows the importance that I personally attach to developing the relationship with Russia. We are building on the existing range of successful bilateral contacts and initiatives, including ship visits, our military resettlement programme, and our contribution to Russia's chemical weapons disposal programme.
  Mr. Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that, less than three years ago, NATO was rightly condemning Russia for using disproportionate brutality in the second Chechen war? Does he agree that, for Russia's relations with NATO to become ideal, Russia must be required to hold to account those responsible for such war crimes, and to introduce a political solution that will restore peace, democracy and human rights to Chechnya?
  Mr. Hoon: One of the advantages of having a mature and sophisticated relationship with Russia is that a range of issues, including the situation in Chechnya, can be properly and effectively discussed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of Russia, will recognise that it is much better to talk to Russia about these issues than simply to have the kind of stand-off that was characteristic of the cold war.
  Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend know that, last week, a number of Members had the pleasure of hearing Mikhail Gorbachev speaking in Committee Room 10? Does he not agree that it is fantastic that the vision of a common European home that Gorbachev was putting forward in 1986 is at last beginning to be established through the good relations between NATO and Russia?
  Mr. Hoon: I, too, had the privilege of meeting Mikhail Gorbachev, and it is certainly my view that he has never been given the credit that he deserves internationally for the efforts that he made at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is also a man who is not properly

  19
  regarded in his home country, and perhaps he has had to come here to the United Kingdom to receive the recognition that he rightly deserves.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Before my right hon. Friend visits St. Petersburg, will he discuss with the Foreign Secretary the problems relating to Kaliningrad? What is being proposed by the European Union is equivalent to United States citizens travelling from Alaska to Oregon, and needing to have a visa to go through Canada. Does my right hon. Friend not realise that that is quite unacceptable, grossly unfair to the Russian federation, and needs to be addressed with some urgency if we are to promote good relations with our friend, the Russian federation?
  Mr. Hoon: As I said earlier, I will be going to St. Petersburg this evening. The Foreign Secretary is somewhere in the far east—in India, I think—at the moment, so I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires just at the moment. The Foreign Secretary and I discuss these matters, however, and I have certainly had the opportunity to discuss Kaliningrad during my visits to each of the Baltic states. I recognise that there are issues still to be resolved, not least in relation to whether the Baltic states may enjoy membership of the European Union.

  Conflict Prevention
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: If he will make a statement on the contribution of his Department to conflict prevention. [66973]
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence contributes to the Government's interdepartmental conflict prevention strategy, in collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development. We provide military training to support the reform of the armed forces of partner countries, and to develop their capacity to take part in peace support operations. We also provide training and education, and both military and civilian expertise, to support wider security sector reform. The Ministry of Defence also contributes forces to operations in support of conflict prevention and peace-building. In the past year, these have included deployments in Sierra Leone, Macedonia and Afghanistan, as well as continuing commitments in a wide range of locations, from Bosnia and Cyprus to the Congo and Georgia.
  Mr. Hendrick: Given the devastation that conflict has caused the peoples of Africa, especially in Sierra Leone, is not it essential that we continue with the pooled arrangements for conflict prevention if we are to prevent a conflict in countries such as the Republic of the Congo?
  Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will be aware that there has been increased recognition of the extent of the problems in sub-Saharan Africa and in other parts of Africa. Considerable effort is being made. Sierra Leone was a good example of where we contributed to the stabilisation of the country. We must be conscious of our successes, and also of any other problems close to countries that we have helped to bring back to full stability. I thank my hon. Friend for that question.

Spending Review
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The long-term funding that we announce today for Britain's public services is possible because the bills of economic failure in unemployment and debt have been radically reduced; the state of our public finances is strong; and, despite uncertainties in the global economy, inflation is under control, interest rates have been low and stable, and employment and growth continue to rise.
In this period, with global financial markets of greater instability, our task and our determination, as always, is to remain vigilant and committed to sustaining monetary and fiscal stability, with the strength to take the right long-term decisions for Britain.
I can tell the House that, over the economic cycle, we will not only meet all our fiscal disciplines and rules, but we are on track to meet our fiscal disciplines and rules with a margin for prudence even on the most cautious case—[Interruption.]—and even on the most cautious assumptions. Indeed, it is so that we can steer a course of monetary and fiscal stability across the economic cycle that we have reduced net debt from 44 per cent. of national income in 1997 to 30.4 per cent. last year, which is in contrast to 41 per cent. in America, 53 per cent. in the euro area and almost 60 per cent. in Japan.
As we set out in the Budget, Britain's debt has been reduced to the lowest level of national income in the G7, and the lowest of all our major European competitors. Having last year paid off more debt in one year than all previous Governments in the last 50 years, I can report that this year debt interest payments will be lower as a share of national income than they have been at any time in the last century, since the first world war.
Twenty years ago, debt interest payments consumed 4 per cent. of our national income. Debt interest is now half that, at 2 per cent., which is a saving worth £20 billion a year. Those extra resources have made it possible to recruit more nurses, more doctors, more teachers and more police than at any time in the past two decades.
Twenty years ago—indeed, 10 years ago£1.6 per cent. of national income was spent on the costs of unemployment. Today. I can again report that this year we will spend just 0.4 per cent.—savings worth a further £10 billion a year.
It is through maintaining a steady hand on the public finances at all times that we are able to meet our fiscal rules and match our reforms with new resources, so that efficient, strong public services play their part in delivering a modern Britain of greater opportunity and greater security not just for some, but for everyone.
I can report to the House that, holding strictly to the total spending envelope I set out in the Budget, we are raising departmental spending from £240 billion this year to £263 billion next year, £280 billion in 2004-05, and £301 billion in 2005-06—in total, by 2006, there will be £61 billion a year more for improved public services.
Ten years ago, only 50p of every pound of additional expenditure—50 per cent.—went to the public services, the rest having to be spent on debt and social security, whereas in this review almost 80p in every additional pound is going directly to improving public services, and
22
of the remaining 20p—20 per cent.—most is being spent not on debt interest and unemployment, but on improved pensioner and children's benefits.
In each area of service delivery, from housing to education, from policing to defence, we are tying new resources to reform and results, and developing a modern way for efficient public services, which includes setting demanding national targets; monitoring performance by independent and open audit and inspection; giving front-line staff the power and flexibility to deliver; extending choice; rewarding success; and turning round failing services.
I can also tell the House that over the next three years, as we reverse the backlog in investment, our projections from 2006—other than the commitments to health paid for by national insurance—are based on real-terms increases in spending on public services at 2½ per cent. a year.
With this review's decisions we will not only continue to address past decades of chronic underinvestment in education, health, transport and housing, but rise to new challenges in a changed global environment—international challenges including the essential duty of fighting terrorism, and challenges here at home as global economic competition brings vastly increased opportunities but also increased insecurities. The role of Government is—by expanding educational, employment and economic opportunity, and by encouraging stronger communities—to enable and empower people to make globalisation work for their families and their future.
First, to respond to global insecurities and the new fight against terrorism, the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing that the budget for our armed forces, who have served our country overseas with courage and distinction not only in Afghanistan but recently in Kosovo, Macedonia and Sierra Leone, will rise from £29.3 billion this year to £32.8 billion by 2005-06. That rise of £3½ billion a year is the largest sustained real-terms increase in defence spending for 20 years.
Since the tragic events of 11 September, international co-operation and, led by the Prime Minister, Britain's international engagement have assumed a new importance, so the Foreign Office's and Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.3 billion this year to £1.5 billion by 2005-06. Within that budget we will strengthen the work of the British Council, whose budget will rise from £157 million a year to £185 million by 2005-06. The budget for the BBC World Service, whose 160 million-a-week audience is now its largest ever, will be £38 million a year higher by 2005-06.
When it comes to meeting the urgent moral challenge of combating international poverty, the question for us is how a strengthened commitment by our country can inspire a step change in aid from all the richest countries so that we can fulfil the millennium development goals: to halve world poverty, cut child mortality by two thirds and deliver primary education for every child. The Secretary of State for International Development is announcing a rise in United Kingdom aid from the £2 billion that it was in 1997 and the £3.3 billion that it was last year to £4.9 billion by 2006. That is the biggest ever rise—a 35 per cent. real-terms increase since 2001, and a 93 per cent. real-terms increase since 1997. By raising the contribution figure of 0.26 per cent. of national income that we inherited and today's 0.32 per cent. figure

23
to 0.4 per cent. by 2006, and by untying aid and targeting aid on the poorest countries, we are ensuring that more money goes towards tackling poverty than has gone towards it at any time in the history of British aid.
Starting with our dialogue with churches and nongovernmental organisations next week and proceeding to September's Johannesburg summit—at which the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister will be present—and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings later in the month, we want this new finance from our country to be an engagement and a signal for a new $50 billion international financing facility involving all rich countries: a new alliance against poverty which recognises that by meeting our moral obligations to the poorest of the world we advance opportunity and security for all the world.
At the heart of our spending decisions this year is a set of major economic reforms that will expand our national wealth so that Britain can become more productive and prosperous, and we can make the most of the new opportunities of the global economy. Invention and innovation are the key to long-term national competitiveness, so in partnership with the Wellcome Trust—which I thank—we will create and fund a new national centre for excellence in science teaching. After a rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget and a move away from the old loss-making subsidies of the past, I can announce a 10 per cent. real-terms annual rise in the science budget and, by 2005-06, an extra £1¼ billion a year for British science.
Britain must not make the mistakes in science education in the next generation that we made in the last, and so to fund a new generation of young British scientists, we will implement the Roberts report—which means on average, a £4,000 rise in science post-doctoral Research Council pay, with the average stipend for Research Council PhD students rising to more than £13,000 by 2005-06. Even after inflation, that figure is twice what it was in 1997.
We will encourage a third role for universities beyond teaching and research—the commercialisation of new discoveries. The higher education innovation fund will rise to £90 million a year by 2005-06, to ensure that more British inventions become British manufactured products, creating British jobs.
To remove barriers to productivity growth in the north and in the south of our country, the Deputy Prime Minister will this week announce reforms to our planning system, including new business planning zones to ensure development and to create jobs in high-unemployment areas. He will also announce new funds and plans for meeting housing needs south and north—throughout the country—ensuring that we make good use of the space in our existing towns and cities, while protecting valuable countryside around them.
Because a successful rural economy is vital both to rural areas and to our entire economy, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is announcing today that she will implement the core recommendations of the Curry report to promote sustainable farming. To make this possible, and to improve Britain's flood defences, her budget will rise
24
from £2.5 billion this year to £2.9 billion in 2005-06—an annual average real rise of 2.7 per cent. a year after inflation.
To secure balanced development in every region—tackling regional weaknesses, and building on regional manufacturing and industrial strengths—we must decentralise decision making out of Whitehall. I can announce that our nine regional development agencies will now have a strengthened local role in transport, tourism and housing. To pilot further devolution from Whitehall for services to small businesses and adult skills, and to reverse decades of indifference and neglect of our regions in this country, the budgets for RDAs will rise from £1.6 billion a year to—by 2005-06—£2 billion a year, as local people make more of the decisions about meeting local needs.
Addressing the long-term underinvestment and neglect of transport is vital both to economic prosperity and to the quality of life. To deliver the 10-year transport plan, the transport budget will rise from £7.7 billion this year to £11.6 billion in 2005-06—in total, over the next three years, a 12 per cent. real-terms increase. The Transport Secretary will also consult on the long-term need to increase airport capacity in our country.
To secure a more competitive environment and to root out anti-competitive practices, the budget of the Office of Fair Trading will increase from £34 million this year to £55 million by 2005-06. We are determined that everything is done to ensure the highest corporate standards, and next week, in the light of Enron, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will put before the House the interim report on accounting and auditing reform.
There are now 1.5 million more men and women in work than there were in 1997. Unemployment in Britain is today lower than in Japan, lower than in America, and lower than in every other major European country, and for the first time for 50 years Britain has the lowest unemployment of any major industrialised nation. However, because we will never be complacent as long as people who can work are out of work, we need further reforms that match rights and responsibilities to help people acquire more flexible skills and new jobs, so that they can succeed in the changed global economy.
Having ensured in the last five years that 1,750,000 men and women have benefited from the new deal, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will roll out nationwide by 2006 the successful Jobcentre Plus one-stop service that will help young and adult unemployed, lone parents and the disabled who are seeking work to find the jobs that they need.
Having already raised further education student numbers to 4 million and raised modern apprenticeships from 75,000 in 1997 to 220,000 today, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will announce new money and tough targets to reform further education, improve workplace skills and expand modern apprenticeships to more than 300,000 young people in 2004. To ensure that British business has the skills it urgently needs today, the Home Secretary will expand the work permit system for key workers from 50,000 in 1997 to an expected 175,000 next year.
While, overall, there are 60,000 more small businesses than there were in 1997, even more British people should have the opportunity to become self-employed and to start

25
their own firm. So the corporate tax cuts in the Budget and the stamp duty exemptions for high unemployment areas are matched in this review with new help for start-up businesses by raising the Small Business Service budget and by extending and increasing the phoenix fund from £100 million to £150 million.
To meet our long-term aim that in every area of the country every school pupil is introduced not just to the world of work but to the world of business, we will fund an expansion of enterprise education from less than 1,000 schools today to all our 3,500 secondary schools.
One of the greatest challenges of the future is to protect and safeguard our environment through sustainable development and to advance towards the 2010 targets—20 per cent. less carbon dioxide emissions, 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources—the spending review will, in addition to financing the £100 million fund for the development of renewable technologies, provide in 2005–06 an additional £38 million for sustainable energy initiatives.
Let me now turn to the public service investments this spending review makes to help those who contribute through public service to build stronger, more secure communities. We know that an enterprising economy with opportunity for all requires a fair society where there is security for all. But we also know—those of us who believe in the importance of public services—that we have a special duty to ensure that public money is spent wisely and efficiently and we are as determined to secure value for money as we are to secure money for our services.
So, first, the Government are today publishing new public service agreements setting out agreed outcome targets and reforms for each Government Department. Secondly, with independent audit and statutory inspection, Departments and agencies will be fully accountable for performance against targets: so, in addition to the new police standards unit, we are creating the health and social care inspectorates and a reformed criminal justice inspection regime and a single housing inspectorate.
In each service area, the review's decisions promote choice and devolve responsibility, authority and flexibility from the centre out to local and regional decision making—down to primary care trusts, which this Labour Government created, to head teachers and governors in schools, to police commanders on the front line, and to local service providers. One essential feature of this year's spending decisions is that voluntary, charitable and community organisations will also receive significantly increased funding to support their chosen role in delivering local services. Just as sustained economic growth demands responsibility in setting private sector pay, so too a sustained commitment to better public services demands responsibility in setting public sector pay.
When a service is underfunded, or when it is underperforming, people are let down. So while public service providers who perform well will be given more resources and more authority to innovate, in this review Departments have set as a condition for more resources that failing institutions will be dealt with early and decisively. Poor-performing schools will be subject to takeover by new leadership or by a neighbouring school, or closed and reopened as a new school. Failing local education authorities will be subject to takeover by high
26
performing authorities. Poorly performing colleges will be subject to loss of funding from learning and skills councils, with provisions for necessary college mergers. Poor-performing social services and housing departments will have new directorates and senior managers. Poor-performing local authorities will first be subject to a recovery plan to tackle bad performance and, if that is insufficient, subject to new managers or takeover of functions. Just as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking power for police reform, prisons that underperform will need to improve or face new management drafted in. However, in every case, at the same time, we will incentivise and reward success with high-performing institutions receiving new resources and greater autonomy—new freedoms and more flexibility.
So just as in the Budget resources for health were matched by reforms in health, so too behind each decision we are making today—from housing to crime, from urban renewal to education—the Government's standard is clear: for more given in resources more is required in results. This is the vision for public services, and on that basis I can announce new investments that will improve our services and strengthen our communities.
After long decades of persistent neglect that have left Britain's housing stock inadequate and substandard, since 1997 we have increased our investment in housing from £2.3 billion to £4.8 billion this year. And now, as the demand for new and better housing grows in a growing economy, it is time for a step change with the most sustained rise in housing investment for 25 years.
On Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on his reforms: new homes for social tenants and key workers—including low-cost home ownership in London and the south-east—and plans to tackle homelessness and upgrade old properties in all regions where housing need exists. To pay for this, we will by 2005-06 invest £5.9 billion a year in housing. Since 1997, this will mean a 105 per cent. real-terms increase in the housing budget over and above what the previous Government did.
Neighbourhood renewal is not just about bricks and mortar. It is about renewing community life, and this depends upon more economic activity, more businesses and more jobs. Having raised investment in economic and social regeneration in 88 hard-pressed neighbourhoods of our country to £300 million this year, we will increase the neighbourhood renewal fund to £525 million a year by 2005-06.
As we sign public service agreements with our local authorities to match resources to reform, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will set out details on Thursday of an annual real-terms rise for local government of 4.2 per cent. a year over and above inflation—well above the average settlements until 1997.
The mark of a decent society is the dignity that it accords to its elderly, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is announcing the extra resources necessary to deliver, from October next year, the pension credit to nearly half of all pensioner households. This will be worth up to 14 extra per week for single pensioners. It is a measure for which I hope there will soon be all-party support. Following the Pickering and Sandler reports, a consultative Green Paper on pensions will be published in the autumn, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will

27
announce how the extra 6 per cent. real-terms growth in social services budgets will improve community care for the elderly.
Britain's disabled need and deserve a better deal too, so I can also announce that having created the Disability Rights Commission to oversee and enforce the rights of disabled men and women, we will raise its budget to 2006 by 14 per cent. in real terms.
I have said to the House in the past that our children are 20 per cent. of our population but 100 per cent. of our future. So, to realise our goals of nursery education, better child care and a sure start for the very young, we are announcing today, after a major interdepartmental review, details of a new integrated budget for children for child care and early years learning. It will be worth, by 2005-06, a total of £1½ billion a year. Following the review, there will be new ministerial arrangements for child care policy.
By October 2004, every three and four-year-old who needs it will have a nursery school place. We are also expanding the successful sure start experiment to meet the needs of up to 400,000 children. We will now increase investment in child care with funding for an additional 250,000 child care places.
Parents have said to us that communities are far stronger and children far more secure where there is a focal point in a community for a wide range of children's services, so I can announce that we will fund the creation of children's centres across the country, providing services for an additional 300,000 children by 2005-06.
At the heart of the next stage of children's services are voluntary and community partnerships, which are increasingly a vital link between the needs of children and the help that they receive. In each of our constituencies, there are hundreds of voluntary and community organisations. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of volunteers help millions of people, giving everyone in Britain, at different times in our lives, the chance to serve, and to get the balance right between what we can do for our country and what our country does for us.
To enable the vitality and independence of the charity, community and voluntary sector to grow and flourish, the Chief Secretary is announcing details of a new three-year fund of £125 million for voluntary organisations to draw on for their public service work. I can also confirm that the budget for the children's fund—helping volunteers and charities that assist vulnerable children—will be £200 million a year to 2006. There will be an additional £25 million over three years to support the growth of local parental support, and we are also extending the £20 million support to community amateur sports clubs, not just for one year, as we have announced previously, but for each year to 2006.
Since museums were opened free to the public, attendances have risen by 75 per cent. The Secretary of State is announcing a budget increase for culture, media and sport—including additional funds for tourism—and the budget will rise from £1.3 billion in total this year to £1.6 billion by 2005-06. With this increase, Britain will maintain free access to national museums, invest in regional museums, and expand local creative arts partnerships. To open up sport to all, not only will there
28
be additional support for sports clubs but funds for much-needed investment in school sports facilities and new finance for extra sports coaching in the years up to 2006, in time for the next World cup. Similar allocations are necessary in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Stronger communities must be safer communities, where rights are matched by responsibilities. We are therefore committed to getting more police out on the streets and to making crime fighting more effective. With his new reforms in place, the Home Secretary will announce details of the rise in the Home Office budget from £10.7 billion this year to £13.5 billion by 2005-06—an increase of nearly £2.9 billion a year by 2005-06 to ensure that, in addition to police numbers rising next year to 130,000, reforms to speed up the asylum system can be made, internal security will be strengthened, and the criminal justice system can tackle both crime and the causes of crime. The long-term vision for the criminal justice system—how we match policies for opportunity with policies for security—will be set out by the Home Secretary when he publishes the criminal justice White Paper.
Ministers in the devolved Administrations will make separate announcements outlining their plans to allocate the additional £4.1 billion a year set aside by 2005-06 for all devolved functions in Scotland, the £2.3 billion a year more by 2005-06 for Wales, including continued funding to 2006 of objective 1, and the £1.2 billion a year more by 2005-06 for Northern Ireland, including funding of the European peace initiative.
Finally, I turn to education. What happens in our schools in this decade will shape our society and our economy for much of this century. We cannot equip children for the 21st century in classrooms built in the 19th century. Capital investment to modernise our schools, which was raised from £680 million in 1997 to £2¼ billion last year, will therefore be raised again—to £4½ billion a year by 2005-06. That represents a 400 per cent. real terms increase since 1997, backing up our additional 20,000 teachers in the classrooms.
The increased funds for investment, improved access and excellence in further and higher education—including our universities, and building on the 100,000 extra students since 1997—and the reforms essential to meet our targets will be announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, but we can achieve our goals for further and higher education only if we persuade more young people to stay on at school. Thirty years ago, the school-leaving age was raised to 16, but Britain cannot reach its full potential as long as nearly a quarter of 16 to 19-year-olds are not in education or training, and Britain, for decades, has suffered the worst drop-out rate from school of any industrialised country.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has set out her reforms to the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds. We must ensure now that no one is prevented, through lack of income, from staying on for the qualifications that they undoubtedly need.
Already in a third of England, income-related education maintenance allowances have substantially raised staying-on rates at school. So I can announce that, from September 2004, we will extend this successful experiment to all the country, with education maintenance allowances worth up to £1,500 a year for those who stay

29
on and study. We will fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings that we have made from our success in reducing unemployment and debt.
Demanding the highest standards is the modern route to realising opportunity. Those of us seeking improvements in education are determined that the numbers in the education budget are matched by the reforms necessary to secure better results in schools all across the country. As we said in detail in our 1997 manifesto, resources and reform are equally important—one cannot be achieved without the other.
Having helped teachers and children achieve a step change in standards in our primary schools—today, we have 75 per cent. of children achieving the expected literacy standards at the age of 11 compared with just 57 per cent. five years ago—the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will tomorrow announce reforms to raise standards, enhance choice and diversity and to tackle poor pupil behaviour in our secondary schools so that schools can develop the talents of all. We will back these reforms with new resources.
In the 2000 Budget, the Government introduced a single payment direct to schools starting at £15,000 that year for primary schools. I can announce that to help deliver schools reforms, the details of which will be set out by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the typical primary school will receive £50,000 next April—£10,000 higher than this year—and will receive £50,000 each April for each of the next years to 2005-06.
Head teachers of the typical secondary school, who this April received a payment of £115,000, will receive next April a payment of £165,000. That is £50,000 more and it will rise to £180,000 in the next April and for each of the following years to 2006. Over three years, for the typical secondary school, a total of £500,000 in direct payments will be paid to every head teacher to be used for each school's priorities.
We must also back the good leadership that is raising achievement levels in the most challenging areas and we must help schools that are behind to catch up, as we set minimum targets for improved standards at 14 and 16. So, for 1,400 secondary schools, we will match demanding new performance targets with an extra annual payment of an additional £125,000 direct to each school and head teacher.
For these 1,400 schools, combining the leadership incentive grant and the direct payments that I have already announced means that the budget for head teachers will rise to £300.000 a year. Over three years, that is almost £1 million to allow our schools to replace weak leadership, to attract the best teachers and to improve their facilities.
For this Government, reform and resources go together. and we know that to demand reform when one would deny resources is a betrayal of our children. So I can announce the total new resources for education. Compared to growth of less than 2 per cent. a year in the 18 years to 1997, there will be a real-terms rise for education in England, even after inflation, of 6 per cent. a year for each of the next three years. That is the biggest sustained rise in education spending in a generation. The education budget for England, which was £29 billion in 1997 and is £45 billion this year, will rise year on year over the next three years to £49 billion, then £53 billion and then £58 billion: education, education, education. By
30
2005-06, this means £15 billion more a year for UK education; £13 billion more in England. Spending per pupil, which was just £2,700 a year in 1997 and £3,500, last year, will rise to £4,900 per pupil by 2005-06 which, after inflation, is 50 per cent. more per pupil than in 1997.
I challenge anyone in this House to claim that public services are their priority and then to say that £4,900 per pupil is too much to invest in our children and our country's future. We have presented a Budget for the health service and a spending review for education: as we promised, schools and hospitals first. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and thank the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement.
I am delighted that relations between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have improved so much since the pre-Budget report. So cordial have they become that they cancelled all their engagements at the end of last week to spend more time together. Indeed, they have not spent so much time with each other since the last time the Government were in turmoil. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the shadow Chancellor speak.
Mr. Howard: Britain's schools, hospitals and other public services can and must be improved, but to do that we need real reform. Is not it the lesson of the past five years that more money without real reform will not work? We read yesterday that the Chancellor himself had "been disturbed" by the Government's record on failing to deliver, and who could fail to sympathise with him? After all, he provided an increase of 23 per cent. in funding for education, but last year the proportion of children meeting numeracy standards actually fell; he spent 26 per cent. more on law and order, but crime is rising again, with street crime soaring by 31 per cent.; and he allocated almost 30 per cent. more to the NHS, but waiting lists are going up again.
How frustrating that must all be for the Chancellor. He even set in place a whole panoply of public service agreements, targets and monitoring arrangements so that all the extra money would deliver improvements in services. But what happened? The Government failed to meet their own targets: they failed on health care; they failed on violent crime; they failed on truancy; and our public services have been getting worse. The only mystery in all this is why the Chancellor does not realise that coming back to the House today and making exactly the same promises that he has made year after year, based on exactly the same approach, will lead to exactly the same results. Why has the Chancellor not learned the lessons of his past failures? After six Budgets, five years in office, three spending reviews and countless promises, is not it abundantly clear that the Chancellor and his colleagues simply do not know how to bring about real reform and the improvements in public services that we all want to see?

31
The Chancellor makes great promises about our public services. He says that the
"biggest ever investment in health and education"
will allow
"us to build modern public services to renew Britain",
but that is what he said in 1998. He says that the money will
"improve our schools, our health service and our transport system and make our streets safer",
but that is what he said two years ago.
Of course, he also promises change and modernisation in our public services. In fact, he promised reform no fewer than 21 times in his statement, but that was his statement four years ago. He has promised reform every year since. So where is the reform? Where is the modernisation? Where is the change?
Why did the Government last year send schools 17 pages of documents for every working day? Is that reform? How can teachers be expected to cope with that? Why does the Home Secretary now want police officers to fill in forms in duplicate every time they stop—stop, not search—someone in the street? Is that the kind of reform that the Chancellor had in mind? Why has productivity in the NHS fallen? Why are there now more bureaucrats than beds? Is that the reform that patients want?
Yet the Chancellor is at it again. Another year, another spending review. The same old promises, the same old failure, year after year. Does not he just deliver higher taxes? Has not he recently announced his rate tax increase? Then he preens himself and boasts about reducing public debt. One does not have to be a genius to reduce public debt if one taxes every man, woman and child in this country an extra £40 a week and imposes a £100 billion hit on pension funds. Is not it becoming clearer and clearer that money alone is not the answer?
What is the result of the Chancellor's failure? When public services fail, is not it those on the lowest incomes who get hit the hardest? Is not it those in the inner city who cannot escape from the failing school, the hard-pressed hospital or the crime-ridden estate? The Chancellor likes to talk about fairness, but what is fair? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are far too noisy. It is unfair to the shadow Chancellor; he should be given a hearing.
Mr. Howard: What is fair about making promises to the most vulnerable sections of society and breaking them year after year? The Chancellor is at it again. Another year, another spending review. The same old promises, the same old failure.
May I ask the Chancellor about the assumptions underlying his plans, which he barely mentioned? Has he read the recent warnings of the newly appointed economic adviser to the Department of Trade and Industry, who said:
"The Government may be about to embark on too much spending which it will not be able to finance … The expectation is that taxes quite soon may have to go up again"?
32
In light of those comments, does he stand by the growth forecasts outlined in the Budget and the economy's performance since then? Indeed, what confidence can we have in any of his figures when he so casually cooks the books on borrowing and debt, as he has done, Enron-style, in the case of Network Rail?
The Chancellor has today barely mentioned something that he normally says a great deal about—productivity. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising as the latest figures show a fall in productivity in the first quarter of the year. Indeed, under five years of Labour government, Britain's productivity has grown less than half as fast as it did under the last five years of Conservative government.
On Britain's productivity gap with the United States, the Chancellor's own advisers now say, in typical new Labour phrasing, that recent years may have seen "increased room for catch-up". Does not that phrase just sum up new Labour? Will not that be the Government's epitaph? On health, on education, on transport and on law and order, are not they masters at producing increased room for catch-up? Are not they masters at promising the earth, at trying to spin their way out of failure and at substituting subterfuge for substance? Here the Chancellor is again. Another year, another spending review. The same old promises, the same old failure.
Of course there are some aspects of today's announcement that we welcome. We will support measures to defeat terrorism and the associated rises in spending on defence, and we welcome the increase in the budget for international development. We shall carefully study a number of the other proposals that the Chancellor announced, but there are some aspects of his statement about which we have specific concerns.
The Chancellor indicated how he intends to pay for the new education maintenance allowances. Will he confirm that he will retain child benefit in full for 16 to 18-year-olds? He makes promises about housing. Will he confirm that the amount of affordable housing has fallen under the Labour Government, and that the total number of houses being built in this country is the lowest in peacetime since 1924? Why did he not mention in his statement his latest proposal to redistribute council grants to favoured areas that the Labour party controls, eventually leaving the south-east of England with a £200 million shortfall?
Will not the new panoply of prescriptive controls that the Chancellor has announced today lead to the greatest increase in centralised bureaucracy for a generation? In providing better public services, there is a better way. That means learning the best lessons from other countries where there are no waiting lists, where crime is falling and where school standards are way above ours. It means moving decision making closer to the people, the families and the communities affected. It means trusting people to know what is best for their area—trusting the teachers, the police officers and the doctors to get on with their jobs without constant interference and meddling from Whitehall.
We will not endorse the Chancellor's failed approach to public services. We will not support the policy of money without change—but before the Chancellor launches another of his scare campaigns, let me point out that that does not mean that we are against spending more on education and other services. However, we are against his plans to spend more without real reform. As his record shows, that simply does not work.

33
When the Chancellor replies to questions and statements from the Opposition, he likes to start—he always does—by saying that he will answer all our points in full; then, he does not answer any of them. In his response today, let him answer only this one question. Why does he think that he can get away, year after year, with making the same old promises and proposing the same old failed answers? Why does he refuse to accept that if we are to give this country the services we deserve, it is time for real reform?
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor says that he supports the increased funding for action against terrorism and for international development, but by his silence he has not supported the increased funding for education, health, housing, transport, the Home Office, policing and all the major public services in this country. When the Leader of the Opposition said on radio today that there would be not a penny more for public services, what he meant was that all talk of general reform is designed to obscure a policy of cutting public spending.
I defy Opposition Members to go back to their constituencies this weekend and explain why they do not support the additional payments for primary schools, the £165,000 for secondary schools, and the 6 per cent. real-terms increase in education spending. Let them explain why they do not support our health service reforms and our money, and why they are considering charges for visits to hospitals and GPs. After all the talk of concern about public services and poverty, a speech, a visit to a council estate and a night in a homeless shelter, what has happened is that compassionate conservatism has given way to the usual uncaring conservatism that everyone associates with the Conservative party.
The Conservatives will not match us on health and education, despite the fact that at the last election they said that throughout the following Parliament they would support our plans on health and education. Every Opposition Member must explain to their constituents why, having said in their manifesto at the last election they said that they would support our education and health plans, they are not doing so.
The shadow Chancellor raised the issue of the economy and what is happening to it. We stand comparison with his record as Employment Secretary. It is not simply the fact that interest rates at the moment are 4 per cent, but went up to 15 per cent. when he was Employment Secretary. It is not simply that inflation is 2 per cent, but when he was Employment Secretary he reported it at 10 per cent. If one is dealing with the ups and downs of the economic cycle, would one prefer to do so under a Government who have cut debt and debt interest payments to the lowest level for many years, as against a Government who were responsible, when he was in the Cabinet, for £50 billion of borrowing and a doubling of the national debt?
The shadow Chancellor said that we have come back to report that there is a need for more reform. Exactly—there is need for more reform, but the reforms that we have made—
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Five years of promises.
Mr. Brown: Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that we have not improved numeracy results for
34
11-year-olds? Is he saying that we have not met our literacy targets? Instead of 500,000 people in school classes of more than 30, there is none today. Is he saying that that is not an achievement? Is he opposing the fact that there are 20,000 more teachers in schools and 100,000 more students at university and that we are reforming secondary, further and higher education? In five years, we have made more reforms than the Conservatives made in their 18 years.
As for economic reform, we made the Bank of England independent, which the Conservatives opposed. We created the Financial Services Authority; they opposed it. We created an independent Competition Commission; they opposed it. We created the new deal of rights and responsibilities; they continue to oppose it. We will therefore not take any lectures about the conduct of economic policy from the Opposition.
On planning reforms, the Deputy Prime Minister will announce on Thursday—Opposition Members will, and should, welcome this—reforms to the planning system that will speed up planning and put more resources into making the planning system more effective. It is a tragedy that nothing was done during 18 years of Conservative government. As for housing, we are doubling the housing budget, having already doubled it. The housing reforms that we are making, which will be announced on Thursday, should be welcomed by Opposition Members as well Government Members.
Waiting lists, which the shadow Chancellor also raised, are down by 100,000 on 1997. There is no point in his trying to lecture us on the national health service—he would cut the NHS budget. He said that all of us in positions of responsibility should be judged on our performance. He, remember, had ministerial responsibility for financial services at the start of the pensions mis-selling. He was Minister for Local Government when the poll tax was introduced. He was Employment Secretary when unemployment went up by 1 million, and was Home Secretary when crime doubled.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Answer the question.
Mr. Brown: The question is whether the Conservatives can ever stand before the country again as a serious party if they are not prepared to finance education, health and decent public services. May I tell the shadow Chancellor that at the last election, to win his seat in Folkestone, he said that the Conservatives would spend more on education and health. He cannot face his electors with a policy of cuts in education and health. He should go back to the drawing board and think again.
Matthew Taylor: Watching the Conservatives today is like watching the charge of the Light Brigade. Unlike them, we welcome the spending increase for hospitals and schools. We believe that the British people will do the same, and the polls suggest that even Conservative supporters will.
After two years of cuts and five years of phoney figures, no longer the same old failures: at last Labour is admitting the truth. Public services were failing because they were starved of funds, but why then did the Chancellor cut income tax just two years ago? Why did he allow the share of national income going to education to fall in the last Parliament as a whole? Why did Labour not tell the truth about its tax plans at the general election? No wonder people do not trust Labour.

35
Conservatives voted against the tax rise; today they oppose the spending rises, so now we know for sure: Conservatives want fewer teachers, fewer doctors, fewer nurses. No wonder the British people do not
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is putting questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to the Conservatives.
Matthew Taylor: On our side, the money is welcome. We had the courage to argue for it at the election. The question now is whether the Chancellor is spending it well, and there the signs are bad. There is not more reform but more control. Why is there more control from the centre, more red tape and more control freakery? What is the Chancellor afraid of? Why will he not trust local people with local school and hospital decisions, and trust communities with their hospitals and schools?
Here we have it—quangos for health, quangos for social services, quangos for police. The Chancellor may be able to control his Cabinet colleagues, but he cannot control every classroom and he cannot run every hospital ward. It is time to trust the teachers with their classes, the doctors with their patients and the nurses in their wards. The Chancellor has given them the money, and now he should give them the freedom to do their job, answerable to the patients and the community, not tied up in red tape and quangos answerable only to the Chancellor.
Mr. Brown: I am surprised at the Liberal shadow Chancellor saying those things. First, we are devolving power to primary care trusts. We are devolving power to schools. We have just announced the biggest payments direct to head teachers. Equally, we are devolving power to both regions and localities in terms of housing, social services and so on. I should have thought that he would welcome the inspectorates that we have set up to ensure that there is proper public information about how various organisations are meeting the standards expected of them.
Once again, while I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman supports the additional public spending, the Liberal party wants us to spend more—[Interruption.] Last week, the Leader of the Liberal party was standing in the House of Commons demanding that more money be spent on community care. The week before, more money was requested for other purposes. In comparison with what the Liberals promised at the last election, by 2006 we will be spending £9 billion more than they promised on education, £25 billion more than they promised on health, £6 billion more than they promised on transport, and £1 billion more than they promised on international development.
Mr. John McFall: May I commend the Chancellor for a huge boost to public services? In particular, I single out the education maintenance allowances, to which the shadow Chancellor referred and which will increase the incentives for young people in disadvantaged areas to stay on in education after 16. Can the Chancellor assure me that there will be no black holes down which the money will go, and that the reforms are essential for the benefit of the economy as a whole? Does
36
he agree that those who govern or wish to govern must be clear, transparent and honest about the money that they will spend and where that money will come from?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. I think that what he says is very important. I am rather surprised that the shadow Chancellor and shadow Chief Secretary have chosen to abandon the House of Commons at this very point, when it is not only our proposals that are under scrutiny, but theirs as far as public spending is concerned.
On the point made by my hon. Friend, yes, we will extend education maintenance allowances. I believe that there should be widespread support in all parts of the House for more people being able to stay on at school and for there being no financial barrier to their doing so. The condition of the education maintenance allowances—this relates to his point about value for money—is that this is not money given in return for nothing; it is given in return for young people staying on at school, studying for qualifications and making a go of it in their final years at school so that they can get college and university qualifications. I look forward to visiting the Treasury Committee to talk about this and other matters.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I congratulate the Chancellor on his ability to use the word "prudence" at least once without an apparent blush of shame or regret, as he used to cite her more frequently. Will he confirm my understanding on two points: first, that this is the biggest rate of increase in public spending that has been announced since the early 1970s, or for 30 years, since pre-International Monetary Fund intervention days; and, secondly, that it is being announced at a time when the outlook for the real economy—indeed, the global economy—and its ability to create wealth and grow is probably more uncertain than it has been for a very long time?
Does the Chancellor justify that with his constant citing of the levels of national debt and the present levels of deficit, which I am sure he realises are the result of an American-led western boom that led to his under-forecasting revenues and finding that he was over-forecasting spending? Does he not agree that in three years' time, where he should be looking in prudence, debt will be higher, deficits will be growing and interest rates will probably not be as low as 4 per cent.? If we have had a period of low growth or worse, he will face tax increases or unhealthy public deficits, or both, and a difficult time for the real economy. This review is a gamble; it is spend, spend, spend. That is popular today—it always is and always was when it happened in the past—but those of us with a concern for the national interest must have our fingers crossed that at least some of it comes off.
Mr. Brown: That is exactly what the former shadow Chancellor and Chancellor said when we talked about the 2000 spending review—that it was unsustainable, that we would not be able to finance it, that it would cause inflation and that we would not be able to meet our commitments.
Mr. Clarke: I said that the Government would have to put up taxes.
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be inflationary and unsustainable, and that has not been the case at all.

37
As far as taxation is concerned, we put it to the country a few months ago that, after the Wanless report, it was necessary if we were to finance proper health service spending up to 2008 and to make that new decision, that we had the national insurance rise in place. If the former Chancellor, who believes in the national health service, unlike so many of his colleagues on the Conservative Benches, looked at the figures, he would support what we are doing in relation to the NHS.
The problem about the former Chancellor's position is that he wants to return to the old annual Budgets of the 1990s and the annual spending rounds in which spending was set in November, but then had to be changed during the year as a result of all sorts of different events. We are taking a far more long-term approach, and the reason why we can do so is that we have reduced national debt to a realistic level. If debt were at 44 per cent., the level left by the former Chancellor when we came into power, we could not do what we are doing today, but debt is down to 30 per cent., not least because we used the proceeds of the spectrum sale to pay off large amounts of national debt. I may say to him that if Opposition Members complain that we have not been fast enough in delivering all the improvements in public services that we want, it is precisely because we had to deal with the record of the Conservative Government under whom debt was at 44 per cent. and the borrowing requirement was nearly £30 billion. Inflation was rising when we came in and interest rates had to be put up.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. However important the statement is, questions to the Chancellor cannot go on indefinitely. To get in as many as possible, I call on hon. Members to make their questions single and brief, and for equally crisp answers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What contingency plans have been made for an attack on Iraq and rocketing oil prices?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is Father of the House and makes his points in his usual way. As regards the defence budget, we make very cautious assumptions at all times about what is likely to happen to oil prices.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Implicit in the Chancellor's statement was the decision to follow Germany, France and Italy in breaching the rules of the European growth and stability pact. Did he note last week's stern warnings from the president of the Bundesbank and the International Monetary Fund that these across-the-board increases in Government expenditure without the prospect of matching growth will bring the viability of the euro into serious question? Will he take that risk into account when he examines his five vague economic tests?
Mr. Brown: Trust the hon. Gentleman to make the public spending announcements on education, health, transport and public services generally into a question about Europe. On the stability and growth pact, he is well aware of our views about the fiscal rules that we believe
38
are appropriate to a modern economy and the debate that is being held in Europe about that. It is interesting that at the last election, the hon. Gentleman's manifesto said:
"Waiting times to see a consultant have lengthened. Secondary classes are larger. There is a growing shortage of teachers."
Surely he must support additional investment in health and education, as did his party at the last election, and should not he be telling his Front Benchers that the policy of opposing our investments in health and education is a road to electoral suicide?
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I thank the Chancellor for his statement and warmly welcome his assertion that housing and transport are particularly important parts of the infrastructure, especially in areas where there is a vibrant and healthy growing economy, as in Cambridge. Does he think it feasible for local authorities to set a target of 50 per cent. affordable housing in any new housing development, because that is what we desperately need in areas such as mine?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The interest that she has taken in science over many years has been a powerful influence on the Government's determination to get more resources into the science budget. On housing, she will know that I said that a statement was to be made by the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday. He is committed to more affordable housing, especially in areas of great housing demand, of which my hon. Friend's is one. She will have to be patient and wait until he makes his statement on Thursday.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Chancellor accept that although many Conservative Members and others welcome the increases in overseas aid and science, and some of those in education and health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Shadow Chancellor was right to say that the increases are not only unsustainable, but positively incontinent? Will the Chancellor tell the House precisely what have been the gains in productivity, especially emanating from the health service, since his last announcement of this type?
Mr. Brown: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that when he looks at the health service, he will see that waiting times are coming down. When he looks at in-patient and out-patient waiting lists, he will see that they are down on what they were in 1997. When he looks at the building of new hospitals, they are proceeding apace. When he looks at the recruitment of nurses and doctors, he will see that we are getting them into the key specialties. When he looks at the accident and emergency units in our hospitals, he will see that we have repaired and renovated 95 per cent. of them over the past few years. I agree with him about one thing—more investment is needed, in education as well as in health. I am grateful that he has distanced himself from the position of his Front Benchers, which is to oppose investment in health and education.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which is designed to improve the quality of life of everyone in this country. On behalf of local government, may I ask him about the modernisation of housing? Will local authorities have some input into that modernisation programme? Will he consider carefully the authorities in the special interest group of municipal

39
authorities—SIGOMA—where underachievement owing to poverty and deprivation is a major problem and crime hotspots need to be tackled.
Will my right hon. Friend consider giving funding to the hospice movement to ensure that there is no closure of hospice beds?
Mr. Brown: I will pass on to the Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend's concern about support for the hospice movement. He rightly points to the neglect of housing over many years and the need for neighbourhood renewal as well as an attack on crime. We are a third of the way towards fulfilling our targets for decent housing. However, as my hon. Friend knows, considerably more remains to be done, and that is why we have provided the extra funding.
On improving the neighbourhoods in the areas that he described and their concerns about local government funding, we announced increases in the budget of the neighbourhood renewal fund. My hon. Friend also mentioned crime. The Home Secretary will make a statement on the criminal justice White Paper, and I believe that he will be able to show the extra resources that are going towards fighting crime.
My hon. Friend represents the interests of his constituency with great determination, and he pointed to some of the increases in investment, housing and policing that the White Paper includes.
Mr. David Trimble: The Chancellor announced an increase of £1.2 billion in three years' time in Northern Ireland. Although we naturally welcome that, I understand that it includes several adjustments, some of which are technical, and the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we shall therefore suspend judgment on the detail until we have had an opportunity to study it.
The Chancellor knows that we inherited a pattern of expenditure in Northern Ireland that meant significant underinvestment in public utilities. We need and welcome his continued support for our efforts to achieve change and reform.
At the beginning of his speech, the Chancellor said that he hoped to provide for more doctors, nurses and police officers. He referred to funding for the Northern Ireland Office and said that the Government were providing resources for the ongoing recruitment programme of policemen and the establishment of a new training college. We are more than 500 officers short in the full-time establishment, and the number is dropping. Yet there is a serious problem of maintaining law and order and security in Northern Ireland. Will the resources that have been provided fully fund the additional officers that we need to reach the modest establishment targets that Patten set? Will the extra resources fully fund the new police training college?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the First Minister for his questions. We discussed some of those matters when we met last week, and I was delighted to visit Northern Ireland a few weeks ago when we launched the economic initiative. I applaud the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers for all their efforts to achieve economic growth and modernisation in Northern Ireland. The settlement is
40
based on the Barnett formula, and he knows that it is worked out carefully to fulfil the needs of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There is extra funding for the European peace initiative in Northern Ireland. I shall raise the right hon. Gentleman's questions about the Northern Ireland Office with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and we shall be in touch with him.
Mr. Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend's statement will be enthusiastically welcomed in my constituency, which is the home of Daresbury laboratory, a world-leading scientific research facility. Will he consider the centre for accelerated science imaging project as soon as possible? Daresbury laboratory is designed to secure its future. Will he give it his backing?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend always makes a persuasive case for his constituency. He knows that such decisions are not for the Treasury but for others. However, my hon. Friend rightly said that the science budget had been increased. It will greatly help the north-west region that he represents so well, and other regions of the country. The 10 per cent. increase in the science budget and the extra £1¼ billion by 2005-06 in partnership with Wellcome Trust, which is contributing an extra £250 million, means that we can start to build for the next generation in science. What I have seen in the north-west offers great hope for the future. Science in the region will expand as a result of the measures.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Chancellor plagiarised a phrase that I used at Prime Minister's questions three weeks ago when he said that the mark of a civilised society was the way in which we treat our elderly. Why has he sanctioned a mechanism whereby taxation can be transferred from the south to the north? Why should an elderly person in Cheltenham have his funds transferred to someone in Cleveland? Why should parents in Gloucester have their funds transferred to a school in Gateshead? Surely everyone who pays taxes deserves equal treatment. Will the Chancellor ensure such equal treatment?
Mr. Brown: We are one United Kingdom, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome what we are doing for the elderly. We are raising the basic pension, and the winter allowance—which the Conservatives opposed—free television licences for the over-75s, and the new pension credit are among the other measures that we have taken to help today's pensioners. The hon. Gentleman should be in favour of what we are doing, and, so far as community care is concerned-1[suspect that that is part of the issue that he is raising—the 6 per cent. increase in real terms of the social services budget in this three years' budgeting is far more than any Conservative Government ever did.
Caroline Flint: I certainly welcome the reforms of the national child care strategy proposed in my right hon. Friend's statement, and I hope to explore that matter further in my Adjournment debate on Wednesday. On the education maintenance allowance, which Doncaster has piloted, does he recognise and accept that this is not just about investment in 16 to 19-year-olds? By providing the allowance, we can help those who are socially excluded from university education to gain the

41
qualifications necessary to apply. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we not only monitor take-up at 16 but examine whether there is an effect on the numbers who then apply to university after staying on at school after 16?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I wish her well in her debate on child care. I hope that the figures we have announced for the additional investment in child care will be matched by the creation of child care businesses, and by more local authorities and other organisations getting involved in the business of providing child care. I also hope that the money available will be quickly converted into the child care places and the carers that we need.
Education maintenance allowances are an innovation that has worked in the third of the country in which they have been piloted. The staying-on rate at school has increased from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. This has been proven to be a worthwhile experiment, and any barrier to staying on at school that can be removed is worth removing. What my hon. Friend says about further and higher education and the applicability of this measure is obviously something that she will persuade Education Ministers to look at.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Chancellor tell us by how much debt interest will rise over the next five years, first in cash terms, and, secondly, in real terms? Will those figures include an estimate for interest on the increasing amount of off-balance-sheet debt that the Chancellor is accumulating?
Mr. Brown: On the hon. Gentleman's point about off-balance-sheet debt, we have done what no other country has done—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should be congratulating those who were Ministers in the previous Conservative Government, because we have consistently published—
Mr. Eric Forth: Cooking the books.
Mr. Brown: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to accuse the previous Government, whose practices we have followed, of cooking the books, it shows how out of touch with that Government he was—as we thought. So far as contingent liabilities are concerned, we publish all the details on that matter and we have had discussions about it in the Select Committee on the Treasury. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the Conservatives to shout about contingent liabilities, but we are following the practices that have been pursued by previous Governments, and have done so over the last few years. The table on contingent liabilities is regularly published. So far as debt interest is concerned, it is a share of gross domestic product and will remain at around 2 per cent. over the next few years.
Tony Wright: On any test, this is a make-or-break statement for public services. If we do not begin to see world-class public services as a result of this kind of spending announcement, we are never going to see them. Much therefore hangs on what my right hon. Friend has said today. Will he say a little more about what he rightly described as the need to ensure that, when
42
people see the money going in, they can connect it to the results coming out? That is the only way that we are going to get sustained support for this strategy. There is a difficulty if people cannot see the improvements in a measurable and demonstrable form, or if there is no independent evaluation of them.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has always taken an interest in the workings of government and in how we can improve them. In our first term, it was obviously crucial that we ensured that there was a proper framework for economic stability, and that we got people back to work and increased employment. The money that is now flowing into public services has been made possible by achieving that. The question is, how do we get best value for money? I insist that we need the independent and statutory inspection that my hon. Friend has described, so that people can see for themselves—through proper accountability—whether services are delivering.
Equally. in dealing with failing institutions, it is incumbent on us, as people who believe in the public services, to take early and pre-emptive action when organisations, institutions and services are not delivering as they should for the people. That is why I have read out to the House a number of measures proposed by individual Departments for dealing with failing institutions. I look forward to further discussions in the House about how all these reforms—the public service agreement targets, the devolution of responsibility, the independent audit and inspection, the proper rewards for success and the penalties for failure when institutions do not serve the public—can be pushed through. I should have thought that, instead of laughing at those reforms, the Conservatives would welcome them.
Mr. George Osborne: May I ask the Chancellor the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), which he failed to answer? How much, in cash terms, will debt interest payments rise in the next five years?
Mr. Brown: It is estimated that debt interest payments in 2005-06 will be £22.8 billion. In rough terms, that is half what they would be if we had the debt levels that we had under the Conservative party 10 or 20 years ago.
Margaret Moran: I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for listening to those of us who were calling for increased investment in housing, especially given the atrocious legacy of housing need that we inherited from the previous Tory Government. By 1997, there was a £19 billion disrepair backlog, 2 million were in negative equity, homelessness had doubled and local authority housing investment had halved. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in areas such as mine, there is no space for further new building of social housing? Would he consider ways in which we can ensure that local authorities bring back into use private long-term empty property? In Luton, there are seven private empty properties for every homeless family. That would be a productive way of tackling the housing need that was left by the previous Tory Government.
Mr. Brown:I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since I first met her, she has been anxious to put forward the case

43
for proper housing policies. Representing that city, she has been active in pursuing the case for better housing. The suggestion that she has made is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is considering innovative ideas to tackle the shortage of houses in some parts of the country and the substandard housing in others. My hon. Friend should put her suggestions to him. There will be a statement to the House on this matter on Thursday.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Now that the Chancellor has abandoned double and treble counting, he has announced increases of 6 per cent. a year for English education and 7 per cent. for English health. Does he accept that the knock-on effect in Scotland and Wales will be increases in those vital budgets of little more than half those amounts? Will he tell us definitively whether he intends to accede to the demands of the Deputy Prime Minister and the other anti-Scottish forces in the Cabinet and on the Back Benches and scrap, review or revise the Barnett formula, or does he think that the restrictions on the rate of increase will do the job for him?
Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for more public spending when his party has been going round the country telling us not to raise the oil taxation that is necessary to fund increased public spending. I would think more of the former leader of the Scottish National party if he matched the spending that he is demanding with an ability to support the necessary revenues. As for support for education in Scotland, the outstanding fact that he should never forget when he tries to throw percentages at us is that spending per head in Scotland is higher than spending per head in England.
Harry Cohen: Does the Chancellor acknowledge that, for public services to improve, public service workers' pay needs to improve? Some of them do a top job, but are very low paid. Will the Chancellor say what is in this settlement to enable fairer pay for public service workers?
Mr. Brown: Public service pay is a matter for local government management in negotiation with local government workers. My hon. Friend knows that a real-terms rise is proposed in the salary negotiations that have been taking place. When the issue of low pay is raised, everyone should remember that what we have done with the tax credit system since 1997 is to help low-paid workers—whether it be through the working families tax credit or now through the employment tax credit that is being introduced. Many low-paid workers are being told by their unions that they are worse off, but some of them are £50 a week better off.
Mr. David Cameron: The Chancellor is announcing how he will spend future tax revenues, which are wholly dependent on the performance and growth of the economy. Can he confirm that he still forecasts that
44
the British economy will grow by more than 3 per cent. next year? Given the pause in growth that we have had this year, is he happy with that? The executives at Worldcom and Enron overstated their revenues. Is the Chancellor guilty of the same crime?
Mr. Brown: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all Conservative Members, should indulge in such short-termism: as he knows, and as happened when he was advising a Conservative Government, we publish forecasts twice a year. We have published our forecast in the Budget, and we will publish our forecast in November in the pre-Budget report.
The hon. Gentleman should also know—I find that the Conservatives are not willing to be up to date at all on this—that the fiscal rules we have set are set over a cycle, and will be met over the cycle. That means that borrowing for necessary investment can take place, but it also means that we must have a current balance. As I have said, there is a margin for prudence in the figures that I announced in the Budget, and we are uprating from today.
The hon. Gentleman—this Conservative Member—should be congratulating us on the fact that unemployment in his constituency is now 0.7 per cent. He should also remember, when he asks about public spending and whether we can afford it, that in his election commitments he said:
"The UK spends just 5.8 per cent. of our national income on health care, compared to 9.8 per cent. in France. We need more public investment".
James Purnell: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcements on housing. Will they cover areas with substandard housing such as Hattersley in my constituency?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that a mantra of reform without investment is just code for cuts, and shows that the Conservatives are the party of spin and we are the party of delivery today?
Mr. Brown: The fact that the Conservatives talk of reform in general, while the shadow Chancellor gave no details of any single reform during the 20 minutes for which he spoke today, surely proves to anyone who is prepared to listen that talk about reform is simply camouflage for the real Conservative policy of public spending cuts. Back Benchers must be thinking twice about what the shadow Chancellor says. The Conservatives promised higher spending on health and education at the last election and said that they would match our plans during the Parliament. Now Conservative Members are being told by the shadow Chancellor and their leader that the policy of the Conservative party is cuts in health and cuts in education.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have time-restricted business to protect. I remind the House that there will he a debate on public expenditure next Tuesday.

Moorside Mining
4.56 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
the ending of underground working at Moorside Mining, Eckington, Derbyshire, owing to the refusal of brokers to renew statutory required insurance cover for small mines and that of the Department of Trade and Industry to provide a covering bond.
After receiving welcome state aid under the European Union programme, Moorside seemed set for a bright future. It is a reliable producer, providing high-quality coal, and has full order books. Owing to the ending of insurance cover, however, since this morning the underground work force of 27 have not been allowed to enter the mine for their normal shifts. The mine is now in a condition in which it could be flooded and destroyed.
To operate a mine it is necessary to meet statutory requirements, including the holding of employers' liability insurance. The limited number of brokers who have been willing to supply such cover pushed up payments considerably. Moorside's coverage, which has just run out, cost 350 per cent. more recently than it did a year ago. Moorside's insurers now refuse to renew the coverage at all. It has so far proved impossible to obtain alternative cover even with the help of the DTI.
One problem is that insurers fear that emphysema and vibration white finger claims will need to be met—claims from miners who, during their working lives, worked at Moorside only for short periods. That is an exaggerated fear.
We need to discuss the options available for Moorside's survival. They include the issuing of a DTI bond, and the DTI's facilitating an alternative solution involving, for instance, the Association of British Insurers. A sensible way forward would be a self-insured scheme similar to that of UK Coal: all mines would pay a reasonable fee, with Government cover, while the moneys in the scheme grew. The comprehensive spending review, which we have just heard, needs to find Government funding to handle such insurance problems. The problem that I have raised is beginning to affect other small mines and other businesses. Betwys colliery, in south Wales, is experiencing similar difficulties.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree to the Adjournment of business to allow us to discuss the ways and means of saving the last coal mine in Derbyshire—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. In the end, the hon. Gentleman's speech was well-timed, and I am sorry to interrupt him on his last word. I have listened carefully to what he said, and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I
46
do not consider the matter that he raises appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, so I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  FIREARMS AMENDMENT (No. 2)
  Mr. David Wilshire presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the purchase of air weapons. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed. [Bill 179]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117(6) (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
  "That—

  (1) the matter of the White Paper 'Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions' (Cm 5511, May 2002), being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;

  (2) the Committee meet at Five o'clock on Wednesday 17th July at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

  (3) the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at half-past Seven o'clock."—[Derek Twigg.]

  Question agreed to.

  EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 4)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
  "That the following provisions shall apply to the Education Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 4th December 2001, 23rd January 2002 and 6th February 2002:

  EDUCATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (No. 4)

    Consideration of Lords Amendments
    1. proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.

    2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 12, 13, 14, 23, 27, 37, 1 to 11, 15 to 22, 24 to 26, 28 to 36 and 38 to 98.

    Subsequent stages
    3. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Derek Twigg.]

    Question agreed to.

    Education Bill
    Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 10

    POWERS OF GOVERNING BODIES TO FORM OR INVEST IN COMPANIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 12.
    5.1 pm
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we will consider Government amendments (a) and (aa) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 13 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.
    Mr. Miliband: We believe that the new freedom for schools proposed in these clauses will be valuable in helping them to work together to raise standards. Labour Members stand for enterprise in, and by, schools. We want new partnerships between schools, and we want best practice to lead the rest—whether in relation to pedagogy, to the curriculum, or to information and communications technology. I am glad to say that in our endeavours, we have welcome support across the House for the measures that we are debating. As a member of the Education Bill Standing Committee, I sat in rapt attention, and was particularly struck by one impassioned speech. The Member in question said, in respect of these specific clauses, that
    "we may be on the verge of providing for an extremely exciting new environment that provides scope for new ideas for the benefit of education." —[Official Report, Standing Committee G. 18 December 2001; c. 191]
    I could not have put it better myself. The Committee member in question was the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), whom I am glad to quote in this regard. He was clearly taking his cue from a distinguished predecessor of his, Lord Baker of Dorking, who said in a House of Lords debate:
    "I welcome these clauses in the Bill." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2002; Vol. 1874, c. 1055.]
    Given my strong memory of the hon. Gentleman's impassioned speech, I was more than a little surprised to discover that the Opposition joined in the process of deleting the clauses in the other place.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Perhaps I can help to jog the Minister's memory. I am sure that he cannot recall his predecessor's giving any satisfactory reassurance in respect of the concerns that we raised in Committee about where liability would fall if such companies were set up. As he will learn, it is perfectly normal practice in this House that, if we are not given adequate reassurance, we seek to amend the Bill later on.
    Mr. Miliband: I am grateful for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's years of experience in this House, which are
    48
    greater than mine. All I remember from our proceedings in Committee is the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who was leading for the Government. He rebutted all manner of allegations and put a consistent and coherent view. I wonder whether there is a split on this issue, and whether this is a case of old Conservatives versus new Conservatives—or mods versus trads. I understand that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will lead for the Conservatives on this issue. I can give him my categorical assurance that the European Union has no involvement in this measure, so I hope that he will join me in seeking to reverse the House of Lords' view.
    There is a serious point. The Bill is about supporting schools in finding new ways to innovate and work together, so that they can raise standards. The power we are debating is a new freedom for schools. It will not be used by every school, but it will enable those schools that choose to use it to develop new partnerships, to share good practice and to support other schools.
    We are widening the choices that schools already have, It is already possible under the law for a single school to form a company, if that is necessary for the conduct of the school. This power will enable schools to work together to form joint companies, or companies that will support other schools. I find it hard to see why that form of collaborative and innovative activity to benefit the wider community of schools should be opposed.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way while he is reading his notes. We want to be helpful this evening, but could he give us examples of how the new powers will be used? What sort of companies will be formed? What will their activities be? Why is it not possible under existing legislation for schools or local authorities to do that work, because they have been doing so ever since 1944?
    Mr. Miliband: I know that the hon. Gentleman is always keen to be helpful. I assure him that this is the best that I can do in terms of a speech and I am not reading someone else's notes. I shall come to some examples of how this will be a beneficial measure in terms of pedagogy and curricula. If he feels that I have not addressed his concerns sufficiently, I hope that he will interrupt me again.
    We have always been clear that the formation of a company is not an end in itself. It is valuable only as a means to an end. Forming a company is the simplest mechanism available for groups of schools to have joint legal identity. If a group of schools want to purchase their supplies together and so benefit from economies of scale, it will help them greatly if they can do so as a single legal entity. Because a company provides limited liability status, these clauses will also mean that schools can reduce the financial risk of collaborating. That will leave them free to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is not missing the key point that I am making. In relation to both purchase and provision of services, the opportunity to establish a company will stretch the possibilities for schools to share best practice beyond the current boundaries.
    Through increased delegation of budgets by local education authorities, schools have the freedom and confidence to buy the services they need from those best

    49
    placed to deliver them. If private sector providers can sell services to schools, I see no reason to prevent schools themselves, which may have some of the most expert people available, from providing services as well. The services offered by a school company may represent an opportunity for other schools to buy in real practical experience and expertise. A service delivery company may share a particular school improvement expertise, perhaps helping a weak school to become stronger, thereby giving pupils the quality of education that is their right.
    We must make the best use of the talent and experience that is to be found in schools. The opportunities could be very wide; I shall give a couple of specific examples for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. A group of schools that has developed a software package or an anti-bullying training pack may join another partner to ease production and distribution of the service. The expertise of the different partners will help to give schools access to high-quality services from which they would otherwise be unable to benefit.
    I am clear that the provisions will provide a worthwhile opportunity for schools. I emphasise that it will be an opportunity: there will be no compulsion on schools to enter into companies. Nor will there be any compulsion on other schools to purchase from companies. However, this will be an opportunity to lead the way.
    In seeking to restore to the Bill the clauses removed by the other place, we are proposing some small changes that I should explain for the benefit of hon. Members. Two of the amendments will place in the Bill detail that was to he contained in regulations. The first is the requirement that school companies will be required to register under the Companies Acts as companies limited by shares or by guarantee. We may wish to consider that in more detail, given the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The second is that only those specified in regulations may join companies. Placing those details in the Bill will offer greater clarity and more visible protection to companies. The other two Government amendments tighten up the requirement for companies to operate only in accordance with the requirements set out in regulations.
    We also wish to restore clause 11, which sets out the regulatory regime that we propose to introduce for service delivery and purchasing companies. It will create a necessary framework of safeguards for school companies to operate in. We are preparing regulations that we intend to be flexible and to avoid unnecessary constraint on the operational freedom of school companies. The regulations will include requirements about company operation and membership, and will create supervising authorities to oversee the school companies. The clause will also require governing bodies of maintained schools wishing to form or join companies established under clause 11 to obtain the consent of the LEA. As the House knows, we will consult relevant organisations in the education service on the draft regulations, taking careful note of the responses.
    I hope that I have addressed some of the concerns felt by Opposition Members and that the House will join me in rejecting the Lords amendments and agreeing to the Government's substitutes.
    Mr. William Cash: We have heard an extremely truncated version of what the Government
    50
    propose. The Minister will be well aware that these matters received extensive consideration in the other place, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. I am sure that he did not mean any disrespect, but the manner in which he shot through the Government's explanation left me surprised, as I think it did other hon. Members. It appeared that he was not prepared to go into the serious issues that are involved.
    The Minister may wonder why it is that the shadow Attorney-General would rise to deal with these matters. The reason is simple. There are a number of issues that relate to the interaction between company law and education legislation. Precisely for that reason, I have made criticisms of the Minister. He did not even attempt to deal with any of the issues, although he knows perfectly well what they are. When the Lords finished their consideration of the Bill, the relevant issues were left for further consideration. That is precisely why the Lords, by a substantial majority, proposed that clauses 10 and 11 should be deleted. That proposal allows amendments Nos. 12 and 13 to be considered in this place.
    We have heard a great deal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon about prospective increases in education spending. There was much about freedom and control this morning from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on "Today". We have been told that there will be no blank cheque. These are important matters because education has been given a certain priority by the Government, at any rate in the initial stages since the Labour party won the general election before last. The debate on school companies raises these issues. Specifically, they are at the heart of the system that the Government have adopted to implement their policy, especially in terms of education. This raises the question of companies limited by guarantee, although at the last minute in the other place the Government added arrangements for companies limited by shares, which the Liberal Democrats in their wisdom—we wait to hear what they have to say—seek to eliminate.
    Questions arise that are not confined to education. They arise also in terms of health, not to mention Network Rail. These are matters that relate to the philosophy behind which the Government are hiding on public expenditure.
    Similar serious questions and problems arise in many instances, and the debate gives us the opportunity to examine them in the context of education. Let us leave aside the spinning and weaving and examine the mechanics, the legislation and administration, the delivery and practice, the impact on schools, teachers, governing bodies, and local education authorities—and above all what it is all meant to be about, which is the education of our children.
    We heard from the Prime Minister only a few years ago that the Government's watchwords were "education, education, education." What do we have? We have administration, administration, administration along with uncertainty, uncertainty, uncertainty. And under the proposed arrangements, we have litigation, litigation, litigation.
    There was a protracted debate in the other place on the issue of school companies. I pay tribute to Baroness Blatch and also to Baroness Sharp, of the Liberal Democrats. Similarly, I pay tribute to other noble Lords across the board and to my hon. Friends who considered the Bill in its early stages both in Committee and

    51
    on Report. I congratulate them on their tenacity and perspicacity in this difficult and opaque area of company law and education. The noble Lord McIntosh cannot be accused entirely of not seeking to alleviate their concerns, but we continue to have them. We do not believe that those concerns have been allayed, whether in the other place or by the absurdly short representations that the Minister has just given in respect of these matters.
    The issues with which we are now concerned arise out of Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which seek to reintroduce what were clauses 11 and 12 of the Lords Bill, which were defeated on Third Reading in the other place, with some amendments, by the combined vote of Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and others. I will set out the main features involved in those clauses and deal with our objections.
    5.15 pm
    First I shall raise a question, which, as far as I am aware, has not yet been dealt with in the Bill. It arises from the potential interaction of the implementation of these provisions within part 1, which is entitled, "Provision for new legal frameworks", and which also includes clause 2, which confers power to suspend statutory requirements. The interaction between those provisions is very important.
    Clause 2 is very general. especially in its potential implications for the provisions with which we are dealing today. It provides that, on the application of one or more qualifying bodies—which are defined as including, among others, a local education authority, as well as a governing body of a qualifying school, which, in turn, is defined as including a community, foundation or voluntary school, a community or foundation special school, or a maintained nursery school—the Secretary of State can make an order exempting those bodies from any requirement imposed by the Education Acts, the Learning and Skills Act 2000 or any of the subordinate legislation. That will surprise hon. Members, as it is a very big shift.
    Indeed, the clause provides that the Secretary of State can relax such requirements, enabling the applicant to exercise educational powers and duties or make modifications to education legislation. That is a very important and draconian measure. I raise that in connection with the clauses that the Government intend to reintroduce to the Bill simply because it relates to the question of ultimate liability were a school's company to fail, whether it is a company limited by guarantee or, in line with the Minister's amendments—which are disputed by the Liberal Democrats—a company limited by shares. In either case, there is only a minuscule, nominal amount of liability.
    In a parliamentary answer given by Lord McIntosh on 25 March 2002, which was also given by Baroness Ashton, to which a letter to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch referred, it was stated that the ultimate liability would fall on the local education authority. In such a case, the local education authority will pick up the tab—that is the expression that is being put around. Will the Minister today reaffirm unequivocally whether that is so? If, by order, the Secretary of State has exempted a local education authority or a school of the kind mentioned above from its statutory functions, surely, the opportunity
    52
    for the enforcement of those duties by judicial review could be taken away by such an order? That would have grave implications were a school's company to go bust, for the creditors and a whole chain of others affected, who would have no recourse in the last resort—on the face of it—to the Government and the Exchequer.
    One of the few comments that the Minister made with regard to the Bill and these amendments when he opened the debate was that financial risk to the companies would be reduced. Surely he understands, however, that, although financial risk to the companies concerned is a matter for consideration, there is also financial risk to all the other people in the chain. I shall come to those others shortly.
    The matter is also important given the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement about the sums of money that will be made available to education. Does the potential removal, under such orders, of the duties—we do not know what they are, because they are so vague—and hence the liabilities of local authorities and governing bodies create the possibility of a legal void? Would the liabilities be off balance sheet? It would be interesting to learn whether the Minister has anything to say about that. Will he address the question of school companies—whether they are limited by guarantee or by shares—as the provision for them was made only on Third Reading, in the dying moments of the Bill's consideration in the House of Lords?
    Insurance is another issue that was not dealt with greatly, if at all, in the House of Lords. We all know that the compensation culture, as it so described, is growing. Some claims are entirely justified, but the sums of money involved are growing exponentially. For example, the case of Pamela Phelps is important for local education authorities. In 2000, this former pupil successfully sued the London borough of Hillingdon for more than £44,000 after it was proved that her teachers had failed to diagnose her dyslexia, leaving her with the reading age of a seven-year-old.
    I could give many examples and I have no doubt that the Minister's advisers would be able to provide even more. A teacher, Carol Ellen Harper, is suing my county council of Staffordshire in the High Court for more than £50,000 after she slipped on food debris and broke her ankle. In Waltham Forest, the head teacher of the Norlington school for boys said:
    "Every day of the week, I am dealing with solicitors. This is taking a substantial amount of time which I and my teachers should be spending doing our jobs."
    His school has faced six legal challenges in the past 18 months after legal firms operating on a no-win, no-fee basis targeted parents on surrounding estates, tempting them—so it is said—with the prospect of large compensation payments. Judith Waugh, the head of the John F. Kennedy lower school in Stratford, east London, won £119,000 in High Court damages after she was attacked by a 14-year-old boy in 1998.
    There has been a flood of legal actions from pupils, who claim that schools have failed to protect them from bullies. Indeed, a High Court judge ruled that a school had to pay substantial compensation for not protecting a 17-year-old pupil from his own irresponsible behaviour on a school trip. We all know that serious problems can arise from the manner in which schools and education establishments are affected by serious accidents, such as those that have taken place on school outings recently.

    53
    The problem of teachers' liability has been discussed by Veronica Cowan, among others. A glance at The Times Educational Supplement, which is bulging with thousands of hard-to-fill teaching vacancies, gives a clue as to how difficult it will be for the Prime Minister to deliver on his promise of "education, education, education". Indeed, teachers could be forgiven for thinking that the more likely scenario will be litigation, litigation, litigation. It would be invidious of me to go through all the examples that I could give, but I will be more than happy to supply them to the Minister in case he has not come across them already.
    Newcastle-under-Lyme abuts my constituency and many of my constituents go to school there. In a rugby game in 1997, a boy was lifted into the air and landed on his head. He decided to sue the boy who tackled him, and he was covered by the school's insurance. We are not, therefore, being difficult for the sake of it. I am not using graphic examples to raise questions that are irrelevant to the way in which schools are run. The point is this: we are interested in knowing whether regulations on schools companies will require adequate insurance provision to cover the enormous costs that could arise if a company fails.
    There is also the related problem of the responsibility of directors. The Minister probably knows that a Government consultation paper outlines proposals to change the criminal law as it relates to the responsibilities of directors. Although I will not go into that in detail, I want to highlight the fact that the Government seem willing to introduce a proposed new offence of corporate killing, which is broadly equivalent to gross carelessness. Pupils are sometimes involved in desperately tragic accidents on school outings. Will the directors of schools companies be advised in advance, in the practice guidelines, that they could be caught up in serious criminal accusations and convictions if things go wrong?
    The emphasis—the rationale of the offence—will be based largely on management failures. Although the offence of corporate killing would apply only to corporate bodies, it is important to take account of the fact that it may affect school companies. The consultation paper and the Law Commission's paper refer to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and to new offences that are committed if people give undertakings. They say that that offence could apply to all employing organisations, including schools, hospital trusts, partnerships and unincorporated charities. Again, the Government need to give that careful consideration, because we need answers.
    What will happen if a company goes bust? That is an important practical matter for those concerned—children, parents, teachers, governing bodies, local education authorities, creditors and local communities. The idea of greater local freedom to manage has its attractions, but has the legislation been properly thought through? We all remember the total failure in some schools and the arrangements for LEAs and/or the Government to step in. We demand to know what will happen under the new arrangements.
    In law, if a company goes bust, perhaps because of overtrading or a massive insurance claim, the assets have to be sold. Staff have to be laid off, redundancy has to be paid and the debts must be paid off. If there is no money, insolvency will apply, under which the liquidators' remuneration and expenses take first call even before redundancy payments. Creditors, such as builders, those
    54
    who provided furniture and other contractors, come way down the line. It will not just be the bankers who are involved; many small businesses will also be affected.
    We are told that if a company is limited by guarantee or shares with only, say, a £10 liability, then that is all that will be available. We are also told, however, that the LEA will pick up the tab. How will the liability be enforced? How will the LEA be expected to pay up? If the regulations are implemented, an act which could remove the duties imposed by the Government, what effect would that have? In other words, is there a legal void? If not, will the Minister give us chapter and verse to reassure us that there is none, as I am sure he will want to?
    The Government tell us that, under regulations, the company will be prohibited from admitting to its membership any person who is not of a prescribed description, and that regulations may impose requirements for the company's constitution and any other matter connected with its affairs. What exactly will that involve? That is not a theoretical but a practical question. The Minister knows perfectly well that all these matters were considered in the House of Lords and no satisfactory answer was given.
    5.30 pm
    I have a letter dated 28 May from Lord McIntosh to Baroness Blatch, which baldly states:
    "LEAs would ultimately be liable for the debts of purchasing companies, just as they are for those accrued by purchasing by individual schools."
    What will happen if an order is made under clause 2 with the effect that I have just described?
    The key question is whether the proposals will work. Lord McIntosh said that one reason
    "for using such companies is that schools may want to join together to deliver services to other schools in which they have real strength. That could result in benefits to company members and to other schools, which could receive good quality support."
    He then made a brief point about distance learning and publishing skills, before going on to say:
    "They may therefore need to bring in outside organisations … perhaps a not-for-profit organisation … as members of the company on the basis that they will take a share of the profits. And why not?"
    Lord McIntosh also said:
    "I cannot reconcile the opposition to that idea with what I understand to be the ethos of the Conservative party."
    He could not understand why we would not want commercial freedom for the companies in question. The point to which I return is that if there is merit in the principle of giving further freedom, the key question—this is where the Labour party and the Government always fall down—is not whether the Government have bagged one of our ideas and are stealing our clothes to make it look as though they are giving schools freedom to manage, but whether the policy will work. We do not yet know the detail of the regulations. There are no magic wands to be waved in such matters. My questions concern matters that will have to be dealt with on the ground.
    There is a further point. We are indeed in favour of innovation, but the amendments tabled in the other House would have allowed even more freedom, and there is a problem with that. It looks to us as though the issues have not been properly thought through, and there have been

    55
    no proper answers about culpability, liability and the protection of governors. In the other place, Baroness Blatch asked:
    "How on earth will the extra time, money and effort be spent without any impact on the primary duty of a governing body, which is to manage its school?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 252-3.]
    Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords made specific points about that.
    The key question here is whether the burden imposed on the companies by the proposals would interfere with the management of the schools. There is no doubt, as the Minister in the House of Lords admitted, that a considerable amount of time and effort would be spent in setting up arrangements of this kind. This would be a recipe for imposing administrative burdens on schools.
    In a letter to Baroness Blatch, Lord McIntosh wrote, in respect of profits that may be made by such companies:
    "We do not propose that profit must be spent solely in the interests of education."
    That raises an interesting question. Schools are, by definition, charities. They are almost entirely governed by the law relating to charities interacting with the state education system. Ultimately, they are run in the context of charitable purposes. It would be difficult to imagine that profits made from those schools should not be returned to the schools themselves.
    There was some discussion of that question in the other place, but no explanation sufficient to warrant the arrangements now proposed was given. It seems clear to me that the clauses should be left out of the Bill, because there has been no clear indication of what will happen either under the regulations or in the circumstances that I have described.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In the context of distribution of profits, my hon. Friend touches on the relationship with the charitable purposes of education. Does he know whether the Government have considered the point raised in Committee relating to the model of co-operatives, which are run for the benefit of members, especially where schools come together for common purposes? No answer—satisfactory or otherwise—to that question has been given. It strikes me that, of all Members of Parliament, it is Labour Members—especially those who stand to represent the Co-operative movement—who should have considered and answered that question.
    Mr. Cash: Indeed, and as one of my forebears invented the Co-operative movement, I have a special interest in the answer. I hope that the Minister will now answer that question, which did not receive an answer either in the other place or in Committee of the House of Commons.
    Another important question remains outstanding. It was taken seriously by the Minister in the other place, but has not yet been addressed by the Minister handling the Bill here today. It relates to the question of whether or not undesirable characters could become involved in schools, which they might regard as easy targets for involvement
    56
    in commercial activities. Baroness Blatch gave an example of someone who was indeed undesirable, saying that,
    "Had the school been unwise enough to engage in any kind of commercial activity with that person, it would have ended in tears".
    Extraordinarily, Lord McIntosh's reply to the noble Lady's question,
    "How can a set of regulations specify such undesirable or unsuitable people for the purposes of becoming a member of a company?",
    was:
    "There are two lines of protection…First, there is the good sense of the schools concerned."
    I hope that hon. Members take some satisfaction from that. The noble Lord continued:
    "We are talking about people from more than one school"—
    as if that had any relevance
    "so such a person could not be the friend of one of the governors or a friend of the head teacher of one of the schools unless the other schools involved in the company were convinced of the integrity of that friend."
    Do hon. Members really regard that as a convincing answer to the question of how to keep out undesirable characters—that people will have to go chasing around, asking all the different schools whether they like this chap or that one? The very notion that that is the solution to the problem is utterly unconvincing.
    Lord McIntosh went on:
    "However, we have the protection that more than one school will be involved and there will be an independent eye cast over any invitation to join."
    On the question of leaving to regulations the matter of people who would be regarded as acceptable members of a company, he added:
    "Clearly, that will improve with experience."
    We have to discover that undesirable people have, in fact, been running those schools or helping to run them before we learn that from experience.
    Even more astonishingly, Lord McIntosh went on to say:
    "We can state in regulations that the person who becomes a member of a company shall have educational objectives"—
    that is basically the point that I was making about charitable purposes—
    "… or that such a person has something to contribute to the company educationally which cannot otherwise be found."
    Lord McIntosh was simply ducking the question. The Government cannot, in those regulations, prescribe which people will not be desirable, so they turn the problem the other way round. Lord McIntosh continued:
    "We can say all sorts of things of that kind, but there will always be crooks."
    I hope that the Minister heard that. When asked how he would ensure that people in those companies would be fit to run schools, his noble Friend admitted that there will always be crooks.
    So many questions have been asked by my noble Friends in the other place, and by my hon. Friends in

    57
    Committee, that the Government have a duty at least to attempt—so far, the Minister has not done so—to answer them. Baroness Blatch said:
    "We know that there will always be crooks. However, we should be in the business of protecting our governors of schools. They are there not to be company chairman, company members or board members, but to ensure that good education takes place in schools and that schools are managed well in the interests of the education of the children within them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 241-431
    I made a similar point earlier.
    We must also consider the burdens on company directors and on the people running the schools, as well as the question of costs. I am sure that the Minister accepts that, inevitably, there is a need for lawyers and accountants—no doubt a battery of them—to resolve the many questions in company law that may arise. Will that not increase substantially the cost of running those schools?
    Finally, if a company goes into liquidation, there is the question of whether or not the local education authority will have to pick up the tab. We have been assured that the objective of the regulations and the Bill is to provide a light touch. However, there is no evidence whatever from their construction that that will be so—far from it. More likely than not, they will increase the administrative and legal burdens and—I hope that the Minister will deal with this later—the duties imposed by statute on local education authorities would be removed.
    Many issues are involved, and as the debate progresses, no doubt we shall hear more about them. The bottom line, however, is that the proposal is not a recipe for good education. Regulations are constantly spilling out of the Government. and huge administrative costs are being imposed. The Minister, I hope, will be able to deal with some of those questions, but will have enormous difficulty discharging his responsibility, as he certainly did not succeed in doing so in his opening speech. He is fairly new to his post—I was astonished by his irresponsible handling of questions that were thoroughly canvassed in the House of Lords and considered carefully in Committee. He gave us about ten minutes of truncated explanation, but did not deal with any of our questions.
    Mr. Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). When I saw the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) appear on the Government Benches, I wondered whether he intended to enter the debate, and whether we would go back to old times.
    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone for using his expertise in these matters to ask the Government some searching questions—I say that quite genuinely. As an opportunity for us to examine the Bill, the Committee stage was a travesty. The one thing that we failed to get was a clear explanation of the Government's proposal.
    5.45 pm
    For the Minister to come along and give a very brief exposé of what the Government are trying to achieve by restoring the two clauses does him and the House a disservice. I say that rather sadly. Either there is a great deal that the Government are trying to hide, or they do not know the answers to the questions. In either case,
    58
    given the appalling record of private companies formed out of public sector organisations, it is important that we get it right in the case of schools, if we go down that road.
    I shall not repeat all the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stone. We hope that the Minister will respond to each of the points that he made. The question who will guarantee a company's debts is crucial. I shall speak to amendment (aa) in a moment, but first I shall deal with some of the other amendments, particularly the Government's insistence on restoring clause 10. I shall return to the question whether or not the companies are limited by shares; I have a particular reason for raising it.
    Let us say, for argument's sake, that the company is a shareholding company and that the shares are, as the hon. Member for Stone said, as much as £10. The liabilities on the shareholders are therefore relatively small, compared with what could be the company's debts. What would happen to that liability in terms of the assets? As it is a school company, let us say that it is operating from a computer suite within the school, as it may well do—a computer suite that had been funded partly by capital provided as part of a joint company by shareholder capital from outside.
    The Minister shakes his head. With respect, that has been the attitude of Ministers throughout the discussion. Every time we ask a question, they shake their head as if to say, "That is irrelevant." Let us say that the company goes bust. What happens to all the equipment in the suite that was used by the company? The shareholders may pay up to their limit. Does the local education authority then come in and pay out the debtors, or the creditors, whichever is the case? If an LEA must be responsible as a backstop for every company set up under the Bill, it will have to find funds from other schools to pay those debts. We need answers to all the important questions of liability that arise from the clause.
    We never got a clear answer as to whether the school's assets would be involved in a company. Let me give the Minister another example. There is nothing to stop a group of governors setting up a company to manage the school and its assets—or even a group of schools—and transferring the assets into that company. For example, 3 E's in Guildford set up the new King's College campus. Why should not that company take over all the schools in Guildford as a single company, form a separate company limited by shares, and then be bought out by a major plc and traded on the stock market as part of that company's portfolio? What would happen at that time? What would happen to the assets if the company got into difficulties? If it wanted to realise some of its assets to fund new developments, would it be able to close the school and sell the land, buildings or whatever else? Lord McIntosh rather alarmingly said in another place that people could take profit out of the companies. The Government have made it clear that that is possible. If a company takes profit, it also needs to share the risk.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will remember that many of those questions were asked in Committee, so it is hardly that the Government have not been given notice of them. Let us return to his example of the ICT suite, where there are assets, even though their value will be rapidly depreciating. What will happen if there is recourse to those assets, but no contract between those who are damaged and the LEA? Has the Minister discussed that

    59
    matter with the Chancellor, with a view to computing contingent liabilities on the Government, as the ultimate guarantor for the LEA? Those are the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's questions and why we are looking for answers. The matter is too uncertain for anybody to have certainty about entering into a contract.
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. He and I know that most local authorities, especially shire local authorities, have fewer assets on their balance sheets than some individual schools. The El. 1 billion on school balance sheets exceeds significantly the assets of a number of LEAs. Recourse to the Chancellor might well be needed in such cases. In Committee, although the Minister was not present at the time—[Interruption.] I apologise; the hon. Gentleman was not a Minister at that time, so I do not hold him responsible for the answers that the then Minister gave. None the less, the Government can also invest in the companies. What will happen to that investment? Does the LEA have responsibility in that regard or is it ultimately part of the Government's liability? We need to know the answer to that question.
    The hon. Member for Stone made a crucial point about the relationship between part 1 and the rest of the Bill. The Bill is to become the Education Act 2002, but part 1 is about innovation and the ability to disregard all other education legislation. There is a huge contradiction between part I and the intention to introduce school companies. We must be given an answer in that context.
    My noble Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford asked an important question in another place: what is the fundamental role of our schools? I do not think that she received an adequate answer. We have heard from the Chancellor today and I think that we shall hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Estelle Morris)indicated assent.
    Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State will make a major statement about investing significant resources in schools.
    Mr. Miliband: Not enough?
    Mr. Willis: The Minister must wait for my speech to find out the answer.
    We have heard today about a raft of new controls that will be placed on schools in relation to accessing the new resources. That is the reality of what we heard today: it is not freedom for schools; it is greater centralisation. We shall debate that issue on another occasion, but it is ironic that one of the Conservative amendments from another place deals with cutting bureaucracy. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees with the premise of innovation and autonomy, but greater controls and obligations are being imposed on schools at the same time. My party and I believe that the core business of a school and its management and governors is to run the school effectively for its youngsters. I do not want companies to take away from that core function and I think that we need some assurance about that.
    60
    It is interesting that neither of the head teacher associations supports that part of the Bill. Neither of them wants the greater levels of autonomy—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters away from a sedentary position, but the private sector does not want those things either. In the private sector, which has the freedom to do all those things, there is no desire to set up companies as well.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. In relation to his argument about regulation, is he aware that significant expertise will be required around the board tables of the new school companies to ensure that there is sufficient knowledge about running a company and the associated liabilities and responsibilities? It is difficult to imagine that such expertise currently exists in schools and governing bodies. In support of his argument that, far from enhancing freedom, the regulations that underpin the provisions will be more burdensome, I suggest that that expertise will be needed somewhere to ensure compliance with all company law regulations.
    Mr. Willis: That is what is so confusing. What is behind the provisions, and what is their objective? The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the bureaucracy, controls and financial investment that will be needed in order to achieve that objective are staggering, but the Government have yet to persuade us about the overall benefit.
    Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Does he also accept that one of the most difficult aspects of dealing with what is meant to be a standard arrangement with regard to company law, even allowing for the fact that a great deal of competence is needed, is fitting in the required knowledge with all the requirements laid down by model constitutions and regulations? Does he agree that it will be a field day for lawyers and accountants?
    Mr. Willis: Yes—that is why I was asking why we were taking this particular route. If the Government were proposing wholesale privatisation of the education system, that would be another story. I would not agree with what they were doing, but one could understand why they would wish to take the proposed approach. I cannot understand from the Minister's examples, or indeed those given by colleagues in another place, what great advantages the provisions have that could not already be achieved. We already have examples of schools working together to provide, for example, grant maintenance contracts or schools meals contracts. There are marvellous examples of bodies such as the Yorkshire Purchasing Organisation, which for 30 years has been providing joint purchasing arrangements for schools and local authorities. There are examples of airports, such as Manchester or Leeds-Bradford, in which local authorities are working together to provide a joint service. All the legislation is in place to enable those things to happen, yet we have had no explanation as to why we should proceed with the Bill.
    Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Does he recall from the Committee stage that one of the areas in which

    61
    the Government were unable to give clear answers was the possibility of the governing body deciding to close down its educational operations and contract in its entire education service from another school—possibly an independent school? At the extreme, the provisions allow steps to be taken that, I suspect, do not accord with the Government's aspirations.
    Mr. Willis: That might be a little too close to the bone, because I think that in many ways that is the Government's aspiration. It is difficult to know exactly what they are hiding behind as regards these provisions.
    6 pm
    We are concerned that the Government have not properly thought through the implications for schools and LEAs in relation to company law. We are particularly concerned that school companies should not be a means for individuals to make a profit. I ask the Minister this direct question: what is there in the Bill to prevent any individual, including a member of the governing body. from siphoning off profits? On Third Reading, Lord McIntosh of Haringey stated:
    "Let me make it clear that when talking about profits there is no question of governing bodies taking their share of the profits to use for anything other than the educational needs of their schools. There is no possibility of siphoning off profits".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 252.]
    In Committee, however, he was less emphatic about public funds being used for private profit when he said:
    "Preventing any profit being used for purposes other than education in participating schools may in practice mean that it cannot be paid to company members other than schools. That is an unnecessary interference. There is no reason why schools should not innovate in potentially profitable ways and there is no reason why they should not bring in outside partners to help them to achieve that. They will still benefit financially from it, but that may be achieved only if they have outside partners who can participate for a profit."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2002; Vol. 634, c. 1108]
    There is a direct contradiction between the statements that were made in Committee and on Third Reading, and it is important that the Minister makes it clear which is right.
    That brings me to my amendment concerning whether school companies should be limited by shares or by guarantee. I want to remove the possibility of the former option because that would remove the element of potential profiteering by individuals. If the Government are determined to get the Bill through—the Minister will have to give a very convincing argument when he winds up—they must give us a guarantee that any profit made out of a public investment of funds into a company returns to the school or schools for investment and does not go to private individuals or private organisations. The amendment would limit school companies by guarantee rather than shares to ensure that no individual profits. If the Minister does not agree with that—if he believes that outside agents can invest and take a profit—he must accept that governors and teachers should also be able to invest and make a profit. I am not debating whether that is an honourable position for the Minister to take, but he must make it absolutely clear whether it is the case. If so, he will not have the support of Liberal Democrats here or in another place.
    Chris Grayling: We had a robust debate about the provisions in Committee, and it is clear that the concerns
    62
    that were raised in the series of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and Liberal Democrat Members, and the whole tone of the debate, have been reflected in the other place and back here again through the amendments containing noble Lords' recommendations.
    Those concerns arise because the provisions are confused and unclear, and contain several significant weaknesses. I am at a loss, as are other hon. Members, to understand what they will really add to the Bill or what benefits they will bring to schools. There is no great demand for those steps to be taken. The Government seem to be opening up the education system to complexity and risk that it does not need. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) clearly set out many of the issues surrounding liability, especially financial liability, and the complexities of corporate law that schools will end up having to deal with.
    The Government have failed to explain several matters. Indeed, some of the contributions made by Ministers in Committee were confused, to say the least. One such matter is LEA liability. The key question is how the LEA's ultimate liability is to be enforced in law. How is somebody who has suffered a loss as a result of mismanagement in a company established by a governing body to go through the process of getting their money back from the LEA? That is far from clear, as it is not stipulated in the Bill. We are on a wing and a prayer. The Government may be able to explain it—no doubt the Minister will say that "regulations may provide"—but there is no clear legal chain that would enable it to happen.
    Nor has there been a clear explanation of the nature of the liability that will be built up. There is great confusion about that. The then Minister, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), said in Committee that he envisaged two types of companies being set up:
    "One is formed to undertake procurement activities on behalf of several schools, and the other is a service provider company in which several schools come together to provide services to either themselves or other schools."
    When he went on to talk about liability, he confused the matter considerably. He said:
    "There is a distinction between the two. Local education authorities will be liable for some of the debts of procurement companies, but not for those of the service provider companies."— [Official Report. Standing Committee G, 18 December 2001; c. 170.]
    If those lending money to, and doing business with, service provider companies do not have the security of LEA guarantees, where do those companies stand in terms of liability? Who is responsible for debts? What happens if debts are secured against assets? As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, the nature of those assets is a grey area between operational activities in the school and the activities of the company. How will liability be established in the event of the corporate failure of one of the service provider companies? When Ministers use the phrase, "It is envisaged that", as they frequently have in this context, how can anyone be clear about what the Government are trying to do?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stone referred to the complexities of dealing with company law. School governors already deal with huge amounts of complex rules and regulations. The days are long gone since governors could sit passively on the governing body,

    63
    listening to what the head had to say and chipping in a few words here and there. That may have been so a generation ago, but there is a world of difference today. Governing bodies need to be sharp, to be on the ball and to have substantial professional expertise. Yet we are now saying to the all-too-few volunteers willing to join school governing bodies, "Not only do you have to take on board the very considerable regulatory responsibilities that are being placed on your shoulders"—particularly, but not exclusively, by this Government—"but if your school is to move down the road towards implementing these provisions, you will have to learn company law as well."
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most extraordinary contributions made by Ministers in the other House when these arguments were being advanced was to suggest that it is just a voluntary arrangement that does not have to be complied with? That is to dismiss the whole complexity of the framework in the Bill as something that might just happen on the margins. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an extraordinary position for the Government to find themselves in?
    Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. From the point of view of any governor or anybody who is involved in the management of a school, there is no way in which any of these activities could be at the margins. If the school sets up a company, that person must have a duty of care and a detailed knowledge and understanding of what is going on. The provision could represent a huge diversion for governing bodies.
    The implications for the work load in schools are substantial. The Government failed to respond adequately to a point that was made about that in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) tabled an amendment that would have provided for the head teacher of a school that set up a company to be on the company's board. The Government said that that was unnecessary, but how can governing bodies make decisions that can fundamentally affect the school's operation, assets, grounds, space, staff and resources without the head teacher having a say in them'?
    Let us consider the work load of other staff. That, too, was tackled in Committee, but again the Minister gave only vague responses. When we considered work load, he said:
    Any member of … a school who became involved with a company's activities would have to agree to do that. There is a variety of ways in which the member of staff could work for the company. For example, they could be on a temporary secondment, or part of the working week could be spent on company rather than school business. Different remuneration arrangements would be needed in different circumstances … In reality, arrangements would be best left to local discussion and agreement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 December 2001; c. 157.]
    How would that work practically in schools? When the governing body says that it has set up a company and needs the school to take specific action to contribute to it, how many members of staff will dare to say, "No"?
    At a time when teachers' work load is already great, we risk placing on head teachers and staff considerable additional responsibilities for a measure that will provide no obvious benefits. As hon. Members have said, many schools are already undertaking the activities for which
    64
    the Bill provides. The Minister mentioned common procurement; many schools do that. Many LEAs procure collectively on behalf of their schools. Schools already have the ability to work together. In Committee, the Minister suggested that schools might work together to provide common transport services. They do not need to set up a company and take on all the attendant responsibilities to do that.
    As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the provisions' boundaries are unclear. A school could contract out its whole education system under the Bill. When I made that point in Committee, the Minister replied:
    "That does not sound like a likely scenario."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 December 2001; c. 157.]
    In other words, it is possible in law; it is simply unlikely.
    Let us consider the borrowing restrictions and the liabilities that the companies could accumulate. The Government are quick to say that the companies need the LEAs' permission to borrow and that everything is nicely covered. What about contingent liabilities? They are topical because the Government are keen on them and their non-appearance on national balance sheets. What happens if a company that a school set up accumulates substantial contingent liabilities that are not related to borrowing? Where is the watchdog control over that? Are we saying that LEAs are liable, regardless of what happens and of the financial steps taken by the directors? Can directors trade in the full knowledge that the LEA will ultimately pick up the bill if they do not succeed?
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Audit Office is taking a diligent interest in off balance sheet activities and that we are considering another example that it will have to examine?
    Chris Grayling: I hope that the National Audit Office never gets the opportunity because the House will accept the Lords amendment and reject the provisions. I do not believe that the measures will provide educational benefit or generate significant cost savings for schools. They risk being a distraction to those who run schools—a job that is already greatly burdened. I hope that hon. Members will come to their senses, support the Lords and accept that such provisions should not be included in the Bill.
    Mr. Miliband: Our debate of the past hour and a half has been interesting. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said that he did not want to be considered difficult. I do not want to make any such accusation against him; his contributions are all part of the parliamentary scrutiny that the Government welcome because we hope that it will improve the Bill. However, I wish that he had shown a little more of the spirit of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who so passionately supported the concept. The debate has covered a wide range of issues, and I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible.
    6.15 pm
    Many contributions focused on liability and I shall deal with that. I shall also try to cover the more basic issues that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised. He asked what the point of the provisions were. First, I want to make an important

    65
    preliminary point. No school will be able to form a company unless it gets the LEA's agreement. The hon. Member for Stone gave an example of a failing school that, not content with failing its pupils, could create a company that would fail the pupils of other schools. Frankly, that will not happen. No LEA will agree to allow a failing school to set up a company.
    Mr. Cash: The Minister knows about the exchanges that took place in another place. First, there is the question whether the LEA has the competence to handle questions on the matters that we have been discussing. Secondly, I am sure that he remembers that Lord McIntosh said that the LEA would intervene only when the companies had got into serious trouble. That is too late. We want to avoid companies getting into trouble in the first place. The Bill will not help with that problem.
    Mr. Miliband: I look forward to lengthy discussions about the operation of local education authorities as part of the hon. Gentleman's new, roving brief. We will see whether his new alliance with the Liberal Democrats survives such scrutiny. We are now in the second round of Ofsted inspections of LEAs. That is a rigorous process, and it is inconceivable that any LEA, however poor its performance, will agree that a failing school should set up a company. The Bill contains a safeguard that LEAs can agree or disagree with any proposal.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Perhaps LEAs would not agree to allow a failing school to set up a company. However, some LEAs are surprised by the failure of schools. They may already have given such schools approval.
    Mr. Miliband: We have rich data sets that explain the performance of different schools. They are based not only on raw scores but increasingly on value-added information. The identity of schools that are not performing as well as they might are clear to any LEA. Ofsted inspection increasingly focuses on making sure that LEAs are clear about that. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) missed the early part of the debate and I do not believe that his point was valid. Out of the corner of my eye, I can see the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough twitching, and I am delighted to give way to him.
    Mr. Willis: I am delighted that the Minister is delighted. However, there is a genuine contradiction in the provisions. It relates to part 1, which deals with innovation. In some of the so-called failing schools or schools in challenging circumstances, there may be a need to do exactly what the Minister supports. Is the Minister saying that we want the Bill only for so-called successful schools?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman may be trying to have his cake and eat it. I am trying to make it clear that the provisions contain a safeguard to ensure that LEAs consider seriously any proposals for school companies.
    Mr. Brady: Will the Minister confirm whether it would be possible for the LEA to contract out that function?
    Mr. Miliband: It would not be possible for LEAs to do that. The Bill is clear that LEAs must give the school permission to set up a company. We focused on the financial management of companies.
    66
    It is important that companies, like schools, are well managed. That is why we proposed a supervising authority to provide a protective framework. If a school company fails financially, each company member's liability will be limited to a nominal figure of approximately £10 in the case of a company limited by guarantee, or the amount outstanding on the shares in the case of a company limited by shares. Company members would determine the value of the shares, which may be a nominal sum and the amount, if any, outstanding on the shares would always be comfortable with the liability.
    Hon. Members asked what would happen if the company got into debt. It will be difficult for a company to get into debt through borrowing and be unable to repay the debts out of future income. We are including in the regulations the requirement for the company to seek the supervising authority's permission before it can borrow money. A company that gets into debt will have to arrange a schedule of repayments with its creditors.
    Chris Grayling rose
    Mr. Miliband: I want to make some progress, because I have taken five interventions and I am still on my first point. [Interruption.] I shall answer hon. Members' questions in my own way. I think that I am answering them pretty accurately, but it is hard to answer them if I am not allowed to make my case.
    I shall carry on with my argument. Several hon. Members asked what would happen if a company were to fail. The delegated budget of individual member schools would not be at risk, and I shall explain why. Purchasing companies would be spending member schools' delegated budgets, and would therefore be deemed to be acting as agents of the LEA. The LEA would be liable for the company's debts, in the event of company failure, in the same way that the LEA would be liable for an individual school's debts when the school was acting as the LEA's agent. This would not be the case for service delivery companies, because such a company would not be acting as the LEA's agent. If a service delivery company became insolvent, its liabilities would not pass to its members, because it would be a limited liability company.
    If a school company were unable to pay its debts, the normal route, which applies to all companies, of placing the company in administration or winding the company up, would be open to it and its creditors. I can see the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough twitching again. If he will let me proceed, I shall see whether I can answer his question.
    Clause 2 has been mentioned by several hon. Members. Nothing in the power to innovate can affect company law. This provision will apply only to educational law, so it cannot affect liability in the way that has been suggested. School companies are not qualifying bodies under clause 2, so companies cannot be exempted from any law. All the examples, including that of sports injuries, raised by the hon. Member for Stone in his wide-ranging speech, are existing potential liabilities. The existence of companies will have no effect on them. Companies will not be running schools, so none of the issues raised in relation to the running of schools arises. The companies will not own schools' premises or employ their staff.
    The hon. Member for Stone also asked whether a school company would be required, by regulations, to take out insurance to cover potential liabilities. These

    67
    companies would not be able to take over the running of a school, so they would not be liable in the example that he gave, which related to negligence and causing injury during sports activities.
    Mr. Cash: The Minister is obviously relying heavily on the notes with which he has been supplied. [Interruption.] That is a simple fact; he is just reading out what he has been given. I have the gravest doubt that what he is saying will turn out, in due course, to be the case. There is an interaction between the potential use of clause 2 and the removal of these education functions—if that is to happen. The Minister has not given the House an answer on whether it is intended to use those provisions in this context, and we take issue with the Government on that point.
    Mr. Miliband: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is as well known for his generosity to other hon. Members as he is for his warnings about the dire consequences of various Government actions, but we shall see.
    The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of assets, as did the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. It will be up to a school to decide whether to transfer assets to a company, but there would be no reason for it to do so. A school would be no more likely to transfer assets to a school company in future than it is now. Schools do not do so now, and there will be no reason for them to do so in future.
    Mr. Willis: The Minister said that I was twitching earlier. Is he saying that a school can use its budget share, or part of it, to set up a company and that, if it fails, it will be the LEA that will be subject to the liabilities under the new arrangements?
    Mr. Miliband: Yes. That is why a safeguard has been set up for LEAs, in that they will need to approve the setting up of the companies.
    Chris Grayling: The Minister did not answer a question I asked him a moment ago. Will a company have the right to enter into leasing agreements and other off balance sheet arrangements, and would the LEA ultimately be liable if the company failed, despite having had no sanction over whether it should be set up?
    Mr. Miliband: I do not think that the off balance sheet question arises. Opposition Members are asking us to prescribe every conceivable detail of innovation that a school might exercise in relation to setting up a school company. We are saying that we have an exciting avenue for development here, and we want to give schools wide discretion to avail themselves of it, with safeguards built in.
    The question of enforcement was raised by various hon. Members. This would involve an ordinary civil action in the courts, and recovery would be by debtors in the normal way, as is the position now for all purchasing by schools. The power to innovate, for which we are legislating, has no impact on that. The hon. Member for Stone also mentioned undesirable people being brought into schools to run the companies. The Government have
    68
    made it clear that they will regulate to prevent undesirable people from being members of a company; we have said so in correspondence. All categories of persons who are prevented from being school governors will also be prevented from joining school companies.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether we would be distracting schools from their core function. The answer to that is no. These proposals are about encouraging co-operation between schools to help them to perform their roles more effectively, serving their own pupils and other pupils in the locality. Allowing teachers the professional development benefits of sharing their expertise with other schools can benefit both the providing and receiving schools. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that was not being done already. A certain amount of co-operation does already take place, but the power will provide clarity that the school's governing body can form a company to do more than it is able to do at the moment. Without such a power, there would be considerable doubt that a governing body could participate in a company that did more than oversee or carry out functions in relation to an individual school.
    Mr. Andrew Turner rose
    Mr. Miliband: I have been extremely generous in giving way, and I think it is about time that we finished this debate. There are some big issues still to be debated, and I am sure that we should be attacked later for not giving enough time to them, if we did not get on and get through this part of the debate.
    The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough seeks to remove the option for companies to be limited by shares. I do not think he has made a strong case for that. When school companies choose to deliver services to other schools, they may well find being limited by shares rather than limited by guarantee a better. easier structure in which to work. 1 do not see why they should be denied that choice. For example, if a private sector body generated some innovative curriculum materials, it would make a profit from them. If one of our best schools did so, I see no reason why the school itself should not benefit. It is not true that a company limited by guarantee could not distribute any operating profit to its members. It is not the normal type of company structure adopted for paying profit to members, but there is scope for that to happen.
    I hope that I have answered in full all the points that have been raised. This is an important provision and I urge the House to support the Government.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:
    The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 168.

    Division No. 307]

    [6.27 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Austin, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Bailey, Adrian

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Baird, Vera

    AYES

    Alexander, Douglas

    Banks, Tony

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Barnes, Harry

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bell, Stuart

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Benn, Hilary

    69

    Bennett, Andrew

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Benton, Joe

    Edwards, Huw

    Berry, Roger

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Best, Harold

    Ennis, Jeff

    Betts, Clive

    Etherington, Bill

    Blackman, Liz

    Farrelly. Paul

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Flynn, Paul

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Follett, Barbara

    Brennan, Kevin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Browne, Desmond

    Foulkes, George

    Bryant, Chris

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gapes, Mike

    Burden, Richard

    Gardiner, Barry

    Burnham, Andy

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cairns, David

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

    Casale, Roger

    Grogan, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Havard, Dai

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Healey, John

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hill. Keith

    Clelland, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hodge, Margaret

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hoey, Kate

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Cohen, Harry

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coleman, lain

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Colman, Tony

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corston, Jean

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cousins, Jim

    Hurst, Alan

    Cox, Tom

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Crausby, David

    Illsley, Eric

    Cruddas, Jon

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W &Hessle)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

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

    Joyce, Eric

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kelly, Ruth

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Khabra, Piara S

    Doran, Frank

    Kidney, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Drew, David

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    70

    Lammy, David

    Pond, Chris

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Pope, Greg

    Laxton, Bob

    Pound, Stephen

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lepper, David

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Levitt, Tom

    Primarolo, Rt Hon Dawn

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Purchase, Ken

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Purnell. James

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Linton, Martin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lloyd, Tony

    Rammell, Bill

    Love, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd

    Lucas, Ian

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Luke, lain

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCabe, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    McCafferty, Chris

    Ross, Emie

    McCartney. Rt Hon Ian

    Roy, Frank

    MacDonald, Calum

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonnell, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    MacDougall, John

    Ryan, Joan

    McFall, John

    Salter, Martin

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McIsaac, Shona

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McKechin, Ann

    Sawford, Phil

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheridan, Jim

    McNulty, Tony

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    MacShane, Denis

    Simon, SiÔn

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Singh, Marsha

    McWalter, Tony

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Mendelson Rt Hon Peter

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mann, John

    Southworth, Helen

    Maris, Rob

    Squire, Rachel

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Marshall & Andrews, Robert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Meale, Alan

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Merron, Gillian

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Miliband, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Mole, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Timms, Stephen

    Morley, Elliot

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Todd, Mark

    Mountford, Kali

    Touhig, Don

    Mudie, George

    Trickett, Jon

    Mullin, Chris

    Truswell, Paul

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tumer, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Murphy, Jim (Eashvood)

    Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

    Norris, Dan

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Olner, Bill

    Tynan, Bill

    Organ, Diana

    Vaz, Keith

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Owen, Albert

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Ward, Claire

    Pearson, Ian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Perham, Linda

    White, Brian

    Picking, Anne

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Wood, Mike

    71

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Mr. Phil Woolas.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Heald, Oliver

    Allan, Richard

    Heath, David

    Amess, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Hendry, Charles

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Hoban, Mark

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Holmes, Paul

    Bacon, Richard

    Horam, John

    Baker, Norman

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Barker, Gregory

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Baron, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Barrett, John

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

    Bellingham, Henry

    Bercow, John

    Key, Robert

    Blunt, Crispin

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Boswell, Tim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Brady, Graham

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Brake, Tom

    Lamb, Norman

    Breed, Colin

    Laws, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Leigh, Edward

    Burns, Simon

    Letwin, Oliver

    Burnside, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Burstow, Paul

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Burt, Alistair

    Lidington, David

    Butterfill, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Cameron, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Loughton, Tim

    Luff, Peter

    Cash, William

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Chidgey, David

    Malins, Humfrey

    Chope, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Clappison, James

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Collins, Tim

    Moore, Michael

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cotter, Brian

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    cran, James

    Oaten, Mark

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Opik, Lembit

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Osbome, George (Tatton)

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Page, Richard

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

    Paice, James

    Evans, Nigel

    Paterson, Owen

    Fabricant, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Flight, Howard

    Price, Adam

    Forth. Rt Hon Eric

    Prisk, Mark

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Pugh, Dr John

    Francois, Mark

    Randall, John

    Gale, Roger

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Garnier, Edward

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Goodman, Paul

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gray, James

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Grayling, Chris

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Ruffley, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hammond, Philip

    Selous, Andrew

    Hancock, Mike

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford 14.)

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hawkins, Nick

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    72

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Watkinson, Angela

    Spink, Bob

    Webb, Steve

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whittingdale, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Wiggin, Bill

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wilkinson, John

    Syms, Robert

    Willetts, David

    Tapsell Sir Peter

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Taylor John (Solihull)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Willis, Phil

    Thurso John

    Wilshire, David

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tredinnick, David

    Yeo, Tim

    Trend, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Tyler, Paul

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Viggers. Peter

    Mr. Desmond Swayne and

    Walter, Robert

    Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment (aa).
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill, agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 13 disagreed to.
    Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill, agreed to.

    Before Clause 18
    Lords amendment: No. 14.
    Mr. Miliband: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider amendment (a) in lieu.
    Mr. Miliband: I hope that we shall not lose the attendance of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whose new-found interest in education has added a lot to our debate. I am disappointed that he does not perceive the legal aspects of the clauses with which we are about to deal.
    I recognise that the amendment is well-intentioned [Interruption.]—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but will Members who are not staying for the debate please leave quickly and quietly? Not to do so is a discourtesy to the Minister and to the House.
    Mr. Miliband: I recognise that the amendment is well-intentioned, and the Government certainly support its underlying principle of reducing burdens on schools. However, as drafted it risks leaving schools in the dark

    73
    about vital educational developments, and damaging the interests of pupils and those who work with them.
    We all know that there are important matters in education about which schools require guidance and information. Unforeseen events can give rise to a need for such guidance. We must be able to move swiftly to protect the rights and needs of pupils and school staff. An important example has come to the fore during the passage of the Bill. I refer to the Government's response to pressure, not least from the Opposition in the House of Lords, to make statutory provision for the welfare of children. That will require more material to be sent to schools, something that would be jeopardised by the Lords amendment as it stands. That cannot be right. I think there was support for the Government's amendment throughout the House.
    Such vital information is not the same as reams of red tape. Here we are in full agreement with the terms of the amendment: we are committed to removing bureaucratic burdens on our schools. Schools obviously exist to deliver high-quality education, and we wish to remove anything that frustrates them in performing that task. We have set out our programme for reducing burdens in the Government's regulatory reform action plan, and we have made radical changes to simplify the operation of the standards fund, making it easier for schools to gain access to a significant proportion of their budgets.
    We said last year that we would implement this Bill according to best practice, aiming to reduce burdens on those in schools. We recognise that there must be some administration for schools to function properly, but teachers' paramount task is teaching. The greatly increased number of support staff in schools who can carry out administrative work—some 80,000 now—will help schools to ensure that teachers can focus on their core tasks.
    However, the Lords amendment as it stands could be counter-productive. In the Bill we move significant detailed prescription out of primary legislation. In place of that, we will make regulations that will be less detailed and less prescriptive. That will reduce burdens on schools. The unintended effect of the amendment would be to prevent us from doing that, because of its narrow focus.
    If we imposed illogical constraints on that system, as would be the case if we were to adopt the Lords amendment, we could face the bizarre situation of being severely hampered in introducing a lighter touch schools framework, with more devolution and more decision making at school level. Surely we do not want to do that.
    There is, however, one aspect of this Lords amendment that we do think could be made workable. It is the subject of the Government amendment.
    As I have said, we want to reduce burdens on schools. One aspect of that is reducing the flow of material from central Government. I believe, and the Government believe, that a requirement to report annually to Parliament listing the Department's direct communications with schools could reinforce our determination to do so. We would report at the end of each school year. The number of communications with different types of school will inevitably fluctuate from year to year according to policy needs. Since the school year 1999-2000, we have achieved a significant reduction—of about a third—in the number of documents sent to schools. We continue to monitor all proposed communications stringently so that schools receive only material necessary for legal or policy reasons.
    6.45 pm
    Chris Grayling: Does the reduction in the number of documents sent to schools to which the Minister has referred include the number of e-mails sent to head teachers by the Department?
    Mr. Miliband: I used the word "documents" advisedly, but as the hon. Gentleman will know all documents we send to schools are also sent to them by e-mail so that they are available in electronic form if that is what schools want.
    The Department has some internal controls allowing us to appraise critically what goes on in schools, how and when. The most important thing is for schools to receive the right information at the right time, and that it is easy to use. I believe, however, that an annual report to Parliament would establish the right incentives for both Ministers and civil servants, making them think not just twice or three times but perhaps four times about communications to schools. As I have said, we want to reduce the number of communications.
    Mr. Willis: It is interesting that the Minister can now provide information that it has not been possible to provide in written answers in the past, and we welcome that. Does the Minister agree, however, that if the exercise is to be truly valuable there needs to be a way of debating the information that goes to schools in some forum in the House of Commons? We need to he able to decide objectively whether it has some value, or whether it is simply furthering the Government's political objectives.
    Mr. Miliband: I am tempted to suggest that that is an uncharacteristically ungenerous response from the hon. Gentleman. Like him, I would like us to spend all our time debating education in the House, but there are many other matters to discuss, and I hesitate to trespass on the timetabling responsibilities of Members greatly senior to me. I think, however, that this is an indication of the Government's commitment to taking seriously the need to reduce the bureaucratic burdens imposed by communications. I think the establishment of an annual report is the right direction to take: it will provide much greater transparency in regard to the Government's communications with schools. We have proposed a new clause to achieve that.
    I believe that the amendment meets the concerns expressed in the House of Lords, and I therefore invite the House to agree to it in lieu of the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Graham Brady: I hope that I can put the Minister's mind at rest. He was obviously concerned about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was no longer present. I am sure that the amendments have legal aspects, so perhaps if the Minister repeats his entreaties, my hon. Friend could be prevailed on to return and give the House the benefit of his legal knowledge.
    The Minister mentioned in passing what happened in the other place with amendments relating to child protection. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the

    75
    Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), who campaigned very effectively and established cross-party support in another place. She deserves enormous credit.
    When speaking on the last group of amendments, the Minister made a little play of my enthusiasm for some of the Government's stated aims. I am not at all embarrassed by that: I stand by my support and enthusiasm for the Bill's aims of raising standards in education, increasing autonomy for schools and removing central control. Our concern throughout has been that what the Government have been doing is the opposite of what they have been saying.
    Lords amendment No. 14 is another clear example of how it has been left to the Opposition to try to put into practice what the Government say they want to achieve. After many years of the Opposition's arguing that an intolerable burden of regulation and red tape is being placed on schools, the Government are increasingly prepared at least to echo our rhetoric. According to a Department for Education and Skills press release of 8 May, entitled "Tackling teacher workload and red tape will raise standards further", the Secretary of State said:
    "It is vital that teachers spend their time teaching, not doing tasks that can be done by others".
    We wholeheartedly agree, but the acid test of whether the Government really mean what they say is found in the detail of the amendments.
    Perhaps above anything else, Lords amendment No. 14 crystallises the divide over how we should best proceed. In the light of recent disturbing evidence about the impact of excessive red tape and bureaucracy on the teaching profession—and in particular on the Government's ability to attract and retain good people—I hope that Ministers will reflect on this issue. Last Friday's edition of The Times Educational Supplement made the following encouraging point:
    "New teachers are enthusiastic about the job, but most are unsure just how long they will stay given the workload and bureaucracy."
    It continues by pointing out that, according to a new survey:
    "Only just over a third"
    of new teachers
    "expect to be teaching after 10 years".
    The blame for that is placed on work load and bureaucracy. Teachers whom I meet express concerns about work load not in the context of time spent teaching, but of time spent on the unnecessary diversions that the Government put in their way.
    The extent to which our views are gaining currency, and to which the teaching profession is uniting behind the argument that we have advanced consistently in the past four or five years—Ministers may consider this an unholy alliance—is demonstrated by the latest edition of NUT News. That may not be an obvious source for me to quote, but I am pleased to do so because it gives credit to the splendid and noble Baronesses Blatch and Miller—a description with which the Under-Secretary would doubtless entirely agree. Under the heading, "The Lords protect us", NUT News states:
    "All teachers now look to the Government for measures to reduce workload and make their teaching more effective. The Government needs to show that it shares with the House of Lords the view that bureaucracy must be attacked and that teachers need protection from excessive workload, new regulations and initiatives."
    76
    That was a direct response to Lords amendment No. 14—a point that should give Ministers pause as they try to dismiss what is one of the most important Lords amendments.
    I should briefly point out to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—I almost described him as my hon. Friend, as we worked together on the Bill rather well—that I am slightly disappointed that the amendment was passed in the Lords by Conservative and Cross-Bench peers without the support of the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrat peers—and, indeed, Government peers—said that they supported the amendment in principle and the spirit behind it, so I hope that we can persuade the hon. Gentleman that it would be preferable to support it in more than spirit.
    Baroness Ashton said in the other place:
    "I wish to make clear that the Government wholeheartedly support the spirit of the amendment. We understand that head teachers and teachers are under pressure."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 259.]
    That gives rise to an important question. The Government say that they support the spirit of the amendment, and the view that something needs to be done about the pressure that head teachers and teachers are under. However, those involved in education throughout the country will want to see solid evidence that the Government really want to do something about the problem. The Government's response to the amendment shows that, unfortunately, they are prepared to be held only to the declaratory aspect of the amendment. They are prepared to publish an annual report to Parliament, setting out the progress made in controlling or reducing the volume of regulation.
    In passing, we should note the short exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and the Minister, in which the latter came clean and said that he was choosing his words advisedly, and that in counting documents, the Government do not include all directives, circulars and consultation papers that are submitted to schools by electronic means, for example. Such evidence—that the Government are already trying to get round some of these constraints—is not a sign of a Government acting entirely in good faith.
    If the Government were to accept subsection (1) in Lords amendment No. 14, which states:
    "the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have a duty to limit new regulation and to control the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers",
    all hon. Members and teachers throughout the country would heave a sigh of relief. For once, they would have concrete evidence that the Government really do intend to take some action, because the Government would be placing themselves under a statutory obligation to limit regulation, bureaucracy and work load.
    Rob Marris: What do those words actually mean, because they seem extremely vague in the context of such legislation? Does the phrase
    "a duty to limit new regulation"
    refer to less regulation than would otherwise have been the case? In other words, would the provision require that

    77
    50 new regulations be added, rather than 100? I suspect that that is not what the hon. Gentleman or the Lords were trying to achieve. The phrase
    "to control the amount of material they send to governing bodies and head teachers"
    is not only incredibly vague but suggests that the Department has no control at all. Is that what the hon. Gentleman intended to suggest?
    Mr. Brady: It sometimes seems to head teachers and teachers that the Government do indeed have no control, and that they simply spray out regulations, directives and circulars daily. In that regard, perhaps the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently put his finger on the matter. In describing the amendment as vague, he is probably trying to suggest that, if we had a duty to control the volume of paper pumped in the direction of schools—4,400 pages of documentation were produced last year, equivalent to some 17 pages a day—the danger is that useful regulations might go, rather than useless and unnecessary ones. It would be a useful discipline for Ministers to know that they had to limit the amount of dross and rubbish.
    Kevin Brennan: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. In the light of his proposal to put a statutory limit on departmental circulars, how many pages and Government directives would be appropriate in a given year?
    Mr. Brady: There is a very simple answer—an awful lot fewer than we have at the moment. The whole teaching profession would like such a reduction. The rhetoric from Ministers is that they want autonomy for schools and teachers to be given the freedom to teach, but in practice they are trying to micro-manage every minute of the school day in every school in the land.
    7 pm
    Rob Marris: I should declare an interest to the House, in that my partner is a primary schoolteacher. When the hon. Gentleman responded to my earlier intervention, he referred to lessening the volume of paper. Leaving aside the electronic issue that we mentioned earlier, that would appear to be more specific than the vague wording in subsection (1) in Lords amendment No. 14.
    Mr. Brady: If the hon. Gentleman's partner is a primary schoolteacher, perhaps we should all wish that she were here to vote on the amendment tonight instead of him. I suspect that a primary schoolteacher would find the amendment irresistible, because it would be an opportunity to lighten the work load that is put unnecessarily on teachers. He says that the wording is too vague. I do not hold that against him because he was not in Committee with us, but if he considered the original wording, he would discover that the new subsection (1) would be one of the most precise and closely defined aspects of the Bill. The idea that the Bill should allow the exemption of schools or LEAs from any aspect of education legislation—
    Rob Marris: It is very specific.
    Mr. Brady: That tells the House a great deal. The Bill is specific about the huge powers that it seeks to give
    78
    Ministers. Those who are interested in such matters know nothing, however, about Ministers' intentions once the Bill is enacted.
    Mr. Willis: I am loth to help the hon. Gentleman, but will he also address the issue that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks and which hon. Members who were not in Committee will not fully appreciate? One of the central aspects of the Bill is that it depends on secondary legislation at every step. It is the secondary legislation that will create a new raft of bureaucracy that we cannot even imagine, because the regulations have not been published.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is right. The amendment is an opportunity to reduce the secondary legislation necessary and to provide clarity for those who need to get on with the running of schools. The Government believe that they have addressed the concerns of the teaching profession that were raised in the other place. I imagine that one or two Labour Members will have received the NUT briefing on this evening's proceedings. If they have not, it explicitly states:
    "the NUT would be extremely concerned about the message Government would be giving if it sought to simply overturn the amendment without replacing it with a similar duty.
    The Government's amendment does not go nearly far enough. Teachers and head teachers will see little point in an annual report which does nothing more than describe what has been sent to schools. The amendment does not commit the Government to reducing the amount of paperwork sent to schools and does not provide any indication that the Secretary of State is prepared to stop imposing centrally prescribed initiative after initiative on schools and to finally start 'trusting teachers'."
    It is clear that the teaching profession wants that limitation on what Ministers can do to the nation's schools.
    Teachers want the freedom to teach and to have a breathing space from the torrent of regulations that are placed on them. They want an explicit and clear statutory requirement that will give some relief from what has, admittedly, been the education practice of all Governments—although this Government are particularly bad—which is to over-regulate, over-control and centralise education provision, even as they claim that their objective is to deregulate, decentralise and allow greater autonomy.
    James Purnell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that extra classroom assistants and administrative support are key to reducing the bureaucratic work load faced by teachers? Will he therefore support the extra funding announced today and will he argue with the shadow Chancellor that the Conservative party should also support it?
    Mr. Brady: It is obviously excellent if we have classroom assistants in schools, but we do not want teachers to have to employ accountants and lawyers so that they can process the heaps of documentation that are thrown at schools by the Government. We want teachers and classroom assistants to be able to get on with the job of teaching. Lords amendment No. 14 would deliver that.
    Mr. Mark Hoban: In this afternoon's statement by the Chancellor, he talked about the joys of localisation and decentralising power. Is not that in stark

    79
    contrast to the Government's failure to embrace Lords amendment No. 14? They should welcome a statutory limit, because it would accord with the new localisation of which the Chancellor was so proud this afternoon.
    Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend has hit on the point that the Government do not want to be subject to controls on their interfering and meddling tendencies. The Government are happy to have extra levers of control over others, but they should accept that they are the worst offender. They are producing needless documentation, bureaucracy and regulation, and taking teachers away from the task of teaching. It is not schools that need to be regulated or from which teachers need to be protected: it is Ministers. If they want to be taken seriously when they say that their aim is to allow teachers the freedom to teach, Ministers would embrace Lords amendment No.14. I hope that the Minister will come to his senses and do so, especially on this most auspicious day. I understand that it is his birthday and I wish him the happiest day possible under the circumstances. I accept that this may not be the way in which he would have chosen to celebrate his birthday, but perhaps he will offer—in a spirit of friendship—a present to teachers and head teachers and signal a genuine commitment to reducing bureaucracy and red tape in our schools.
    Mr. Willis: I support many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I, too, wish the Minister a happy birthday. The hon. Gentleman made some slightly barbed criticisms about the fact that Baroness Sharp and my other colleagues in the Lords did not support the amendment. They did not do so because of subsection (3), which states:
    "Each set of regulations, circular or code of practice issued by the Secretary of State shall include a statement by him of the time he expects it will take for governing bodies or head teachers of schools or nursery schools, as appropriate, to read, consider and implement the regulation, circular or code of practice concerned."
    Much depends on the resources that schools have available, and it would be unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to carry out what the amendment would require of him. That notwithstanding, the effect of the amendment, and the principle behind it, is right.
    Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman said that the Liberal Democrats in the other place did not wish to support new subsection (3) of the new clause that is amendment No. 14. Is he prepared to confirm that the Liberal Democrats support the principle in new subsection (1), and may we hope to have the support of his colleagues on such an amendment in the future?
    Mr. Willis: I never bind my colleagues in respect of what they will or will not do. The hon. Gentleman will know that he could not do that in respect of his own colleagues in the other place. However, the principle of having a statutory duty in the Bill to reduce bureaucracy and work load is fundamental to our view of developing secondary education in this country. More resources coming into schools will matter nought if the process is accompanied by endless amounts of regulation and red
    80
    tape that tie up a great deal of those resources unproductively. I am with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on that point.
    Rob Marris: I believe that the hon. Gentleman used to he a head teacher; indeed, I think he used to teach my niece. Will he refer to three pieces of regulation that he would get rid of?
    Mr. Willis: That is a fair question, and one which the Secretary of State frequently throws at those of us who wish to see a reduction in bureaucracy. When we consider what is emerging from the Department for Education and Skills, and what emerged from its predecessor Department, we find that virtually everything has some value to somebody. The problem is that it does not have value to everybody. That is the great problem with this Government, especially in terms of education. To ascertain what is valuable to them, the individual has to read everything that comes through. When I meet head teachers—I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has the same experience—I find that they do things and read things just in case. We would like to see discretion exercised in the initiative overload coming into schools, so that it is not necessary to follow every initiative.
    One of the problems is the way in which the Government have set up their funding streams, especially through the massive expansion of the standards fund from £0.7 billion to more than £4 billion—the sum announced in the statement tomorrow will no doubt be even greater. So much of the resources in schools are dependent on their following a certain initiative, bidding for that money and obtaining the resources. That is the exercise that lies behind the amendment.
    Baroness Ashton of Upholland recognised what the Opposition were trying to do in reducing bureaucracy: indeed, reducing it is the Government's stated aim. Yet the amendment before us is a mere sop. Anyone in this place should be able, as of right, to table a question to the Secretary of State to ask for the necessary information. The idea that it should be put together once a year as a huge concession to the bureaucracy and work load problem is insulting to the House; to right hon. and hon. Members who genuinely want to make progress; and to all head teachers and teachers. They face a huge problem, and I hope that the Minister will take this issue back rather than dismiss the Opposition's claims. When the Bill returns to another place, I hope that the Government will produce an amendment that genuinely satisfies the desire to see scrutiny of initiative and scrutiny of work load. There should also be sunset clauses for new initiatives.
    7.15 pm
    Let me refer to Baroness Blatch's amendment in another place, of which Baroness Ashton said that it
    "is lacking in that it does not address the issue of the quality of information issued."
    That is the point that has been made. She continued:
    "I know from my own experience of being both responsible for issuing information and being on the receiving end as a chair of governors until last year that it is the quality equally as much as the quantity—indeed, more so—of the communication or regulation that is of paramount importance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 261.]

    81
    Yet the Government's amendment does not deal with that issue. Bringing forward a list of all the initiatives does not address the issue of what is important and what is not. I do not believe that every document issued by the Secretary of State is of equal importance.
    We shall support the Conservative party's new clause and reject the Government's amendment should they press it to the vote. I trust that by the time it returns to another place we shall have a sensible amendment from the Government that addresses the entire issue of bureaucracy and work load.
    Rob Marris: Lords amendment No. 14 is bemusing: subsection (1) is vague and subsection (2) could be recorded in a parliamentary question—the criticism that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) makes of the Government's amendment. That does not take us any further forward in the hon. Gentleman's frame of reference. Subsection (3) introduces more red tape, and that does not take anyone anywhere. Subsection (4) is extraordinary: it tells us that there shall be "no additional burden," which again is vague and would stop fresh initiatives of any sort. The hon. Gentleman talks about discretion—
    Chris Grayling: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman rereads subsection (4), which is simply and specifically in relation to subsection (3). It does not preclude additional regulation on a broad basis.
    Rob Marris: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the amendment refers to "no additional burden" and to providing "with information". Under subsection (3), that would unreasonably fetter the discretion of any Secretary of State for Education and Skills in terms of new initiatives. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talks about discretion, and I am not sure how it could be incorporated into Lords amendment No. 14. I take his point, but it is extremely difficult to read discretion into the amendment that he told the House he would be supporting.
    Mr. Willis: I was trying to point out that neither of the two amendments is perfect. There is general agreement in the House that we need to reduce bureaucracy. Indeed, that is the Government's stated aim. We are trying to encourage the Government to frame an appropriate amendment that deals with the core issues rather than one that states that we shall have a long list in the Library.
    Rob Marris: The issue of red tape has probably been before the House for 300 years. To suggest that right hon. and hon. Members have not got the message on that is extraordinary. We have had a considerable amount of regulation in schools over the past five years, but the Opposition seem to be suggesting that that was done to no end and for the sake of doing it. We have had a step change in education in schools given the results that have been produced. That has been positive. I will not bore the House with statistics that we all know. There have been improvements in education, especially in primary schools but also in secondary schools.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned that he had not heard teachers complaining about work load in the classroom. Perhaps that is a paraphrase, but that is broadly what he said. I am
    82
    not surprised. We have 20,000 additional teachers. Class sizes have been reduced considerably, especially in primary schools. We have 80,000 classroom assistants. It is not surprising that teachers are not complaining about work load in the classroom, given the extra resources that have been put in. The extra resources will continue to be made available, as we heard in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement.
    I will not bore the House with all the figures, but 1,400 secondary schools will receive £1 million over three years. That could be described as over-centralisation, and Opposition Members have spoken about that. But when I talk to head teachers, that kind of centralisation is what they like. They like that sort of money coming in.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me on what basis the schools will be selected, and by whom.
    Rob Marris: With respect, that is a question to put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not me.
    Mr. Turner: That is the problem.
    Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman can address his questions to my right hon. Friend. We have 1,400 schools with leadership incentive and grants. I do not profess to be an expert on those schools. A considerable amount of money has already gone into schools in the last five years, and a considerable amount more will go into them in the next three. If Conservative Members are decrying that kind of centralisation, it is incumbent on them to say what they would do instead.
    Chris Grayling: The last few remarks have been extremely illuminating, and they highlight my biggest concern about many of the Government's actions, not only in education but across the board: they do not understand the consequences of what they are doing.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Man-is) showed a complete absence of understanding of the predicament that head teachers face and of the real resentment in the teaching profession about the extreme levels of bureaucracy and work load being imposed by unnecessary regulations from central Government. One merely has to talk to head teachers, as I do regularly, to understand the consequences of that. The most consistent message is that new, young teachers are not staying in the profession. That was amplified by the piece in The Times Educational Supplement read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). The reality is that teachers are not staying in the profession.
    Mr. Chris Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he slips smoothly from observations about head teachers to observations about teachers, whereas, clearly, the majority of classroom teachers will not read every one of the circulars from the Department for Education and Skills or have every regulation impact on them as individuals. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggested that, as a matter of security, teachers would read everything. Surely,

    83
    the heads read the executive summaries and decide which of them are appropriate for which of their teaching staff to examine in detail.
    Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman should visit some of the head teachers in his constituency and ask the question that I recently asked a primary school head in my constituency: "Can you show me an example of the kind of bureaucracy that is causing teachers to resent the work load that they face at the moment?" She showed me the course planning required by Ofsted, which is set out in the frameworks and curricula provided by the Department. One example struck me as demonstrating the absurdity of what we ask of our teachers at the moment.
    I was shown a course plan in which someone had planned physical education lessons for the term. It contained a detailed paragraph written at the start of term, weeks in advance, explaining a section of a PE lesson in which groups of pupils were doing star jumps. It contained phrases such as, "Divide into pairs. One child does star jumps while the other one counts, then we reverse. The other child does star jumps while the first one counts." Can the hon. Gentleman explain what possible benefit there is in expecting a primary teacher to sit down, probably in their own time, to work their way through the whole of a course plan for a term, setting out what each individual activity in an individual PE lesson will be? Do we not trust our teachers to take those decisions for themselves?
    Is it any wonder that not only teachers but heads who have to supervise this convoluted process and deal with an in-box full of e-mails from the Department every day—and who have to recruit to replace younger teachers who are saying, "Enough, I'm leaving," after three or four years in the profession—are over-burdened? I was due to visit a primary school in my constituency, but the head was not able to see me because he was too busy interviewing potential recruits to fill the gaps in his staff over the summer. That is what heads across the profession face at the moment, and it is an unwelcome and unnecessary burden that does nothing to help the education of the children.
    James Purnell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work being done by the School Teachers Review Body on cutting bureaucracy and freeing teachers up to teach? Does he agree that that is a proper, sensible way of reducing bureaucracy, instead of the spin to which this proposal amounts? Does he agree with the recommendation that administrative support should be provided for teachers, which will require money? Given that he is not under the vow of silence on spending pledges that applies on the Opposition Front Bench, will he welcome the extra money announced today?
    Chris Grayling: This goes to the heart of the difference between the Opposition and the Government over the public spending review. This is the question that must be asked: is it sensible to tax the North sea oil
    84
    industry, thereby reducing investment in the North sea, to generate money to pay for administrators in schools to help teachers to deal with the unnecessary bureaucracy—
    (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman is speaking somewhat wide of the debate.
    Chris Grayling: We must not spend money helping teachers deal with administration instead of simply cutting the burden of an unnecessary work load coming from central Government.
    The Minister's comment was enlightening. I visited a special school in south London recently, and I talked to the head there about the flow of bureaucracy from the Department. She opened up her in-box, and it was absolutely full of documents, contacts and communications from the Department. We all receive large numbers of e-mails in our daily lives, so we know how long it takes us to go through them and deal with them effectively. It cannot be a sensible use of time to expect a head teacher to deal with a huge swathe of e-mails containing detailed information about their responsibilities on a daily basis.
    I am delighted that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and the Liberal Democrats are going to back the proposal despite their reservations about subsection (3), as that subsection represents the nub of the problem: it is probably the most important subject of debate in relation to the Bill because it requires the Secretary of State before issuing a new regulation to pause for thought and try to understand the consequences for teachers and head teachers. On far too many occasions, the Government enforce new rules and regulations without the slightest understanding of the consequences of those measures in schools; of the time they will take; of the way in which they will disrupt the working life of the school; of the additional burden that they will place on individuals; and of how they will force people to give up their spare time, as many teachers do, to deal with the bureaucracy that they face in their daily lives. That is why the new clause deserves the backing of the House. We must take not just the window-dressing steps that the Minister's alternative amendment represents: we must take tangible steps to start reducing the work load and burden of bureaucracy that our teachers face.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West was asked earlier what "less" means in this regard. I question whether we need to increase the burden of regulation on our schools at all. Why do we not start to implement sunset clauses, examining rules and regulations that we no longer need and considering how we can simplify and streamline provisions? There is no need to add to the burden of regulations year by year and pass statutory instrument after statutory instrument. We need to cut, rather than increase, the overall burden.
    Rob Marris: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about sunset clauses, will he tell the House which three regulations he would get rid of?
    Chris Grayling:I am talking about the streamlining of provisions across the board. I shall not deal with specifics now—[Interruption.] In relation to the example of the Ofsted inquiry that I gave earlier, I would not require primary teachers to plan courses to such a high degree. I would not require teachers in the foundation stage to complete convoluted course plans for three-year-old kids in a nursery. Those are two examples, for starters.

    85
    I hope that the House will back the new clause. We must take a first step. The Minister's proposals are not adequate; we need to take real steps to cut the burden on our teachers.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I am pleased to support the new clause proposed by my noble Friends in another place. In particular, I want to refer to three points.
    First, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on his attribution to the Secretary of State of an understanding that there must be a reduction in bureaucracy, although I think that he is being a little generous. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee, she argued that the cloud of new paperwork did not amount to an unnecessary burden on head teachers because they did not have to read it. There may be several pieces of paper coming in daily from the Department—and doubtless many others from other quangos for which the Government are responsible—but the Secretary of State said, with great confidence, that that was not a burden on schools because heads did not have to read them. If so, I fear that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was overworking himself, and that he has friends who have overworked themselves as head teachers. However, I suspect that the Secretary of State, and not the hon. Gentleman, was wrong. Head teachers want to know what additional regulations, codes of practice and responsibilities will bear down on them every day. If they do not know, they cannot direct the information to the correct teacher or administrator.
    7.30 pm
    My second point is about parliamentary questions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the possibility of extracting information through parliamentary questions. I fear that that is not so. I have tried unsuccessfully to extract from the Department information about the additional legislative requirements placed on head teachers, governing bodies and Ofsted. In some cases, the Department has been able to answer my questions, but it has not been able to answer those about schools and head teachers. So many additional burdens—not only in the form of paper, but in the form of legislation and regulation—tumble down on head teachers and schools that even the Department itself does not keep a record. It is unable to answer parliamentary questions without undue expense.
    My third point relates to the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). Subsection (1) of the new clause is a masterpiece of clarity. It says that
    "the Secretary of State and local education authorities shall have a duty to limit new regulation."
    They would have to do the limiting. They could decide on the target and they would then have to meet that target when they imposed a limit. What could be clearer than requiring them to do the limiting? We are not setting targets and we are not being unreasonable. We accept that it is sometimes necessary for the Secretary of State perhaps even to increase—I hope that she would not—the amount of material going before governing bodies and head teachers, but she would have a duty under the new clause to limit the amount of that material. Local
    86
    authorities would have a similar responsibility, and that is one reason why I disagree so much with Government amendment (a), which does not refer to local education authorities at all.
    Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I would like there to be further improvements to the new clause, and that is why I want it to be returned to the other place. It should apply not only to the Secretary of State and to LEAs but to that host of quangos and other bureaucracies that are involved in education. From the Health and Safety Commission through to the Ofsted, let them all endeavour to reduce the burden on head teachers, schools and school governors.
    Subsection (3) again sets out a perfectly sensible requirement that already applies to other legislation and regulation that comes before the House. It would provide for a regulatory impact assessment. One wonders what the Secretary of State is about if she cannot see the consequence on schools of additional codes of practice, circulars or regulations. Many primary schools in my constituency have fewer than 100 pupils. and some have fewer than 50. That means that, however well or badly the Chancellor funds education, they do not have a huge number of teaching and administrative staff to deal with additional codes of practice, regulations and circulars. That point needs to be assessed by the Secretary of State and her officials. In every case, she needs to be advised that some regulation is over the top for a small school. Perhaps such regulation should not even apply to small schools.
    From time to time, we recognise that some regulations are too much for the smallest businesses, so we should also recognise that some regulations are too much for the smallest schools. That is why I will support the Lords amendment. Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, 1 recognise that the Government could improve it further when it returns to the other place. I hope that they will do that and accept the amendment in the spirit in which it was meant. I hope that they will try to improve the existing provision rather than pressing their amendment, which would quite unnecessarily water our proposals down.
    Mr. John Redwood: I wish to speak because I was very disturbed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement earlier today. It makes it even more imperative that the Government take action on the over-regulation of the school sector and LEAs. I therefore welcome any initiative that will try to reduce the burden of circulars, advice notes, instructions and regulations that emanate from the Department for Education and Skills.
    This has been a curious debate. The Government say that there is no problem, but all the head teachers to whom I and other Members speak confirm that there is a problem. The Government then say, "Trust us. Don't worry. We believe in deregulation too. It must not be overdone. We will get on with a little bit of deregulation, but not yet, not in this way, or in this clause, or this legislation."
    I urge the Government to think again, because they have unleashed a dangerous set of ideas in the Chancellor's statement about how he wishes to get value for the larger sums of money that will be offered directly to schools and to LEAs. The regulations, the advice notes and codes of conduct will presumably be integral to that.

    87
    We are told that those schools that do not perform or live up to the expectations expressed in the advice notes and the circulars may be subject to all kinds of torture coming from the centre. There may be direct intervention at the school level. For example, the Government may wish to remove a head teacher or change or influence the board of governors.
    Alternatively, the Government may wish to override local democracy if they judge a whole local education authority to be inadequate or non-performing. They will then start a process that will usurp the local democratic process, with a view to trying to take over the management of the authority itself. By that route, they will have influence over a school. That is why we must be ever more critical of and sceptical about the many centralising directives, codes of conduct and advice that come from the Government. They will probably be used as a stick with which to beat schools and LEAs if the Government do not like the way they are developing—whether they are good, bad or indifferent.
    David Wright: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore seriously support failing schools?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I do not support failing schools. However, there are two ways in which they can be dealt with. First, in the world that I like—it is partially available to the Government, and the provisions for this could be strengthened—parents would have a real choice. They would be able to send their children to a better performing school and the poor performing school might then get the message and would have to take action to correct itself. Secondly, a democratically elected LEA would either take action or, through the ballot box, local people would make their preferences clear. They would throw out the council that presided over the failing school or schools and would produce an alternative.
    I do not like a Government who centralise so much by directive, instruction and code of conduct and who set up methods by which they will use those codes of conduct to judge or prejudge the schools and LEAs, with the possibility that local democracy and democratic boards of governors would be overridden—even when the local community might think that the school was good but the Government, for one reason or another, decided that it was bad. I therefore urge the House, particularly in the light of today's chilling words from the Chancellor—he does not seem to like local democracy or democratic school governors—to be even more wary of a Government who will not reduce the number of centralising directives. They say that they wish to decentralise, but every action that they take centralises. They say that they trust teachers, LEAs and schools, but we heard from the Chancellor today that they do not trust any of them and wish to challenge and judge them by all sorts of methods. It is therefore vital that the House express the clear wish that there must be much less regulation and central control.
    Mr. Miliband: This has been a notable debate. I am grateful for the many congratulations on my birthday. However, I look forward to the day when, rather congratulating me on my birthday, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will congratulate
    88
    the Government on investing in our education system and on putting 24,000 more teachers into the system. I look forward to the day when he will say that he will defy his party, which is ready to cut the education budget. Until then, his professions of wholehearted support for the aims of improving standards in our schools will ring very hollow to all those Labour Members who have sat through the hour and a half of this debate. When he professes support for raising standards but offers no support for investment in information technology or for reforming the teaching profession, we will not believe him.
    The debate ranged wide of the amendment and I want to pick up on two main points. We discussed at length the situation in the teaching profession. The latest figures suggest that 80-plus per cent. of newly qualified teachers are in the profession three years after entering it. So it is not true to suggest that over-regulation is causing a mass exodus. Hon. Members know that the Government are committed to the fundamental reform of the teaching profession. We want to reform the contact time that teachers have with children and to improve their productivity. We also want to improve the support of the teaching profession by expanding the classroom assistant scheme and by providing the learning mentors and learning support staff who do so much in our schools to support teachers. In addition, we want to improve school leadership so that teachers spend their time on teaching.
    There is an issue about regulation; it is a matter on which all hon. Members should have some humility. Governments historically have not been good at limiting their tendency to over-regulate. I will not say that everything is fine. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) put his finger on an important point. There is a tendency to believe that because an initiative is right for some schools, it needs to be advertised and sent to all schools. His comment was constructive and we will take on board the idea that, in our desire to ensure that no one is left out, we sometimes overburden those who want to get on with their work.
    The debate was noteworthy. A couple of hon. Members were asked to name regulations they would cut. The House has welcomed the increased regulation on child welfare introduced by the Bill. We know that the literacy and numeracy strategies have been hugely successful in raising standards in primary schools. We also know that the key stage 3 strategy, which involves regulation, gives many teachers much needed support in the critical middle years of secondary schooling. It would be folly to retract those regulations.
    Mr. Brady: The Minister says that we have been unable to name regulations that should be removed. Can he name three of the 4,770 regulations issued by the Government in the past year which, on reflection, might not be necessary?
    Mr. Miliband: Let us understand how the Opposition reach that figure. A document that is sent to primary schools and to secondary schools is counted twice even though it is one document. So one document counts twice in the Opposition's new mathematics. We should not fall for the hon. Gentleman's fuzzy maths.
    Adam Price: The Government have seen fit to extend the scope of their amendment to the National Assembly for Wales. Did they

    89
    seek the approval and consent of the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly? If so, was it given? There is an appetite in the National Assembly to move much further on the issue. Surely that is a matter for the National Assembly.
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman knows that Labour is committed to working closely with our partners in the devolved bodies, and I can reassure him that we consulted the relevant authorities in Wales.
    The Government amendment is a serious step forward. I urge the House to welcome it.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Amendment proposed: (a), in lieu of the Lords amendment.—[r. Miliband.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 154.

    Division No. 308]

    [7.45 pm

    AYES

    Abbott Ms Diane

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Anderson. Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Clelland, David

    Clwyd, Ann

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Armstrong. Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    cohen,Harry

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coleman, lain

    Austin, John

    Coleman, Tony

    Bailey, Adrian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Baird, Vera

    Corston, Jean

    Banks, Tony

    Cousins, Jim

    Barnes, Harry

    Cox, Tom

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Crausby, David

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cruddas, Jon

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bell, Stuart

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Benn, Hilary

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Covtry S)

    Berry, Roger

    Dalyell, Tam

    Best, Harold

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Blackman, Liz

    David, Wayne

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davidson, Ian

    Borrow, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

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

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brennan, Kevin

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Dismore, Andrew

    Browne, Desmond

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bryant, Chris

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Burden, Richard

    Doran, Frank

    Burnham, Andy

    Dowd, Jim

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Drew, David

    Cairns, David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Edwards, Huw

    Caton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cawsey, Ian

    Ennis, Jeff

    Challen, Colin

    Etherington, Bill

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Farrelly, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Clapham, Michael

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    90

    Flynn, Paul

    McCafferty, Chris

    Follett, Barbara

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    MacDonald, Calum

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    MacDougall, John

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McFall, John

    Gapes, Mike

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gerrard, Neil

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McKechin, Ann

    Goggins, Paul

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grogan, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    MacShane, Denis

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McWalter, Tony

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McWilliam, John

    Hams, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Havard, Dai

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mann, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marris, Rob

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Heppell, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hill, Keith

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Meale, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Merron, Gillian

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Mole, Chris

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hurst, Alan

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mountford, Kali

    Illsley, Eric

    Mudie, George

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mullin, Chris

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbedc)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Jamieson, David

    Norris, Dan

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Diner, Bill

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Organ, Diana

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

    Owen, Albert

    Joyce, Eric

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Perham, Linda

    Kemp, Fraser

    Picking, Anne

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pike, Peter

    Kidney, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pollard, Kerry

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pond, Chris

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Pope, Greg

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Laxton, Bob

    Primarolo, Rt Hon Dawn

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Purchase, Ken

    Lepper, David

    Purnell. James

    Leslie, Christopher

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Levitt, Tom

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Rammell, Bill

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rapson, Syd

    Love, Andrew

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Lucas, Ian

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Luke, lain

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    McCabe, Stephen

    Ross, Emie

    91

    Roy, Frank

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ruane, Chris

    Todd, Mark

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Touhig, Don

    Salter, Martin

    Trickett, Jon

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Truswell, Paul

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Dennis (Wolvertnon SE)

    Sawford, Phil

    Tumer, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Tynan, Bill

    Simon, SiÔn

    Vaz, Keith

    Singh, Marsha

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe)

    Watson, Tom

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    White, Brian

    Southworth, Helen

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Squire, Rachel

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Winnick, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wood, Mike

    Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Woolas, Phil

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Worthington, Tony

    Tami, Mark

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, Ms Dari(Stockton S)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Joan Ryan and

    Timms, Stephen

    Mr. Jim Murphy.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gale, Roger

    Allan, Richard

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Amess, David

    Gibb, Nick

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mith E)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gray, James

    Bacon, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Barker, Gregory

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Baron, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Barrett, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hammond, Philip

    Boswell, Tim

    Hancock, Mike

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Harvey, Nick

    Brake, Tom

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Heald, Oliver

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heath, David

    Burnside, David

    Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

    Burstow, Paul

    Hendry, Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Hoban, Mark

    Butterfill, John

    Holmes, Paul

    Cameron, David

    Horam, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cash, William

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

    Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Chidgey, David

    Keetch, Paul

    Chope, Christopher

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

    Clappison, James

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Collins, Tim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Cran, James

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Lamb, Norman

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lansley, Andrew

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel

    Letwin, Oliver

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Lidington, David

    Francois, Mark

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    92

    Loughton, Tim

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

    Luff, Peter

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Soames, Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Malins, Humfrey

    Spink, Bob

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Streeter, Gary

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Stunell, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Syms, Robert

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moore, Michael

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Norman, Archie

    Thurso, John

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Õpik, Lembit

    Tredinnick, David

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Trend, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Paice, James

    Tyler, Paul

    Pickles, Eric

    Viggers, Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Walter, Robert

    Price, Adam

    Waterson, Nigel

    Prisk, Mark

    Webb, Steve

    Pugh, Dr John

    Whittingdale, John

    Randall, John

    Wiggin, Bill

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Willetts, David

    Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Rendel, David

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Willis, Phil

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wilshire, David

    Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Sanders, Adrian

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Selous, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Mr. Desmond Swayne and

    Simmonds, Mark

    Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.

  Clause 32

    FEDERATIONS OF SCHOOLS
    Lords amendment: No. 23.
    Mr. Miliband: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Miliband: I know that the whole House will agree that there must be strong partnerships between parents and schools. That is important for children, for schools and for parents. A good and open relationship between home and school can make a huge difference to a child's progress. Annual parents meetings are one means to that end: a positive and productive partnership between parents and schools that contributes to raising standards. Of course, meetings can be particularly important where parents have concerns that they want to express.
    Currently, governors are obliged to hold meetings once a year. They are intended to be an opportunity for all parents to influence the running of schools, and at present they are subject to considerable regulation. When we

    93
    introduced the Bill, we proposed to re-enact the existing requirements essentially as they are. On reflection, however, we accept the Lords' view, expressed in amendment No. 23, that there is no need for detailed regulation of the meetings. Since they were introduced, they have been prescriptively regulated, but we agree that the detailed arrangements can perfectly well be left to schools.
    We want to retain the current exceptions from the general duty to hold parents meetings, as I shall explain in due course. We are ready to go further and to consult on whether there are circumstances in which the requirement could be further relaxed, especially where schools can demonstrate that they have involved parents thoroughly in the life of the school throughout the year. Although we cannot accept the Lords amendment, because it would leave us with a clause that does not legally serve its purpose, we very much accept its thrust.
    There is an important principle here that will be supported across the House. Governors should give parents the opportunity to hold them to account for what they are doing. The requirement left in the Bill by the Lords does not quite do that job, because it does not specify the purpose of the annual meeting. As it stands, there would be no requirement on governing bodies to allow parents to present their views on how their child's school was being run, or might be run in future. Schools would be able to claim that they had fulfilled the duty to hold an annual parents meeting by inviting parents to a party, a sports days or a school play. I hope that the House agrees that we need to tidy up the matter.
    The removal of the regulation-making powers would also put some schools in a worse position than they are in now, because it would remove the possibility of exemption from that duty, to which I referred a moment ago. For example, at present special schools established in hospitals, or maintained schools where at least 50 per cent. of the pupils are boarders, do not have to hold annual parents meetings if the governing body of the school concerned does not think that it would be practicable to do so. Many of those schools would find it extremely difficult to persuade any parents to attend annual parents meetings. We do not believe that they should be required to do so in future.
    8 pm
    As we have said throughout, we believe that if schools have held a meeting to discuss an Ofsted report, they should be exempt from a requirement to hold a further meeting. We want to ensure that parents have an annual opportunity to hold the governors to account, but we do not want that requirement to be more burdensome than absolutely necessary. As I have said, we are prepared to look further to see whether there are other circumstances in which it would be right to relieve schools of that duty. We will invite suggestions on that when we come to consult on the draft regulations and guidance. I do not want to revisit a previous debate, but this issue might be one in which we can achieve a measure of deregulation that is welcomed by both sides of the House.
    The Government amendment closes the unintended loophole created by the Lords amendment, so that only a meeting in which the governors can be held to account is counted as an annual parents meeting. It also ensures that there can be exemptions where it does not make sense to
    94
    hold a meeting. The annual parents meeting is a backstop, and it is important that we keep it; but I hope that the House will join me in supporting the Government amendment, which accepts the thrust of the Lords amendment while ensuring that the basic principle of parents meetings and the current exemptions are retained.
    Mr. Brady: Given the consensual tone in which the Minister has presented the Government's response to the Lords amendment, I do not want to be too strongly controversial or party political—the Minister knows that that is not in my character anyway. However, I am tempted to make the observation that if only the Government had not, at earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill, denied the House of Commons the chance properly to scrutinise the Bill, we might have saved both ourselves and another place considerable effort. The clauses relating to annual parents meetings were among those many clauses that, sadly, fell victim to an extremely arbitrary timetable and the use of so-called knives throughout the Bill's Committee stage. It is sad that on a matter on which, as the Minister has shown, there is room for agreement across the House, as well as room to make sensible improvements to legislation, the use of procedural devices should have prevented consideration that might have enabled those things to happen.
    In Committee, I tabled an amendment that would have had a slightly different effect from the Lords amendment. The detail of that amendment was to provide that a school would not need to hold a parents meeting annually unless there was a requirement or demand to do so from a certain number—a small number—of parents. The objective was to provide the sort of backstop that the Minister rightly says is important. Unfortunately, because of the timetable and the use of the knife, the Committee was unable to debate not only my amendment but this entire part of the Bill. Had Members of Parliament been given an opportunity to do their job properly, we might already have arrived at the sensible agreement towards which we are now moving.
    The Minister has spoken of a desirable removal of unnecessary regulation. On the previous group of amendments, we were seeking precisely such an example of where it might be possible to remove some elements of unnecessary regulation without damage. The other place has made a sensible proposal that is designed to remove unnecessary regulation of the way in which parents meetings are held—how they should be publicised and their precise format. I am sure that most hon. Members on both sides accept that that is unnecessary detail for primary legislation.
    The Government amendment specifies the minimum regulation necessary for the meetings, providing only that they must take place and that they must be an opportunity to hold the governors and school to account, and stating that in certain circumstances exemption from the obligation to hold a meeting is possible. The Minister mentioned the circumstances in which a meeting to discuss an Ofsted report has already been held. As I read it, new subsection (3) would create the sort of regime that I sought at an earlier stage of consideration, but would do so by regulation.
    I would welcome clarification of whether, under new subsection (3), the circumstances in which there is no need to hold an annual meeting could be extended to

    95
    include a presumption that an annual meeting may not be held unless certain circumstances prevail. I simply wonder how much latitude there is in the new subsection; it seems on the face of it that the provision could be interpreted quite broadly. I have no difficulty with that, so long as a backstop position remains—a guarantee that parents will have an opportunity to hold the school to account when there is a need to do so.
    We want to avoid meetings being held unnecessarily—perhaps a meeting has already been held, or the school's experience is that when an annual meeting at which governors and the head teacher can be held to account is convened, no parents attend. It is a question of finding a sensible way forward.
    Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that it is important that the Minister gives us a clue as to the likely nature of the regulations issued under new subsection (3), so that we have some idea of what he has in mind?
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his helpful intervention, in which he tries precisely to pin down the Minister on the key point. The Opposition have no difficulty in principle with the fairly broad provisions of the permissive new subsection (3), which states that regulations may specify
    "the circumstances in which a governing body are to be exempt from the obligation imposed by subsection (1)."
    However, if regulations are to be the instrument used, it is not only appropriate but, as my hon. Friend suggests, necessary and important that at this point the Minister puts a little flesh on the bones of what the Government envisage those circumstances being.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision on annual parents meetings was a necessary part of previous education legislation? It was part of either the 1986 or the 1988 Act—I cannot remember which—and was designed in an era in which parental choice was far more restricted than it is now and there was far less parental representation on governing bodies than there is now. None the less, it is necessary to provide that such meetings should be held until we reach that fortunate position in which there is total parental choice and schools that do not respond to their market as they should do not need to be prompted by means of meetings, but are instead prompted by means of the exercise of parental choice.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I was throughout Committee, for his helpful and knowledgeable contributions. He is right that the circumstances or ground rules have changed since the provision was introduced. I set out to be helpful and accommodating to the Government. but he brings me back to the formula which I sought to float in Committee: there should be a provision to allow parents to require an annual meeting to take place if one would not otherwise take place. I should be grateful for the Minister's elucidation on whether, in any regulations that he may introduce, if an exemption is granted, it would be appropriate to set out the circumstances and a mechanism by which parents could overturn it. If there has been a meeting with Ofsted to
    96
    discuss an Ofsted report in general terms, it may not be necessary to hold a further parents meeting. There may be a material change in a year in which a meeting has already taken place, in which case parents should have the opportunity to require another meeting. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on that point.
    No debate of the provisions of this unusual Bill would be complete without looking at the huge scope of powers to make exemptions under part 1, particularly the ability to make exemptions for the purposes of innovation. As we know, part 1 allows for exemption from any requirement in education legislation. In Committee, we clarified the fact that the provisions to make an exemption from the requirements of education legislation are self-embracing—they include measures in the Bill. I therefore urge the Minister to consider in what circumstances a school may seek to deviate from the regulations provided for under Government amendment (a). Is he prepared to give a clear and definite answer this evening about whether he would exclude exemptions for the purposes of innovation from measures on parents meetings, or are there circumstances in which he would be prepared to contemplate allowing a school to make its own amendments to the regulations?
    Finally, throughout the progress of the Bill, there has been agreement between Members on both sides of the House about reducing the burden of regulation on schools. I welcome the fact that at this late stage in consideration of the Bill, Ministers are prepared to accept that there is room for movement and scope for relaxation of the law. We can therefore make progress on removing an irksome, if minor, aspect of regulation that impinges on schools. I welcome the extent to which the Government have changed their position, but I wish that the problem could have been dealt with earlier, as clearing it up would have saved us and another place time.
    Mr. Mole: I, too, welcome the reduction in the prescriptive arrangements for annual parents meetings. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked whether I had met any head teachers recently. I was a governor until just after my election at the beginning of this year, which is pertinent to our debate because, like many governors up and down the country, I have spent many happy evenings sitting with my colleagues, consuming small mountains of peanuts, Twiglets and cheese and small lakes of wine and coffee as we waited for parents to come to meetings, the agendas for which were prescribed under the previous Government, as the Opposition pointed out.
    8.15 pm
    That was a dispiriting experience for my governor colleagues. We have talked about the challenge of recruiting and retaining teachers, but there also remains a challenge about recruiting and retaining school governors. Dry, prescriptive agendas for things like annual parents meetings tend to put governors off. Occasionally, however, it is right that there should be an opportunity for governors to hear parents' voices. When, under the previous Government, the school where I was last a governor wanted, for sensible budgetary reasons, to change the

    97
    number of days of swimming that it could offer during the year, a sizeable number of parents managed to come and register their concerns.
    Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman's experience as a governor is illuminating. Could he throw some light on his point about the retention of governors by explaining why he ceased to be a governor?
    Mr. Mole: When I became MP for Ipswich, I did not believe that I would have enough time in my constituency to attend governors meetings. I should be interested to know how many Members retain such a role and believe that they do it justice.
    The annual parents meeting provides an opportunity for parents to raise issues with governors. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that the framework introduced by the previous Government was carried over into the Bill, but accepts that it should be looked at again, thus giving schools a welcome flexibility on things like school plays, cheese and wine evenings and fairs or any opportunity that allows the schools to bring parents in and hear their views.
    Mr. Brady: My understanding was that the Minister was concerned that schools should not count a school play, sports day or cheese and wine evening as the annual meeting.
    Mr. Mole: I did not hear the Minister say that, nor was I suggesting that he did. We want such events to provide an opportunity for the annual parents meeting to be held at the same time. My understanding is that such an arrangement may have been prescriptively precluded by the previous framework.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although the framework may preclude holding the annual parents meeting at the same time as a play, it does not preclude holding it before or after a play, or before or after a social event? Many governors, governing bodies and head teachers have exercised considerable ingenuity in trying to attract parents to annual meetings by running them alongside, or at the beginning or end of, other functions.
    Mr. Mole: The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) asked what interests school governors in remaining school governors. I suggest that they are motivated by the chance to raise standards and improve opportunities for the children in the school, not by the challenge of finding creative ways of circumnavigating the prescriptive legislation introduced a number of years ago by the Government whom the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and his hon. Friends supported.
    I welcome the Minister's suggestion that he will look for ways of giving schools new flexibility to strengthen the partnership between parents and governors. We all know that the most successful schools are the ones where there is that tripartite, if not a quadripartite, partnership, primarily between heads, governors and parents, but also with the local education authority. I welcome the proposals.
    Mr. Willis: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches wholeheartedly support the amendment. We consider it a
    98
    sensible compromise that takes us forward. On the previous set of amendments, we discussed the need to get rid of bureaucracy. The current arrangements are a classic example; they clearly have not worked and need to go.
    I had to organise a set of annual parents meetings, and I did so with great dread. I remember that in one round of parents meetings in 1996 in Leeds, the average number of parents who came was 10, and in some cases, we did not get a single parent attending the annual parents meeting, so I welcome the changes. However, they do not remove one of the great challenges facing all of us: how do we engage parents in the schools?
    The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) made a number of references to the prescriptive nature of the previous Conservative Government. I believe that the existing provisions were a genuine attempt to engage parents in what was happening in school, but it did not work. My worry is that we are in danger of saying, "Phew! That's that out of the way. Let's fall back and not engage our parents." One of the sadnesses, to me, is that whenever we have formal meetings with parents, it is usually because there is a crisis over the swimming or over something that has occurred because of an Ofsted report.
    I am reminded that when I was recently in the United States, in North Carolina, the head of one school was talking about parents meetings and said about public meetings, "Few people ever come with affirmation in their minds." There is some truth in that. We need to encourage parents to come into school with affirmation and with questioning in their mind.
    I support subsection (3) and we look forward to those regulations. Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that he will consider the annual report to parents? The requirements for that are incredibly prescriptive. I can remember the first year that I did an annual report to parents. I covered all that the Government said we had to do, and it ran to about 15 pages. When I started to condense it, it became a meaningless document, rather like an "In Touch" leaflet from the Conservatives. I ask the Minister to include—possibly when the matter returns to the House of Lords—a simple additional subsection deregulating the annual report to parents. We welcome the initiative.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: I, too, support the broad thrust of the Government's proposal in respect of annual parents meetings. It is important not to allow the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to fail to take credit where credit is due. In my experience, an annual parents meeting that is badly attended is a sign of a well run school, and a sign that parents in general are happy with the way in which the school is being managed, and with the way in which the governors and head teacher are conducting affairs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): Not necessarily.
    Mr. Turner: I notice that hon. Members on the Government Benches shake their heads at that assertion. I hope that they do not wish to condemn the performance of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in his previous incarnation. I accept that on occasions it is

    99
    difficult to provide the open and welcoming atmosphere, or perhaps schools are less successful at providing the open and welcoming atmosphere that they should provide to encourage parents to attend the annual parents meeting. On those occasions, I am sure that a little lubrication of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole)—or even a lake of lubrication—may be helpful.
    The thrust of the Government's amendment is right. However, I echo the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about the possibility of a back-up. If the Government decided to remove all requirements for the governors to hold a parents meeting annually, perhaps they would consider a back-up provision enabling parents to require such a meeting to be held if they so wished. I can think of certain circumstances in which the Government might consider that appropriate, especially in the case of the exercise of powers to suspend the statutory requirements in clause 2.
    If the governors were, for example, seeking the Secretary of State's approval to suspend the statutory requirement that prevents them from charging for certain school functions, that might be a matter on which parents should be empowered to call a meeting. Alternatively, the Government might set that down as an exemption of a governing body from the requirement to call an annual parents meeting.
    It is important to recognise that we have a mixed economy of schools, not only in terms of the huge—and, indeed, burgeoning—number of different types of school that the Government propose, some of which reflect rather well on what went on between 1988 and 1997, but in terms of the amount of choice that parents have. Frequently, my suggestion that Government and local education authorities should allow parents greater choice has been countered by the assertion that if choice cannot be provided in rural areas, it is wrong for it to be provided in urban areas. That is tantamount to saying that because we cannot provide choice everywhere, we should provide choice nowhere.
    I do not take that view at all. Indeed, I should have thought that where there is less choice, there needs to be marginally more safeguards and more prescription, but where there is great choice, that is exactly the sort of condition in which there needs to be less prescription and fewer safeguards, because parents have the safeguards in their own hands. They can choose schools of different ethos, different appearance—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the amendment that we are discussing? He seems to be going rather wide of it.
    Mr. Turner: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am grateful for your guidance. One of the bases on which such choice may be exercised is whether a school decides of its own volition to hold an annual parents meeting.
    I, too, support the broad thrust of the amendment, but I am interested to know whether a change of the sort that it proposes would have to lead to the promulgation of a new set of regulations or whether existing regulations could be cross-applied. In the context of the previous amendment, we might need to consider whether consultation on the new regulations would in itself place a new burden on teachers, heads and governors.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Miliband: This has been rather a good debate and I shall put aside the voluminous facts and figures that I have been given to help me to rebut the outrageous claims of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) about the desultory nature of the Committee stage. I shall put them aside in the interests of the new co-operative spirit that is pervading our discussion.
    What we are talking about is getting the right balance between encouraging all governing bodies to have a genuine partnership with their parent communities and regulation that is "irksome"—a word used by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that I want to return to later. The Government have acknowledged that annual parents meetings have been over-regulated in the past and have genuinely listened to the concerns expressed about meetings. We think that we have come up with a workable solution by deregulating some processes and procedures and limiting the bureaucracy associated with the meetings.
    The amendment is an example of where the Government's much-maligned approach in the Bill may serve a purpose, as it gives us scope to go further in future in relieving more schools of the duty to hold meetings where they have already given parents the opportunity to have their say. That will benefit schools, while ensuring that we retain the essential right of parents to question the governing body and the head teacher about the way in which their child's school is run. That is why I return to the notion of balance. We want to keep a situation in which parents have some weapons in their armoury to ensure that accountability is maintained.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West took us back to the happy days of his amendment that was never discussed in January and February and to his presumption of not having a meeting. Despite my new role, something in me thinks that introducing legislation not to do something or with a presumption that something will not be done is a rather backward way of doing things. We are trying to express our presumption that school governing bodies should have a genuine partnership with their parenting communities, and we want to give them different ways of giving effect to that intention. He may come to think that his use of the word "irksome" in relation to parental meetings may be slightly over the top. There are many examples of parental meetings that work well and we should not denigrate the efforts that go into making them a success and a useful part of parent-governor dialogue.
    Mr. Brady: First, I am sure that the Minister will agree that a requirement to hold a parents meeting may appear irksome to a school in the circumstances to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred, in which no parent attends the meeting. The regulation may certainly be irksome in that context. Secondly, he dealt only with the first half of the amendment that was never moved—the presumption that there would not ordinarily be a parents meeting. May I ask him for his thoughts on the second part, however, and the idea of a positive mechanism in which a requisite number of parents would have to ask for such a meeting?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. If he will forgive me, I shall come to that point in a few moments.

    101
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the criteria for exempting schools from the requirement to hold a parents meeting. The overriding criterion must be that there is evidence to show that a genuine partnership exists between the governing body and the parental community. There is a need to prove that that relationship exists. I am in danger of skiing off-piste, so I must be slightly careful, but I shall give some examples of what might count as evidence of genuine partnership. There might be year-group sessions in which parents from different years are brought together to discuss provision for a particular year group. When a school is trying to achieve serious dialogue with parents in different year groups, it would seem odd subsequently to force a great gathering of the whole school. That is just one example that springs to mind. Different schools may organise different patterns of meetings. There may be discussion forums in which parents are brought together to discuss different aspects of the school's policy.
    It may also be worth our while to think about cases in which the governors' attempts to hold meetings have not been successful. Perhaps we need to think about whether that indicates that the governors are not trying hard enough or not offering the right sort of wine and cheese—or pie and peas in my part of the world—but it may also be evidence to suggest that such meetings are not an appropriate way of achieving the sort of discussion and dialogue that we want.
    In terms of the overriding criterion of partnership, but a keenness to find ways of achieving it that are appropriate to the school, I should like to refer to the notion of the trigger mechanism mentioned by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West both today and in his amendment. If we are convinced that our overriding criterion of partnership is fulfilled—it must be evident before exemption is given—the trigger mechanism will not be necessary. If there is genuine partnership, it will be the reason why there does not have to be an annual meeting. Layering a new load of bureaucracy on top by introducing a trigger mechanism is over-egging the pudding.
    Mr. Willis rose
    Mr. Miliband: I am about to come to the hon. Gentleman's point about annual reports, which I find very exciting.
    Mr. Willis: I am delighted that I have been able to excite the Minister. Before he leaves the trigger mechanism, may I ask him to think very carefully before introducing such a provision? A trigger mechanism that can be invoked by 10 parents may cause a real problem, especially in schools where groups of militant parents have an axe to grind as regards a particular teacher.
    Mr. Miliband: I apologise for not articulating my point clearly enough. We do not propose to introduce a trigger mechanism. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Gentleman that when I say that we do not intend to do it, that means that we do not intend to do it. We are in happy agreement in that respect.
    The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) urged us to trust markets rather than dialogue as the answer to the need for proper links between governing bodies and
    102
    parents, but one cannot rely on parental choice alone to provide the sort of engagement that we are seeking to promote. It is an important part of the equation, but the right to exercise a voice, as well as a choice, is an important part of the schooling process, and we should welcome the chance for parents to have a serious and deep involvement in their children's education. I would be very wary of pretending that markets can substitute for that dialogue.
    I conclude with the exciting point about annual reports. If the word "irksome" can be applied to parents meetings, for many schools the annual report requirements are indeed irksome. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) hinted at that when he suggested using the provision and the regulations that will follow it to think broadly about how we can achieve the right sort of light-touch involvement from the centre. I have glad tidings for the House—the Bill already provides an opportunity to deregulate annual reports. That is not a birthday or Christmas present, but merely continuing evidence of the Government's serious commitment to deregulation for which the House affirmed its support only half an hour ago. That power to deregulate annual reports is the merit of the approach that we have taken in moving the detail of the Bill to regulations. I must provide some context for my glad tidings. Hon. Members will have to agree to pass regulations to achieve the deregulation of annual reports that has gained support across the House.
    I assure the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we want to consider the structure of annual reports in terms of what is required, when it is required and how they are required to be written. We can try to ensure that that accountability operates without in any way undermining a school's accountability to its parent community.
    Mr. Mole: If my hon. Friend were to take that path, it would be another factor that would aid the recruitment and retention of school governors.
    Mr. Miliband: We all owe a debt to our school governors, and we want to make their contribution as productive as possible. Let us consider annual reports, but let us not, when the time comes, score points against each other about the regulation that may be required to achieve that important step forward.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Government amendment (a) in lieu agreed to.

    SCHOOLS FORUMS
    Lords amendment: No. 27.
    Mr. Miliband: I beg to move that this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (b), (c) and (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.
    Mr. Miliband: Collaboration between schools and LEAs is an integral part of the new funding system, and we want that partnership to he effective throughout the

    103
    country. The forums that we are about to consider put that principle into practice. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I daily slightly longer than normal to explain the Government's approach fully.
    Our debates on the Bill have not shifted our perspective that forums have an important role under the new regime. We have always said that some LEAs have effective consultation arrangements on funding matters. However, that is by no means the case in every authority. Clause 41 provides a real opportunity to ensure that schools in every area have a voice on a range of matters that are directly relevant to school funding. We are in the era of the self-managed school, where the delegation of school funding has greatly increased. Given that landscape, it is only right that local schools have the opportunity to articulate views on financial matters that affect them, in partnership with their LEAs.
    In considering the attempt to remove schools forums from the Bill, we have the benefit of the consultation exercise that we launched in May. It ended last month and we have been able to consider the results, which I should like to report. There were a little under 200 responses in the period for reply. They showed general support for the concept behind schools forums: partnership and consultation on managing the schools budget, which clause 39 would create. We therefore believe that we were right to include schools forums in the Bill and to persist with them. As one school said,
    "the establishment of a schools forum on a statutory basis is absolutely necessary as a part of the new framework of school funding and it would be a major breach of faith if the proposals were to be dropped."
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister said that 200 people responded. How many were consulted?
    Mr. Miliband: I do not know the figure off the top of my head, but I shall intervene later to provide it or include it in my winding-up speech.
    The National Assembly for Wales strongly backs schools forums. It set out its proposals for them in "The Learning Country", the policy paper that it published last year.
    We have also received strong backing for forums from bodies such as the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, the National Governors Council and other schools organisations. I shall quote an extract from a letter that we recently received from the SHA. It states that
    "the overwhelming majority of our Council believes that the Schools Forum proposal should go ahead and we very much hope it does not get lost in the parliamentary process".
    The Foundation and Voluntary Aided Schools Association wrote:
    "We do see these as a very significant step towards bringing informed professional judgements to bear on local LEA funding. we have tried to get across … how strongly we feel on this."
    Debate on schools forums in the House and in another place has been about two main issues—the way in which forums are to be constituted, and their functions. We have tried to ensure that authorities are not required to change arrangements that work well and are designed to establish proper dialogue between schools and LEAs over the allocation of funding.
    104
    We want to tackle practice that does not work well and reinforce rather than disturb good practice. A dialogue between an LEA and its schools on the management of the schools budget is essential, and there will be different ways of achieving that. However, forums have been identified as an important factor in facilitating a mutual understanding of budget management. Examples that have been brought to our notice include the Bath and North-East Somerset LEA's school budget forum; Croydon LEA's leadership groups; Hampshire's standing conferences for head teachers, and the forum established by Telford and Wrekin LEA. We want such local arrangements to be able to continue with little or no change, and other LEAs to be able to design their schools forums to evolve out of bodies such as head teacher consultative groups.
    Our amendments therefore propose much greater flexibility. There will be local flexibility about the balance between head teacher and governor representatives, and the size and method of selecting school members. Elected members of the LEA will be allowed to join forums. The Learning and Skills Council will have only observer status. The quorum requirement will be relaxed. Costs will be charged to the schools budget, but detailed provisions will be for local decisions.
    We will give guidance on a range of issues, but this will be non-statutory and for each LEA to use as it wishes. Those significant changes introduce much greater flexibility and will enable many LEAs to turn existing local groups into statutory forums. We believe that those changes are a substantial and positive response to consultation and show that we have listened to the concerns expressed during the Bill's passage.
    We have also listened to what has been said about the functions of the schools forums. There was substantial agreement in the consultation responses that the functions that we envisaged for the forums—mainly consultative and advisory, as we have consistently emphasised—are on the right lines. This has confirmed our belief that the forums will provide a valuable resource for education authorities.
    8.45 pm
    The consultation exercise also showed considerable support for a limited decision-taking function, although we recognise that many have expressed a fear that this function would be expanded over time. That was never our intention, but nor was the decision-making function ever the main point of school forums, which are intended primarily to strengthen local partnerships. We have, therefore, considered the matter further, and, in consequence, we have tabled the amendments now before the House, following extensive discussions in the House of Lords. The amendments emphasise the advisory and consultative role of the schools forums, and restrict the role of the forums so that advice and consultation will be the limit of their function. The forums' advisory role is much the same as before, involving the funding formula for schools, service contracts, specific issues such as the balance of special educational needs spending, and arrangements for education otherwise. There will, however, be no power to take financial decisions.
    I have been passed a note giving me the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I am told that all LEAs were consulted, and about

    105
    90 responded. About 30 national organisations were consulted, 20 of which responded. The consultation was not sent specifically to schools. Perhaps my colleagues in the Department were worried about the bureaucracy that might be involved, and about the taunting that might come from Opposition Members about that. A summary of the consultation was placed on the Department for Education and Skills website.
    I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the Lords amendment and agreeing to the Government amendments, which preserve the most important aspects of schools forums while limiting their role to advising LEAs.
    Mr. Brady: I am pleased that the Government have taken some small steps to allay the fears that have been raised about the potential role of schools forums, although the Minister has not gone as far as we would wish. He spoke of the importance of collaboration and partnership between local education authorities and schools, but this is, in a sense, partnership by diktat. To move from a situation in which schools forums already operate perfectly successfully on a voluntary basis—as the Minister accepts—to one in which there is a statutory requirement to form and operate such forums, especially when there is a clearly recognised cost element to be borne, is to take a significant step.
    If the Minister's interpretation of the Government amendments is accurate, and the role of the forums is to be purely advisory and consultative, it is even more surprising that we should need a measure to require their establishment. As the Minister knows, that was one of the principal bones of contention in another place. Less than a month ago, on 19 June, during an exchange on this issue in another place, the Minister, Baroness Ashton commented:
    "As will become clear when we reach Clause 41, the schools forums are primarily advisory bodies."
    That led to a brief misunderstanding, in which some Members thought that she had said "purely advisory", and she was obliged to clarify her comment, saying:
    "My Lords, I am sorry; I said "primarily advisory" and not "purely advisory".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 June 2002; Vol. 636, c. 799.]
    The Minister's statement that the forums are now to be purely advisory bodies is, therefore, an interesting and useful development. It sits ill, however, with the statutory nature of the forums.
    The Minister's statement also sits ill with his remarks a few moments ago about the importance of deregulation, which he says that he accepts. This is clearly a regulatory measure that will increase the bureaucracy imposed on schools and local education authorities. It carries a cost, which is required by law, and according to statute will he placed squarely on the local education authority. The Minister prays in aid the consultation that ended in May. He says that the consultation largely supported the establishment of statutory schools forums in that there was support for consultation between LEAs and schools. It is easy for schools and LEAs to engage in such consultation at present, if there is support for it.
    It is not surprising that many Members in the other place and in this House fear that the Government have other intentions that perhaps go beyond the limited aims that the Minister has set out. He spoke about the context of these proposals in the light of the self-managing nature
    106
    of our schools. He said that the role of the forums would be mainly consultative, and that although the consultation showed that there was support for a limited decision-making power, the Government's amendments do not proceed in that direction.
    The Government made some welcome concessions on Third Reading in the other place. They were prepared to set back the date of implementation of the schools forums provisions from 31 October to 15 January 2003. They allowed LEAs more discretion on how the schools forums should be constituted, and accepted that forums would have to include governors and head teachers, but the balance would be at the LEA's discretion and the method of election would be locally determined. The minimum size would be raised, but there would be no maximum. There would be a requirement to ensure exact proportionality between school phases. The Learning and Skills Council would have only observer status. The maximum percentage of non-schools members would be reduced from 25 to 20 per cent., and would include elected members of the LEA.
    Even with those changes and concessions in the other place, there is still a nub of concern about the nature of schools forums. The reassurances that were given on the size of the forums and the balance between the different phases of education implicitly accept that there is a danger that schools forums may in practice not represent the interests of all schools or all phases of education in an area. There may be some room for the balance to be tilted between different schools or phases of education.
    Many schools forums already operate successfully on a voluntary basis, and the Minister cited some of them. The Government say that their education policy is about shifting away from one-size-fits-all provision, so it is ironic that schools forums are moving in the other direction towards such a policy, with a new arrangement being imposed on schools and LEAs.
    We also concerned about the constitutional implications of this provision with regard to responsibility for LEA expenditure. There is a wider debate about the best mechanism for funding schools, how much money should go directly to schools, whether that should be done through a formula or in the spending review, as has been discussed once again today, or whether it should be done on a direct payment basis, which cannot be relied on in the long term. Although the Chancellor today spoke about a three-year period, that is hardly a hard and fast guarantee of a funding stream that can be relied on and that enables schools to plan accordingly.
    It is felt that bodies are being established which, even if they have no decision-making powers, will be there to advise Ministers on a massive power that they are taking to control local authority expenditure. Again, responsibility for the expenditure will rest with local education authorities, but control over it is being shifted—in the small matter of funding for the forums themselves, but more significantly in the context of the proposals to ring-fence schools budgets.
    By what mechanism, and in what circumstances, will funds be moved from one budget to another? How do Ministers intend to exercise their sweeping new power over local authority budgets? How will it be decided whether schools budgets are inadequate or sufficient? What procedures will be used to assess the recommendations and advice given by schools forums?

    107
    They will he able to express concerns about the way in which money is disbursed, which will be passed to Ministers to interpret.
    The massive central power that Ministers are taking is a thread that runs through the Bill. The forums could almost be seen as a cloak beneath which Ministers can hide their actions.
    Rob Marris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the balance of power between local education authorities and Government here in Westminster. Would he care to tell the House how he would organise that balance, and how his party would like it to be struck between the centralisation that he sees as a thread running through the Bill and powers for LEAs? I am thinking about what was said earlier about local democracy by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
    Mr. Brady: I should be delighted to do as the hon. Gentleman asks, but I fear that I cannot. He will probably not be surprised to learn that I feel very comfortable with the system of allowing schools the maximum resources, power, independence and freedom. I hope that, when we are in a position to consider the details of what we will say before the next general election, that view will feature strongly.
    It should be noted that the Government are themselves engaged in a profound redefinition of what LEAs should do. I am not necessarily suggesting that the Government are being sneaky in any way, or trying to hide their true motives. A genuine debate is probably taking place in Government about the exact role of LEAs.
    I was not taking a shorthand note, and I am sure that the Minister will forgive me if I misquote him slightly, but I think that when he appeared before the Select Committee recently, he made it very clear that LEAs should not be running schools—that their role should be strategic, and that they should take an overview. My hon. Friends and I feel comfortable with that. I suspect, however, that over the next couple of years the local education authority will become a very different animal from the one that we see today, or the one that we saw a year or two ago.
    9 pm
    There is certainly potential for movement in a certain direction. We heard today about direct payments to schools. We are trying to be consensual and non-partisan this evening, but we could comment that those payments may only just cover employers' national insurance contributions, and that they may be eaten up by the funding for Curriculum 2000, which never reached many schools. We should also bear in mind the shortage of funds currently experienced by many schools with sixth forms because of the Learning and Skills Council settlements. None the less, there is an increasing tendency towards direct payment in the form of a cheque submitted to the head, thereby bypassing the LEA. At the same time, through the Bill, the Government are assuming the power directly to squeeze the LEA side of the budget.
    We have various concerns, which in part relate to the point that was rightly raised about the exact role of LEAs and of individual schools, and about the extent to which
    108
    We are moving in a particular direction. The Minister might want to add something to that debate. However, there is also the real constitutional concern about the divergence between where the responsibility lies for control and expenditure of public money through the local authority, and the increasing shift towards taking decisions about how that money is spent elsewhere—notably, by Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills.
    Mr. Willis: This was an important issue for Liberal Democrats in Committee—in the Commons and in the Lords—and it remains important as we consider the amendment before us. When the Minister introduced this group of amendments, he referred to those who support the recommendations of schools forums. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was right. I had intended to ask how many consultation documents were issued and how many replies were received. The Minister rightly pointed out that the organisations that were very supportive of schools forums—they supported them as described in the original Bill, not in its amended form—included the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Governors and Managers.
    If I were still a practising head, I would be somewhat attracted to the concept of schools forums. I was often at odds with my local authority about my school's budget share, and during area meetings, local primary heads were at odds with me about how much money they were getting in comparison with the secondary school. In turn, the local special school argued that the primary and secondary schools were getting a greater share. It was very difficult to decide which of them was being disadvantaged. Of course, that is one reason why we elect local authorities, and why members of all political persuasions—and independents—put themselves up for election. Taking such decisions is a fundamental role of local authorities. I might disagree with certain of their decisions from time to time, but it is important that this House preserve local government's right to take decisions on matters for which it has a distinct responsibility—a point to which I shall return in due course.
    The Minister mentioned Wales—an issue on which I, too, have been lobbied. The National Assembly for Wales's Green Paper, "The Learning Country", was a very good document. I urge the Minister to reconsider separating schools forums for Wales and for England, because under the legislation it is possible to do so.
    I am pleased to see that the Welsh Minister is in his place to answer these deep questions, if he is still a Minister in that Department—[Interruption.] There have been so many changes recently that I did not know whether he was just sidling on to the Front Bench for a chat. One of the advantages of having an elected Assembly for Wales is that it has every right to say what it would like for its schools. The Minister is at leave to exclude schools forums for England and have them only for Wales. If that is what the Welsh Assembly wants, the Liberal Democrats would accept that, as is only right and proper.
    I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) about the need for better consultation with head teachers and governors about school budgets. That is said with due humility.

    109
    The examples that the Minister gave of forums that have been organised by local authorities and their schools are shining examples of what can be done within existing regulations. We do not need a raft of new regulations and organisations to achieve what the Minister wants. We—and probably the Conservatives, too—would be happy to make it a duty on local authorities to consult head teachers and governors about school budgets and to publish the arrangements for so doing. That can be done within existing arrangements without all the paraphernalia of schools forums. That would protect the position of head teachers and governors.
    The schools forums proposed in the Bill now are very different from those originally intended by the Government. The original intention was for schools forums that would have considerable powers, if the Secretary of State decided to give them those powers. The forums would have had direct powers over local authority budgets and how they were devolved to schools. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed that those powers are not necessary. However, if the bodies will be merely consultative, why are we going to such great lengths?
    I also agree with the Government that schools should have a right to petition the Secretary of State if they feel that they are being disadvantaged. That is right. Head teachers and governors have a duty to ensure that the resources that they get meet their school's needs, especially now that they will be held more and more responsible for what happens.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): They will get more money.
    Mr. Willis: The Minister is so excited about the additional money. I am excited too, and I just wish that I was still leading my school as these resources were pouring in. However, I was in the House when the additional £19 billion was announced, but it turned out to be £6.1 billion.
    Valerie Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry, but I do not want to be distracted on to that issue. I am sure that the hon. Lady is far too wise to lead me astray.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made a telling point. [Interruption.] It is always sad when Ministers cannot even be bothered to listen to the argument, because if they did they might be able to engage properly in the debate. The issue that the hon. Gentleman introduced was the new funding arrangements that are being proposed for schools and local authorities. If the budget for schools—the annual grant from the centre—is to be ring-fenced, with a separate budget for local authorities for running the LEAs, we will have a very different beast from the one that we have now. We have major reservations about the new arrangement, and it will call into question the enormous top-up that local authorities give to schools over and above the standard spending assessment that the Government say that they should spend on their schools.
    The Minister knows—he is a highly intelligent young man—[Interruption.] Oh, so he's 37. Wonderful!
    110
    Heavens above! He knows that in the past financial year local government spent £370 million over and above Government grant on schools in local authorities. It was not heads or governors who raised that money. Those people did not go before the electorate to win seats to sit on the council and to make decisions to raise council tax accordingly.
    If we want to go down the road where everything is centrally controlled, where everything is decided in London and is simply imposed on schools and local authorities, I question whether local authorities have any future. On that basis, why do the Government not devolve all the money directly from the centre to each individual school? If that is what they want, let them say so. It seems that that is where we are going on this issue.
    The jibe "one size fits all" has been made at our comprehensive system. It is a jibe that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and other Cabinet members constantly make at the public sector. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is right to say that before us is an example of one size fits all that is being foisted on local authorities and schools irrespective of whether they want it.
    Under the Learning and Skills Council arrangements and the Learning and Skills Act 2000, funding for 16 to 19-year-olds is now provided by the Learning and Skills Council—a wholly unelected quango. Yet there is no mention in the Bill, or in the 2000 Act, of the suggestion that there should be a schools forum for the Learning and Skills Council. It seems to me bizarre that a democratically elected body should have to have a schools forum to interject, but that a totally unelected quango can deal with £6 billion of taxpayers' money, without any say from elsewhere.
    Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is even more important a point given that the clear logic of the Government's position is to shift to a 14-to-19 phase of education and that the logical concomitant of that might be that the funding stream will go in the same direction, in which case even less of the money would go through the local authority route?
    Mr. Willis: That is an area of genuine discussion with the Government and something that we need to have out with them. In an intervention during a recent debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), gave a definite no to the question. However, the issue remains on the table. I ask the Minister to explain why the Learning and Skills Council does not have to consult schools even though it is determining their budgets; nor, indeed, does it have to consult a further education college.
    Rob Marris: Proposed section 47A(1) refers to a schools forum including other bodies if the authority—that is the local education authority—so determines. The words used are:
    "representing such bodies as the authority may from time to time in accordance with regulations determine."
    That means that there is an avenue available to address the real problem that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    Mr. Willis: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that. If he reads the background notes, he will find that

    111
    we are talking about a member of the Learning and Skills Council being allowed on the schools forum not as a voting member but as an observer. No doubt he or she will have nothing better to do than observe. I am making the point that the reverse does not apply. We have an unelected body that is responsible for £6 billion of taxpayers' money, to which none of the regulations that we are discussing apply. At the same time, we apparently have to have a new organisation for the local education authority. I want the Minister to reply to that issue.
    9.15 pm
    The final point that I want to raise is the question of non-school members. That is an important issue on which the Minister can provide clarification. What was the reasoning, for instance, behind the reduction in the House of Lords from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent? It would be useful to put on record that rationale. Will the Minister explain why head teachers and governors are important school members, but teachers and support staff are non-school members? I find that insulting to teachers and non-teachers, who somehow do not even qualify, for the sake of the school forums, to be recognised as part of the school community. If a formula can be devised for the proportion of head teachers or governors on the school forum, surely the same courtesy can be extended to the very people who have an important interest in their schools—the teachers and support staff.
    In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole), who has left his place, raised the issue of the burdens on governors. Most governors apply to join a governing body or—shall we say—are encouraged to do so because they want to become involved with that particular school. That is their real interest. When they get there, they find that they have all sorts of other duties as well. Representing other schools is difficult both for individual governors and for individual head teachers. Head teachers, by definition, as chairmen of governors, have a real interest in their own school and community and have a duty to fight for the best interests of their school and their school community. It is difficult for them to make objective decisions about budgets et al, across a whole authority, without having all the other information. If we want governors to play a key role, as the schools forum legislation clearly envisages, we are putting yet another huge burden on school governors.
    At the end of the day, this is an issue of local democracy. As a party, we are fundamentally supportive of the whole principle of local democracy and local decision making. We believe that the balance is just about right between increased autonomy and increased ability to innovate for schools, and local authorities that have become light-touch authorities. They are absolutely essential, however, in terms of making sure that all the machinery fits together. They have key roles to play. All we are saying to the Government is this: why invent a whole area of bureaucracy that is totally unnecessary, when, by simple regulation, using existing provisions, the Minister can have exactly what he wants—advisory bodies including governors and head teachers?
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The reason why I asked the Minister how many people had responded to the consultation was that the Government's consultation
    112
    record on the Bill, and on a whole range of issues related to it, is excellent, but that the response has been tiny. The Minister kindly gave me the figures. Of the 200 or so responses to the consultation, 90 were from LEAs and 20 from other bodies. I therefore assume that about 110, being from neither LEAs nor other bodies, were from schools. Those 110, of course, represent 110 of 25,000. A provision that was designed originally to give schools a key role in determining their budgets was, therefore, sufficiently popular for only 110 of those schools to respond to the Government, let alone say yes—the Minister did not tell me how many said yes.
    Rather like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I find it hard to understand what the clause's purpose is any more. I understood what its purpose was when the Bill left this House for the other place. The Government were then determined that schools should get it right when LEAs got it wrong, and that schools should be given the opportunity to get it wrong even if LEAs had got it right. The Government do not trust LEAs, and it does not matter what kind of LEAs they are. I am not a great fan of LEAs, but even the budgets for grant-maintained schools were set according to the formula—admittedly with knobs on—determined by LEAs.
    When the Bill left this place, the clause enabled LEAs to he overtaken by schools in determining school budgets. As far as I can see from reading the proposed new section 45A in clause 39, schools could determine the size of the school budget as well as how it should be disposed. Schools could decide that money should be spent on schools rather than on old people's homes, transport or roads. That was the Government's absurd purpose, and their lordships rumbled it and got rid of clause 41.
    The Government accepted the need to remove the worst bits of clause 41—the power of schools to override LEAs, which, for all their faults, are democratically elected—yet they still think it necessary to keep the rest of the absurd framework. They want to put into statute something that many LEAs do already and that many groups of schools could do even if their LEAs did not want them to. It is not unknown for head teachers and governors to meet outside the arrangement made by an LEA.
    It is extraordinary that the Government think that the only things that happen are provided for by legislation or regulation. The Minister shakes his head, and I do not blame him. He is on the new side of the Labour party that does not believe that, but I regret to say that this clause confirms my belief that the Minister shares the Government's outlook that the only things that happen are determined by regulation and legislation. That is not the case, so there is no need for the statutory framework. Unlike the Government, I do not disagree to the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Miliband: I begin with a matter of no significance. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), wants the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to know that, although my hon. Friend may look like a year 12 in a suit, he is actually only a year 6. He is at least two years younger than me, so he does not want any aspersions cast in his direction. He is very much young Labour, and is coming up sharply alongside us.

    113
    I shall deal with three points in my response to this interesting debate: the purpose of the changes, the role of LEAs and the nature of the proposals. It is important to recognise that LEAs are already required to consult on the funding formula and on the scheme in the financial control document that they issue. The quality of the consultation that takes place as a result of the encouragement that is given to LEAs to form the partnership with schools that we want should be honoured in the breach as well as in the observance.
    The amendment tries to remedy the problem that, in some LEAs, schools feel that they have insufficient chance to have a proper dialogue with the LEA about the organisation of a school's budget. The forums have received much support from organisations representing head teachers and schools. Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said about the consultation, I was impressed by the seriousness of purpose demonstrated by the respondents. We are trying to solve the problem that some schools feel disempowered when the LEA formulates its plans.
    On the role of the LEA, the Conservative party cannot decide whether it loves LEAs or loathes them. In the course of a single day, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has gone from loving them to loathing them and back again. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made a passionate plea to get rid of them completely. The Government believe that LEAs have an important role, but it is not one of running schools. Their role is to support schools in school improvement, to provide the services that cannot be provided by schools alone and to support the drive to rise standards.
    I must tell the Liberal Democrats that the role that the Government have set for LEAs is standing the test of time. It is a proper role that is designed to enhance what schools do, not to replace it.
    Mr. Redwood: The Minister misrepresents my view. I said nothing about the abolition of LEAs. However, how much will the forums cost? Why can he not find a better way to take account of the views of schools without creating more expensive bureaucracy?
    Mr. Miliband: I am sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman's views. They seemed clear to me, but I am happy to hear that he, too, loves LEAs.
    Costs depend on how LEAs decide to develop the forums, which are the mechanisms for consultation. LEAs that already have meetings with head teachers and others can simply extend those to include the forum. We have designed clause 41 to encourage LEAs to exercise maximum flexibility on how they undertake their responsibilities.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked who should be represented on the forums. That is a matter for local authorities. We are not trying to create a schools parliament and I would hesitate before inviting a cavalcade of people to come along to the meetings. However, if LEAs think that members of the local schooling community have important points to make, they can invite them to the forums. Heads and governors are referred to as key players because they control school budgets, and it is the purpose of the forums to discuss school budgets.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of the learning and skills councils. It is significant that the Chancellor mentioned in his statement today the need to develop
    114
    serious relationships at a local level between LSCs and the bodies with which they work. Part of that could involve discussing how the serious dialogue at LEA-school level can be extended to the LSC. The impression from my local experience is that in its first 18 months of operation, the LSC has made serious efforts to be a genuinely open and consultative body, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point that it is not democratically elected.
    The Government amendments need to be set in the context of the arrangements that we are introducing to separate the budgets of schools and LEAs. Although LEAs will retain ultimate responsibility, it is time to give schools a sense of collective responsibility, in their partnership with an LEA, for the way in which their budgets are managed. What is the best way to dispose of resources? How are different priorities to be addressed and met? Is it better to spend money at school or LEA level to do best by pupils? Schools have an opinion on those questions and it should be heard clearly in LEAs.
    We should not replace the mechanisms that work well, but we should put in place mechanisms if they are missing. The Lords amendment shows a distrust of schools, which is wrong. I hope that the House will vote against it and instead favour the Government amendments.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 169.

    Division No. 309]

    [9.29 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cairns, David

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell. Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Caton, Martin

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Challen, Colin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Chaytor, David

    Austin. John

    Clapham, Michael

    Bailey, Adrian

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Baird, Vera

    Banks, Tony

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbndge)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clelland, David

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clwyd, Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Coaker. Vernon

    Benn, Hilary

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Brown. Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Waflsend)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Browne, Desmond

    Bryant, Chris

    Cunningham. Jim (CoVtry S)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dalyell, Tam

    Burden, Richard

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Burnham, Andy

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    David, Wayne

    115

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

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

    Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

    Joyce, Eric

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Khabra, Piara S

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kidney, David

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Donohoe, Brian H

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Doran, Frank

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dowd, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Drew, David

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Lammy. David

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)

    Laxton, Bob

    Edwards, Huw

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lepper, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Leslie, Christopher

    Etherington, Bill

    Levitt, Tom

    Farrelly, Paul

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Fisher, Mark

    Linton, Martin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lloyd, Tony

    Flynn, Paul

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Follett, Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Foster Rt Hon Derek

    Lucas, Ian

    Foster. Michael (Worcester)

    Luke, lain

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foulkes, George

    McCafferty, Chris

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gapes, Mike

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonnell, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    MacDougall, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Grogan, John

    McKechin, Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David Harman,

    MacShane, Denis

    Rt Hon Ms Harriet Hams, Torn

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Mc Walter, Tony

    Havard, Dai

    McWilliam, John

    Healey, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mann, John

    Heppell, John Hill.

    Maris, Rob

    Keith

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marshall, David (Shetfieston)

    Hoey, Kate

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Hope, Phil

    Martlew, Eric

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Meale, Alan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Miliband, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Miller, Andrew

    Hurst, Alan

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hutton. Rt Hon John

    Moffatt, Laura

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mole, Chris

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Morley, Elliot

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Morris, Rt Hon EstellEw

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jamieson, David

    Mudie, George

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)Jones,

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Tortaen)

    116

    Norris, Dan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Organ, Diana

    Southworth, Helen

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Squire, Rachel

    Owen, Albert

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pearson, Ian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Perham, Linda

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Picking, Anne

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pickthall, Colin

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pike, Peter

    Tami, Mark

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pond, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Pope, Greg

    Timms, Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Trickett, Jon

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Truswell, Paul

    Price, Adam

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pumell, James

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Tynan, Bill

    Rammell, Bill

    Vaz, Keith

    Rapson, Syd

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Ward, Claire

    Ross, Ernie

    Wareing, Robert N

    Roy, Frank

    Watson, Torn

    Ruane, Chris

    Watts, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    White, Brian

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Winnick, David

    Sawford, Phil

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wood, Mike

    Sheerman, Barry

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sheridan, Jim

    Woolas, Phil

    Shipley. Ms Debra

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Simon, Sign

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Singh, Marsha

    Joan Ryan and Mr.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Jim Murphy.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Butterfill, John

    Allan, Richard

    Cameron, David

    Amess, David

    Campbell, At Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

    Bacon, Richard

    Barker, Gregory

    Chidgey, David

    Baron, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Barrett, John

    Clappison, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Bercow. John

    Collins, Tim

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cotter, Brian

    Boswell, Tim

    Cran, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing VV)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brady, Graham

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Brake, Tom

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Breed, Colin

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Evans, Nigel

    Burnett, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Fallon, Michael

    Burnside, David

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Burstow, Paul

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Burt, Alistair

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    117

    Francois, Mark

    Page, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Paice, James

    Garnier, Edward

    Pickles, Eric

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Gibb, Nick

    Prisk, Mark

    Gidley, Sandra

    Pugh, Dr John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Randall, John

    Goodman, Paul

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Grayling, Chris

    Rendel, David

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hammond, Philip

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Hancock, Mike

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Hams, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Heald, Oliver

    Selous, Andrew

    Heath, David

    Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hendry, Charles

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hoban, Mark

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

    Holmes, Paul

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Horam, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Spink, Bob

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Steen, Anthony

    Keetch, Paul

    Streeter, Gary

    Key, Robert

    Stunell, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Syms, Robert

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Lamb, Norman

    Thurso, John

    Lensley, Andrew

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Laws, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Trend, Michael

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Lidington, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Walter, Robert

    Loughton, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Watkinson, Angela

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Webb, Steve

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Whittingdale, John

    Mains, Humfrey

    Wiggin, Bill

    Maples, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Mates, Michael

    Willetts, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Willis, Phil

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Wilshire, David

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Moore, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Yeo, Tim

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Norman, Archie

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Oaten, Mark

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Osborne, George (Talton)

    Mr. Desmond Swayne and

    Ottaway, Richard

    Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Government amendments (b),(c) and (a) to the words so restored to the Bill, agreed to.

  After Clause 62

    ACADEMIES
    Lords amendment: No. 37.
    Mr. Miliband: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos 35 and 36.
    Mr. Miliband: Lords amendment No. 37 gives effect to our intention to require academies, formerly known as city academies, to take part in statutory admission forums and have regard to their advice—an obligation that we have included in their funding agreements. We have already put in place robust arrangements to ensure that academies will be inclusive schools, and that they will agree their admission arrangements in partnership with local education authorities and other admissions authorities.
    I shall spell out those arrangements for the benefit of the House. Academies are an integral part of the Government's wider programme to raise standards for all and transform secondary education, and are a new and distinctive kind of school. We are confident that they will offer great opportunities to pupils from some of the most disadvantaged communities in England. As independent schools, academies will have certain freedoms and will be different in certain ways from other maintained schools. We have ensured that they have the flexibility and the freedom that they need to respond to the demands and challenges that they will face. At the same time, we have made sure that, on certain key and fundamental points, they comply with requirements on maintained schools, most notably in relation to admissions.
    First, on differences in freedom, academies will have the freedom to offer staff terms and conditions outside the teachers' pay and conditions document, and significant freedom to tailor the curriculum, its development and delivery to meet pupils' needs. There is also great flexibility in the make-up of the governing body of each academy.
    Academies are part of the local schooling system, not separate from it, however. Let me explain. They must comply with admissions procedures and requirements as they apply to maintained schools. Their arrangements must be fair, transparent and objective. They have no more ability to select than do maintained schools. They must have independent panels to consider appeals against non-admission, in the same way as maintained schools. If they band by ability, those admitted must reflect the ability of those who apply.
    9.45 pm
    We want to make sure that academies' involvement in their local admissions networks is transparent and strengthened. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I have already said that academies will be required by their funding arrangements to participate in forums. However, the amendment will put a statutory duty on admissions forums to promulgate their advice to academies as well as maintained schools within the forum's area. It will also put a statutory duty on the governing body of an academy to have regard to such advice, which will be in addition to its contractual duty to have such regard through its funding agreement.
    Mandatory admissions forums will enable us further to improve the admissions process for parents and pupils. They will consider how well local admissions arrangements are working and they will broker agreements on difficult local issues, such as arrangements relating to challenging and vulnerable children. Well run admissions forums already consider such issues.
    A typical forum—for example, the one operating in west Sussex—meets three times a year. At its first meeting of the year, the west Sussex forum considers

    119
    information to parents, assessing how user-friendly and helpful admissions prospectuses and forms are to local parents. The later meetings review the admissions round, considering what went well and where there are problems to be resolved. From that, the forum might make recommendations for improving the process. In the course of looking at those issues, the forum might identify other issues that it will also address—for example, issues relating to applications outside the admissions round or to applications from neighbouring authorities.
    It has always been our intention that academies should have regard to the advice of local admissions forums. The amendment simply makes that position clear and unmistakable. It is important to understand that this is not an impediment to the success of the academies programme. In fact, the academies programme is proving extremely popular with sponsors, LEAs and local communities. In all cases, all parties have agreed that the academy should be a member of the admissions forum and should have regard to its advice.
    We have recently awarded development funding to a further five partnerships of LEAs and sponsors working to establish academies to serve their areas. Those new partnerships are in Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool, Northampton and Sandwell. Letters have been sent to the hon. Members for the constituencies concerned.
    I draw attention, by way of example, to one of those projects, not because it is more important than others, but because it illustrates an important point. The Sandwell academy is the second to be sponsored by the Mercers Company and Thomas Telford online, joining the existing project in Walsall; so one of the CTCs is sponsoring not one, but two academies. Those sponsors understand and accept entirely that academies are different from CTCs. They are perfectly happy with the position. Sir Kevin Satchwell, head of Thomas Telford school, is the project manager for the new academies sponsored by the Mercers and by Thomas Telford. He has said that he is happy for the academies to be part of the admissions forum. Thus there are CTCs that wish to take advantage of the provisions in the Bill to convert into an academy.
    Mr. Redwood: Does the Minister think that grammar schools are a good thing or not?
    Mr. Miliband: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have always opposed the 11-plus. I am proud that I went to a comprehensive school. We should be proud of the success in doubling GCSE achievement at age 15 over the past 30 years. The Government are seeking to build on what comprehensive schools have achieved, not turn the clock back.
    I was speaking about the wish of some CTCs to convert to academies. Djanogly CTC in Nottingham, for example, is making excellent progress with its plans to become an academy. At the same time, the new academy will replace the existing Forest school in Nottingham. I hope that these examples give some flavour of the popularity of the programme as it is, not as Opposition Members might wish it to be. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Brady: At the outset of this brief exchange, perhaps I should respond in kind and say that I am proud
    120
    to have been educated at a grammar school. Even though the Minister was not prepared to pay tribute to the excellent work done in our remaining grammar schools throughout the country, I certainly will. They are a vital part of the fabric of education in our country. It is instructive that the Minister was prepared to congratulate comprehensive schools, even though some of his colleagues believe that they have failed over the past 20 or 30 years, but he was not prepared similarly to congratulate excellent schools that happen to be selective in intake.
    The Government are clearly somewhat confused in that regard. In the past few days, the Prime Minister, in comments quoted in the Daily Mail of 13 July, said that it was the "core mission" of the Government's three-year spending plan being unveiled today to spell the end of what he described as the
    -one-size-fits-all comprehensive".
    It appears that the Minister is perhaps the last defender of the one-size-fits-all comprehensive. Perhaps, since he has not been so close to the Prime Minister, they have been starting to diverge in policy. We also heard on 30 June that the Secretary of State had referred, in relation to Labour's mission to consign the bog-standard comprehensive—a phrase used by Mr. Alastair Campbell, not the right hon. Lady—to history, to getting rid of a
    "one-size-fits-all culture"
    of failing schools and schools that she would not touch "with a barge pole".
    Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a lamentable failure on the part of Ministers not to answer a reasonable question and name the schools that they do not think that people should touch with a barge pole?
    Mr. Brady: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are waiting to hear a response from Ministers. I am sure that, in due course, they will supply a list in response to the questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
    This is a classic case of our trying to help the Government to achieve what they say they want to do. They say that they believe in a more diverse schools sector, more autonomy for schools and less bureaucracy and red tape, but they are imposing a new statutory arrangement on all schools: the statutory admissions forum. In another place, my noble Friend Lady Blatch tried to amend the Bill to remove the whole paraphernalia of the admissions forums. She said:
    "If admission forums are thought to be a good idea by schools in an area and a majority of schools deem that there should be a forum, they should determine whether to have one."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2002; Vol. 637, c. 292.]
    That is a very clear and permissive approach, which does not burden schools with unnecessary regulation and red tape. The Government are now placing a new statutory duty on schools, however, which gives the lie to everything that they say about believing in diversity, using a light touch and allowing maximum autonomy to schools.
    Will the Minister explain exactly what the new legislative requirement will mean in practice? What does the new duty to "have regard" to the forums mean? Is it a duty to follow the instructions of the forum, or merely a fig leaf to allow Ministers to claim that city academies are covered, or a meaningful legal requirement?

    121
    The Minister said that academies must be inclusive and that they are already required to be so. Indeed, in his opening remarks, he implied that the change was not necessary, before going on to advise the House to accept it. Is not the whole arrangement meaningless anyway, because the sweeping powers taken in part 1 give Ministers power to make exemptions from that legal requirement? Once again, even though city academies will be required to have regard to the views and advice of the admissions forum, that very requirement could be removed. The Minister is legislating to give himself power to remove the very restriction that he is trying to put in place.
    The provision is a needless constraint on academies. The Opposition believe in city academies. We believe that they are an exciting opportunity and that they can be a new type of school that will free up innovation and autonomy in schools, provide a new direction, and act as a model that can be followed by other schools throughout the country. However, Ministers who claim to believe in the model of city academies and in freedom and autonomy for schools are contradicting everything they say that they believe by trying to restrict that freedom; they are obstructing schools that could go on to be beacons of excellence in our cities by trying to restrict them in a needless and counterproductive way.
    We strongly urge the House to ensure that city academies are given the true freedom and autonomy that they need to go off and flourish in a thousand different ways that Ministers cannot even imagine. If Ministers really believe in autonomy for schools, this is the opportunity for them to prove it and to show that they are prepared to trust schools and give them the freedom to allow them to go out and succeed in our cities.
    Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman protests too much. It is sad that people on the two Opposition Benches are finishing the evening on a discordant note. This is a key issue. We were delighted that Baroness Sharp was able to get the support of Baroness Ashton in getting the amendment through in another place, and I hope that it will be supported tonight.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mixes up two matters. This is not about the future of academies, but about the future of who can go to those academies. The one thing that guarantees children of all backgrounds, creeds and colours fair access to our schools is a fair admissions policy. That is all we are trying to do, and that is why we support the Government. It may be true that CTCs flourished and were successful, and I do not want to decry their success at all. However, the reality is that Dixons city technology college in Bradford, which is a very successful school, has an arrangement for admitting children that differs from all the other schools in Bradford, and it therefore takes its pick before everybody else. Although it may have a fair and even distribution of students, that skews the whole process. If we are to have voluntary aided schools, more faith schools able to select their own admissions policies, and CTCs and academies with their own admissions policies—all with a different timetable—what is ultimately left for youngsters who had no one to advocate their case? I am delighted that an admissions forum is considering the admissions to all schools at the same time.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Willis: No, I want to finish in the remaining three minutes. Most heads and governors are happy to engage in that process.
    Mr. Redwood rose—
    Mr. Willis: All right—how can I resist?
    Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we should be able to select people who are better at, say, soccer or ballet to go to schools that specialise in those areas, or does he think that anyone should be able to go to those schools?
    Mr. Willis: With respect, I do not want to re-run the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 argument. I agree that the process of selecting by aptitude is nonsense. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) made that point at the time. How do children at that stage display an aptitude, rather than an ability, in something? However, I do not want to go down that road. This is about fairness in the admissions system, and I hope that the Government will continue to support the amendment.
    Mr. Miliband: It is revealing that in 10 minutes we can expose the fact that fair admissions is controversial even for the modern Conservative party. We are discussing the simple principle that we should have inclusive schooling in our communities and that the new city academies should take pupils from a wide range of abilities. Labour Members are happy to stand behind that principle.
    Mr. Brady: One size fits all.
    Mr. Miliband: City academies are an innovation in our schooling system, and I am pleased to say that they will admit pupils from a wide range of abilities. He may be obsessed with the future of 164 grammar schools, but we are not. We are obsessed with the future of 3,500 secondary schools, which are the heart of secondary education. Today we heard from the Chancellor about the investment that will go into our schools over the next three years. We have heard about investment that Conservative Members oppose.
    Tomorrow, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will hear about reforms to our secondary education system to improve teaching, the quality of leadership and school structures, and to establish the partnerships with local communities that will ensure that teachers and head teachers are not on their own in raising standards but are supported by the wider community, including parents, businesses and universities. I commend that vision of secondary education to the House.
    It being Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 132.

    Division No. 310]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cohen, Harry

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Coleman, lain

    Ainger, Nick

    Colman, Tony

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Allan, Richard

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Corston, Jean

    Cotter, Brian

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cox, Tom

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Crausby, David

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cruddas, Jon

    Austin, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Baird, Vera

    Cummings, John

    Banks, Tony

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Barnes, Harry

    Barrett, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Hilary

    David, Wayne

    Bennett, Andrew

    Davidson, Ian

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

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

    Best, Harold

    Betts, Clive

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blackman, Liz

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dobbin, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Doughty, Sue

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dowd, Jim

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Drew, David

    Brake, Tom

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Breed, Cohn

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Edwards, Huw

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ennis, Jeff

    Browne, Desmond

    Etherington, Bill

    Bryant, Chris

    Farrelly, Paul

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Burden, Richard

    Fisher, Mark

    Burnett, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Burnham, Andy

    Follett, Barbara

    Burstow, Paul

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Cairns, David

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Foulkes, George

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Caplin, Ivor

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Caton, Martin

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cawsey, Ian

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Challen, Cohn

    Gidley, Sandra

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Chidgey, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Grogan, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clelland, David

    Hancock, Mike

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hanson, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    124

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Havard, Dai

    McIsaac, Shona

    Healey, John

    McKechin, Ann

    Heath, David

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hendrick, Mark

    McNulty, Tony

    Hepburn, Stephen

    MacShane, Denis

    Heppell, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hill, Keith

    Mc Wafter, Tony

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mc William, John

    Hoey, Kate

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Holmes, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hope, Phil

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Marris, Rob

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Martlew, Eric

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hurst, Alan

    Meale, Alan

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Merron, Gillian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Illsley, Eric

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Miliband, David

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Miller, Andrew

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Mole, Chris

    Jamieson, David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Jenkins, Brian

    Moore, Michael

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Morley, Elliot

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Mountford, Kali

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Mudie, George

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Joyce, Eric

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Keetch, Paul

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Kemp, Fraser

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Khabra, Piara S

    Olner, Bill

    Kidney, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Opik, Lembit

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Organ, Diana

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Owen, Albert

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Pearson, Ian

    Lamb, Norman

    Picking, Anne

    Lammy, David

    Pickthall, Cohn

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Pike, Peter

    Laws, David

    Plaskitt, James

    Laxton, Bob

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Pond, Chris

    Lepper, David

    Pope, Greg

    Leslie, Christopher

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Levitt, Tom

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Price, Adam

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Pugh, Dr John

    Linton, Martin

    Purchase, Ken

    Lloyd, Tony

    Purnell, James

    Llwyd, Ellyn

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Lucas, Ian

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Luke, lain

    Rammell, Bill

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rapson, Syd

    McCafferty, Chris

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rendel, David

    MacDonald, Calum

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McDonnell, John

    Roy, Frank

    MacDougall, John

    Ross, Ernie

    McFall, John

    Ruane, Chris

    125

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Timms, Stephen

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Todd, Mark

    Ryan, Joan

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Sanders, Adrian

    Touhig, Don

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Trickett, Jon

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Truswell, Paul

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Simon, Skin

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Tynan, Bill

    Singh, Marsha

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Skinner, Dennis

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Watson, Tom

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Watts, David

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

    Webb, Steve

    Southworth, Helen

    White, Brian

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Squire, Rachel

    Willis, Phil

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Winnick, David

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wood, Mike

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Woolas, Phil

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Worthington, Tony

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Tami, Mark

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Jim Fitzpatrick and

    Thurso, John

    Dan Norris.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Francois, Mark

    Amess, David

    Gale, Roger

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Gibb, Nick

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Goodman, Paul

    Bacon, Richard

    Grayling, Chris

    Barker, Gregory

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Baron, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bellingham, Henry

    Hammond, Philip

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hawkins, Nick

    Boswell, Tim

    Heald, Oliver

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Hendry, Charles

    Brady, Graham

    Hoban, Mark

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Horam, John

    Burns, Simon

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Burnside, David

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Burt, Alistair

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cameron, David

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Cash, William

    Key, Robert

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Chope, Christopher

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clappison, James

    Lansley, Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Leigh, Edward

    Letwin, Oliver

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Collins, Tim

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Cran, James

    Lidington, David

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Loughton, Tim

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Luff, Peter

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Evans, Nigel

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Fabncant, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fallon, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Maples, John

    Flight, Howard

    Mates, Michael

    126

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Spink, Bob

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Stanley, Rt Hon

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Goldfield)

    Sir John Steen, Anthony

    Moss, Malcolm

    Streeter, Gary

    Munson, Dr Andrew

    Syms, Robert

    Norman, Archie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Osborne, George (Talton)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Page, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Paice, James

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyne, Andrew

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Prisk, Mark

    Walter, Robert

    Randall, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Watkinson, Angela

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wilkinson, John

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Willetts, David

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Wilshire, David

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Selous, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Yeo, Tim

    Simmonds, Mark

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Mr. Julian Brazier and

    Soames, Nicholas

    Mr. Desmond Swayne.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 37 agreed to.
    It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That at this day's sitting, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL [LORDS]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Question agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
    That the Bill be not committed—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

    WORKING CONDITIONS FOR TEMPORARY WORKERS
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7430/02, draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on working conditions for temporary workers; and supports the Government's initial approach to negotiations.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    COMPANIES
    That the draft Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 102) (HC 943), on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 2001-02 and 2002-03, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 104) (HC 1005) on Children's Services Quality Protects Adoption and Permanence Taskforce Special Grant for 2002-03, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

    OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 2002. which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
    That the draft African Development Fund (Additional Subscriptions) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 27th June. be approved.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
    That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Tuesday 23rd July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Kemp.]

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the House shall not sit on Friday 18th October or any later Friday until the end of the present Session of Parliament; and the
    128
    provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) of Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays) shall apply to those days.—[Mr. Kemp.]

  PETITIONS

    Pen Ponds Car Park
    10.16 pm
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I wish to present the first of two petitions condemning the Royal Parks Agency's plan to close Pen Ponds car park in Richmond park, which has facilitated popular access to the park for more than 70 years. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is also presenting a petition, with signatures largely from her constituents.
    This petition has been signed by many hundreds of people living outside the Richmond Park constituency, in areas including Putney and Roehampton, Kingston, Battersea, Tooting, Twickenham, Sutton, Cheltenham, West Sussex, Guildford, Portsmouth and indeed Christchurch. That shows that this is not just a local but, more important, a national issue.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Belgrave Avenue Surgery
    10.17 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Gidea park community in my constituency, where it is proposed to close the doctor's surgery in Belgrave avenue. The petition reads:
    The Petition of residents of the Gidea Park area, Romford.
    Declares that the Belgrave Avenue Surgery in Romford is an essential part of the local community, and that they are opposed to the proposed closure.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the surgery is permitted to remain open and serve the residents of Gidea Park.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Pen Ponds Car Park
    10.19 pm
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The petition from my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), and national users of Richmond park, has attracted 16,500 signatures. It declares that
    the Royal Parks Agency's plan to close Pen Ponds Car Park, the sole car park inside the perimeter road, removes the only safe and reasonable access to the heart of the park, and so to beautiful Pen Ponds for the most vulnerable groups, young families and the elderly alike … the Petitioners request the House of Commons to urge the Royal Parks Agency to reconsider the planned closure of Pen Ponds Car Park.
    To lie upon the Table.

    North-East Museums
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    10.20 pm
    Mr. Kevan Jones: May I begin by saying how pleased I am to have secured tonight's debate? It allows me not only to highlight the excellent work of museums in the north-east, but to emphasise the fact that not all of our national treasures are located in London. A truly national policy on museums and galleries must recognise the immense value of regional museums and the contribution that they make to our country's historical and cultural life.
    The north-east has a long, diverse and proud historical past—from the Roman settlement, through the early examples of Anglo-Saxon Christianity, to the 18th and 19th centuries, when industry in the north-east played a key role in Britain's earning the title of the "workshop of the world". Much has been written about the decline of the north-east in the past 30 years, and it is true that it has been through hard times. However, a strong part of the region's character is its proud sense of history, along with a willingness to change and to adapt to face future challenges.
    Such cherishing of the past but adapting for the future is exemplified in the work of the region's museums. They are varied in terms of both size and subjects covered, and they contribute to the region's tourism industry, which the Northumbria Tourist Board estimates is worth some £738 million to the north-east's economy. Last year, more than 3 million people visited museums in the north-east. They directly employ more than 600 people, along with countless seasonal workers and an army of unpaid volunteers, who give of their time freely to help their local museum. Those individuals in particular should be thanked, and their hard work on behalf of museums not just in the north-east, but nationwide, should be recognised.
    One strand of the north-east's rich web of museums is Beamish, the North of England Open Air Museum, which is in my constituency. A living and working museum that was created in the past 30 years, Beamish covers some 300 acres of a greenfield site, and depicts life in the north-east in the 1800s and 1900s. Last year, it attracted more than 320,000 visitors, 50,000 of whom were children. Children are allowed to wander freely across the site. They can walk down a 19th-century street, complete with trams, travel on a steam locomotive, or visit a coal mine to experience some of the harsher conditions of Victorian life.
    What we see today is testimony to the foresight of Beamish's early advocates and the key role played by local authorities in its development. Such organisations worked together by pooling resources and, in doing so, they recognised that Beamish has a regional significance outside their own municipal boundaries. For that, they should be congratulated.
    Joyce Quin: My hon. Friend mentions the partnership work of local authorities in promoting the cultural sector. Will he join me in congratulating Gateshead and Sunderland councils on achieving beacon status through their work in the
    130
    cultural sector to promote regeneration? The cultural sector is clearly a key area of our economy, and local authorities' work in promoting it is to be applauded.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and I add my congratulations to those councils. They are just two examples among many throughout the north-east of councils working not only with each other, but with the private and voluntary sectors. I also agree about the cultural sector's importance to the economy of the north-east—a point to which I shall return.
    I wish to pay tribute to an individual from local government and his contribution to Beamish. John Mawston was a councillor for 48 years in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp). My hon. Friend is in his place, and although he is unable to speak as his role as a Whip debars him from doing so, I know that he would endorse my comments. For the past 10 years until his retirement earlier this year, John Mawston was chairman of the Beamish joint museums committee. His dedication and commitment to, and enthusiasm for, Beamish were known throughout the region. We are all grateful for the tremendous hard work that he put in over many years to make Beamish the success that it is today. I wish him all the best in his retirement and trust that he will receive the recognition that his efforts deserve.
    Beamish is an asset to the region, and we can be proud of it, not because it preserves the region's heritage in glass cases but because it allows young and old alike to experience living history, whether through riding on a steam locomotive from the 1800s or visiting the Co-operative store on the museum's main street. Education is also a key theme at Beamish, alongside research. congratulate the museum on the work that it does with local schools throughout the region, which is vital if we are to make history relevant to a new generation.
    Beamish is one of the larger museums in the region, but in demonstrating the variety of museums we have it would be remiss of me not to mention one of our smaller museums—it happens to be in my constituency—which is the Anker's House museum in Chester-le-Street. It is next to the parish church of St. Mary's and St. Cuthbert's and it tells the history of the founding of the church in 883 to house the body of St. Cuthbert. It also explores the early history of Christianity in the region.
    The museum also tells the story of the ankers or anchorites who inhabited the site during the middle ages. Men and women were interned in small rooms with only a small window or squint through which to view the outside world. They led a life dedicated to prayer and contemplation, and their material needs were passed through a small hatch. For many, their ultimate resting place was their small room, the squint simply being sealed upon their death. That is a truly remarkable example of dedication to duty, and a practice that I know any Government Whip would envy as a way of controlling the more unruly among their flock.
    I mentioned earlier the region's willingness to change and adapt, and another characteristic of the region is its willingness to co-operate across sectors to promote the region. That can be seen by the co-operation between museums in the region, and also in local authorities'

    131
    response to the report "Renaissance in the Regions". The proposed regional hub, bringing the Tyne and Wear museums service, Beamish, the Bowes museum—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)—and partner museums in Teesside into a strategic alliance, will help to promote and be a focal point for excellence in the region. It is a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when organisations think and work on a regional strategic level.
    The hub is not about regional control of local museums; it is about co-operation in delivering local services and also ensuring that the museum service in the region secures the financial investment that the museums need and deserve. The north-east is well placed to show leadership in the museum sector by demonstrating what can be achieved by regional co-operation and cross-authority working. The business plan and the 10-year strategic plan being drawn up by the hub will draw on the service's existing strengths and also demonstrate how funding can enhance and promote museums across the region.
    The north-east has changed a great deal over the past 20 years, and I have already highlighted the importance of the museum sector to the region's tourism economy. It is not just about preserving the past; it is about using our historical and cultural assets to promote and regenerate the region's future.
    Last weekend saw the opening of the Baltic centre for contemporary arts in Gateshead, demonstrating not only the new vibrant face of the north-east but how culture can be a driving force in the regeneration of the region.
    The region's museums and cultural heritage, whether it be the industrial and social heritage at Beamish and the Discovery museum in Newcastle, or the fine works of art at Bowes and the regional art galleries, make up a region with a rich cultural and historical tapestry. Newcastle and Gateshead are competing for the title of European city of culture in 2008. Although promoted by Newcastle and Gateshead, the bid is regional, and the museums throughout the region are an important part of it.
    The cultural sector in the region is about demonstrating a richness, diversity and quality of world-class status. That is amply demonstrated in the region's museums. The concentration is on access for all and education for all. We are proud of the region's history and in demonstrating how it can be a central and important part of the renaissance of the north-east and its people.
    I trust that my speech has highlighted the importance of museums to the north-east, not only in preserving the past but adding to the economic and cultural life of the region's future. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has in principle agreed to fund regional hubs. I stress to my right hon. Friend the Minister that museums in the north-east are ready to meet the challenges that the Government have set out and to act as a beacon for how museum services should be provided.
    10.32 pm
    Mr. Derek Foster: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) for the opportunity to take part in this brief debate. I congratulate
    132
    my hon. Friend on seeking and securing the debate and on the powerful case that he has made for renaissance and for the funding of the hub structure within the region.
    I think that it was Agatha Christie who said that it was wonderful having an archaeologist as a husband because the older she became the more interest he took in her. I feel a bit like that: the older I become, the more interested I become in museums. Perhaps that is because one day I might become a minor exhibit in one of them.
    Beamish is wonderful. It celebrates everything that I love about the northern region, and certainly its recent industrial and social history. It does so in the most creative and educative way. I am immensely proud of what was achieved by Tyne and Wear and Durham county councils. It is now funded entirely by the county councils, and has been over many years.
    The Bowes museum is in my constituency. It was founded by John Bowes, the Liberal Member for Barnard Castle, who was an ancestor of the Queen Mother, well over 100 years ago. He married a French woman and they collected many antiquities. They brought them over to this country and built what was almost a wonderful French chateau in the middle of some of the most beautiful English countryside. It is in a sense something of an anomaly, but it houses the most wonderful national collection—it has Canalletos, Rubens and Sevres pottery. It is crucial to the rural recovery of Teesdale. It is crucial also to the market town initiative in which Barnard Castle is a participant. In addition, it is crucial to the development of tourism within Teesdale. I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer has provided some extra funding, which will go towards funding the hub structure of which Bowes is a participant.
    Let me mention in the second that remains that the Timothy Hackworth museum in Shildon is shortly to be transformed into a satellite of the national rail museum in York and is expected to attract some 35,000 plus visitors.
    I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister in his place, and we look forward to his response to this short debate.
    10.35 pm
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) on giving me the opportunity to respond on what are important topics, especially for the north-east. I must mention one or two of the headlines that I saw in the press the other day. One was, "A picture of bold urban renaissance in the regions, led by art". The other, to which my hon. Friend referred at the start of his contribution, included the words, "challenge to London's grip on galleries", which, I think, appeared in The Independent. Clearly, therefore, even the national press are taking notice of what my hon. Friend and the other Members representing the north-east are saying.
    I am sure that most if not all Members have heard about, if not visited, the cultural delights of the north-east, as I have done on a number of occasions. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was in Newcastle on Tuesday last week, and she visited the Baltic centre for contemporary arts. She was extremely impressed by what she saw there. I want to acknowledge the splendid achievements of museums in the north-east, especially those of Tyne and Wear

    133
    museums, which has a very important relationship with other museums in the area. The then director of Tyne and Wear museums was a member of the regional museums taskforce that produced what many people now say was a groundbreaking report, "Renaissance in the Regions". Clearly, therefore, the north-east had a major input into that report, to which I want to refer a little later.
    Across the country, museums such as the Beamish and the Bowes, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) have referred, can be crucial to attracting visitors. Tourist destinations develop through the museums and associated works, and they are an essential part of the economy, especially the local economy. That is particularly true in areas such as the north-east, which are building on their heritage and industrial past to create new economic benefits.
    The quality of these museums does much to enhance Britain's reputation as a world-class tourist destination, attracting domestic and international visitors alike. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for tourism is working with the north-east and other regions to make sure that we can capitalise much more systematically on the visitors coming to this country and going to other regions of the UK. The museums in the north-east that have been mentioned are very important in that.
    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and local authorities are supporting museums in the north-east and providing them with funding of about £12 million per annum. We see that as an important investment, collectively, by local authorities and central Government. The achievements of and major developments in museums and galleries in the north-east are substantial. The region has three museum services holding collections designated in recognition of their national and international importance: the Beamish museum and the Bowes museum, which have been mentioned, and Tyne and Wear museums. In addition to local authority support, the Department gives an annual grant of about £1 million to Tyne and Wear museums, of which it is a joint sponsor.
    Over 10 years, Tyne and Wear has doubled the number of visits to its museums to its current level of around 1.5 million people, and has achieved a 20 to 52 per cent. increase in the proportion of visitors—this is very important—from lower income groups, achieving a very high level of satisfaction among local communities. That has been done through community outreach activities, but without weakening the museum service's traditional curatorial strengths. That is important. We have maintained standards while attracting many more people to museums. That is reflected across the whole country. Tyne and Wear's partnership working has been mentioned and it is often cited as a model for other regional hubs. The report "Renaissance in the Regions" used it as an example.
    The Beamish museum attracted 320,000 visitors last year, and about 70 per cent. of them were from outside the region. That underlines my hon. Friend's point that the museum makes a substantial contribution to the local economy. The development and preservation of the Beamish valley as a resource to the community and for environmental study demonstrates an ongoing commitment to the regeneration of that former coalfield area. Since the Government came to power in 1997, our investment in coalfield areas has not only been well received, but plays a major part in those economies.
    134
    I wish to thank Councillor John Mawston who, like me, is a member of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. I know that he is extremely proud of that fact. For 48 years, he has been on the council of the Beamish open air museum. He was chair for 10 years. and has remained there as a volunteer. That shows the real commitment that he has made. I thank him for all the work that he has done. In fact, I am grateful to all the volunteers who give their time free of charge to do something in which they believe. Without them, many activities could not continue.
    Some 73 museums in the north-east are members of the Resource registration scheme and they attract 3 million visitors a year. A third of those visits are by children. In recognition of the value of museums to children's education and, indeed, to people of all ages and backgrounds, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport set up in 1999 an education challenge fund, managed by Resource, with the aim of building educational capacity in small museums. As a result of the North-East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council's bid to Resource, £64,000 in grants was matched with other funding sources to benefit 38 museums across the north-east, including volunteer-run, military, local authority and university museums.
    Another important source of funding for the north-east region's museums has been the heritage lottery fund. In 1999-2000, the north-east's museums received heritage lottery fund awards totaling £7.6 million. Up to May 2002, the north-east received £91 million in such funding and, at 68 per cent., the north-east has the highest success rate of the English regions for heritage lottery fund applications.
    In 2000-01, a major collaboration for Northumberland resulted in the award of £10 million by the heritage lottery fund to build a new records office as part of a major development of the Woodhorn colliery museum complex, Ashington. This will be a world-class building, bringing together archival, library and museum collections currently spread across four locations.
    In welcoming the taskforce report "Renaissance in the Regions", my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts said at the Association of Independent Museums annual lecture in January this year that the regional museums taskforce had delivered an excellent diagnosis of the weaknesses of the sector and had set out an exciting vision of what could be achieved through concerted action to remove the barriers to progress. She endorsed, in principle, the key proposal for a new framework of hubs for regional museums and announced the timetable for the selection of regional hubs as part of the process of implementing the report's recommendations. The report said that the framework should be based on the principle of an integrated system. It identified leadership for the museum community in each region and defined roles for each element in the framework.
    The regional hubs will respond to new agendas that put people and communities first, and they will invest in excellence. They will achieve the highest standards in exhibition content and presentation, in learning, education and outreach services, in collection management and in other key museum activities. At the launch of the museums and galleries month at the end of April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport commented that "Renaissance in the Regions" had received a positive response from the museum community.

    135
    The report outlined clearly what regional museums can achieve in promoting education and learning, social inclusion and community empowerment, creativity, tourism and, importantly, regional economic development.
    Resource has received a bid from a consortium of museums from each English region to create a hub in the region. We will announce the hubs later in the summer. As we heard today, the spending review is good for museums. Decisions on the funding of individual hubs will be made towards the end of the year when the review has been considered by the Department. Once the hubs have been announced, they will be expected to submit a strategic plan to demonstrate how they will use the money to support museums and will have to propose ways in which governance can be modernised.
    During the transitional period, Resource will work closely with the hubs to support and monitor their progress. It has taken steps to implement the taskforce recommendations, and the last spending review increased Resource's grant-in-aid to support regional activity to £10 million per annum. Work is in progress to maintain the momentum initiated by the taskforce with a series of measures to put in place the first building blocks of the new framework.
    As I said, the report criticised the lack of cohesion in the sector and stressed the need to find more effective ways of working from which all museums can benefit, from the largest nationals to the more modest, but no less valuable, regional museums. One way to do that is by ensuring that a partnership works, and the strong partnership in the north-east was mentioned. That will allow skills and experience to be shared, which will add a great deal of value to the work of museums. There are many examples of such partnerships working across the nation, which is to be welcomed.
    Some of the measures to develop the hubs will be funded by the designation challenge fund which, as I said, will be announced very soon. In addition, Resource
    136
    announced last week that £500,000 of funding will be administered by the new regional agencies, such as the North-East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, for the development of all museums, not just those in the hubs. A new museum development fund will support initiatives such as the establishment of the post of museum development officer in the regions, whose task it will be to support groups of museums with common interests in improving the standards of what they deliver.
    The taskforce report reveals three major problems in the museum sector: a lack of capacity, a leadership vacuum and a fragmented infrastructure. To address the last point, greater cohesion and partnership working are needed. To meet the need for more cross-sector work, Resource has been involved in setting up a strategic regional agency for museums, libraries and archives in each of the English regions. Those new agencies are building on the work of the area museums councils, and will provide strategic leadership for the whole sector.
    That has already happened in the north-east with the creation of the first regional agency in England, the widely acclaimed North-East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council or NEMLAC. That supported the north-east museums' bid for heritage lottery funding, ensuring that the north-east had, as I said earlier, the highest success rate of all the English regions. To take account of the expanding role of the regional agencies, Resource has doubled their total budget from £4 million to £8 million. That will enable grants and other advisory services to museums in the English regions to be maintained.
    In conclusion, and following the outcome of the current spending review, which was announced in the House—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Post-war Expulsions
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library legal opinions on the(a) Benes and (b) Polish expulsion decrees of 1945 that have been delivered to (i) his Department and (ii) Communities institutions. [68316]

  Peter Hain
  This question requires a detailed search of FCO records which may take some time. I shall write to the hon. Member when the appropriate research has been completed.

  European Community Treaty
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he would list those occasions since 1 May 1997 where use has been made of Articles 308 and 95 TEC. [68338]

  Peter Hain
  Based on information from the European Commission's Eur-Lex database, since 1 May 1997 Article 308 of the Treaty on European Union has been used on 71 occasions and Article 95 on 82 occasions. I have placed copies of documents listing these occasions in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what element of the Gibraltar economy Spain asked to be modified during the talks on 26 June on the future status of Gibraltar. [R][68457]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be discussed during the talks under the Brussels Process planned for 12 July in Madrid. [68310]

  Peter Hain
  No meeting took place on 12 July 2002.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the humanitarian impact of fighting between the RCD and dissident Banyamulenge forces on the Minembwe plateau in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. [68446]

  Mr. MacShane
  The heavy fighting and resulting insecurity in the Haut Plateaux area has made it difficult to find reliable reports about the humanitarian situation there. However, the few reports we have received indicate that there has been some displacement of the local population, leading to fear of further humanitarian
  2W
  problems. We have raised our concerns about the situation with the Government of Rwanda, the United Nations Mission to the DRC and at the security Council.

  British Overseas Prisoners
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British prisoners have been incarcerated abroad for more than two years without trial, broken down by country. [68466]

  Mr. Straw
  We are aware of six British nationals who have been detained overseas for two or more years without trial. All six are held in Spain. Spanish law states that a detainee must come to trial within two years, but this period can be extended to four years 'under exceptional circumstances'. All six detainees have legal representation and have been offered full consular assistance throughout their detention.

  UK Peacekeeping Missions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for UK peacekeeping missions of a US withdrawal from peacekeeping forces. [68543]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 30 June the US vetoed the UNSC resolution renewing the UNMIBH/SFOR mandate for Bosnia. The Council has decided to extend the UNMIBH mandate until 15 July, to allow for further efforts to resolve the issue. We continue to work for a solution which meets the concerns of all Security Council members.

  The US have reassured the Security Council and peacekeeping partners that it is not their intention to withdraw from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans.

  Outside the Balkan region, the US contribute 153 personnel to United Nations peacekeeping missions. Were they to decide to withdraw from these peacekeeping missions, the impact on the UK would be negligible.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68691]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Spending Review involves a comprehensive assessment of the Department's performance priorities and resource requirements and a range of staff make a contribution.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document "Public Services for the Future, 1998" have been met; and if he will make a statement. [68710]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: Information relating to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Public Service Agreement targets can be found in the FM's 2002 departmental report.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [69190]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are some signs that, at an institutional level, the Government of Rwanda is willing to put in place initiatives which if correctly implemented could have a positive impact on the human rights situation in the country e.g. grass roots consultations, decentralisation and reconciliation processes. But there are also some worrying signs of a treat to some political and civil rights, particularly freedom of expression and association. We are monitoring the situation closely and will continue to raise issues of concern about human rights with the Government of Rwanda at the highest level.

  Turkey
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Turkish Government regarding the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [69189]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary periodically meets with senior members of the Turkish Government to review a range of issues. His last substantial discussion with the Turkish side about the EU was during a bilateral meeting with Foreign Minister Cem at the time of the EU/OIC forum held in Istanbul in February.

  Future of Europe
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the report made to the convention on the future of Europe on the outcome of the UK national debate on the future of Europe. [68990]

  Peter Hain
  The report submitted to the future of Europe convention outlines the public consultation activities in the UK on the future of Europe so far, and the main issues that have emerged. A copy is available in the Library. It is also on the websites of the FCO and the European convention (www.fco.gov.uk and http://european-convention.eu.int/).

  Indonesia
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to monitor the use of Hawk jets by the Indonesian air force. [68923]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The FCO pays close attention to the use of Hawk jets in Indonesia and, through the British embassy in Jakarta, follow up any allegations of improper use with the Indonesian Government. To date, there has been no evidence of Hawk jets being used in counter-insurgency operations in either Aceh or Papua.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if British-made Hawk jets have been deployed by the Indonesian air force in Aceh; and if he will make a statement. [68917]
  4W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our Ambassador in Jakarta recently discussed the use of Hawk aircraft with the Indonesian Co-ordinating Minister for Security, Bambang Yudhoyono and the commander of the Indonesian air force. They confirmed that no fixed wing aircraft were being used by the air force in operations against GAM in Aceh. Bambang Yudhoyono also reconfirmed Indonesian Government policy that no British military equipment would be used in counter-insurgency operations in Indonesia.

  Zimbabwe
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa applications to travel to the UK have been refused by the British High Commission in Zimbabwe in the last six months for which figures are available. [69082]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The statistical data on the number of applications refused each month in the last six months for which figures are available are as follows:

  November 2001—44

  December 2001—49

  January 2002—58

  February 2002—49

  March 2002—37

  April 2002—49.

  Overseas Security Services
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what privileges and immunities are enjoyed by members of the security services of other countries operating in the UK. [69551]

  Mr. Straw
  No privileges and immunities are enjoyed by members of the security services of other countries operating in the UK unless they hold them by virtue of their status as diplomats.

  Drug Enforcement Training (Iran)
  Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the type and level of hardware and training support given to Iranian law enforcers tackling drug smuggling on the Iran/Afghanistan border. [66986]

  Mr. MacShane
  Iran is very successful in disrupting the drugs trade: it accounted for 85 per cent. of the world's opium seizures and 47 per cent. of the world's heroin seizures in 1999. Iran is the largest recipient of UK anti-drugs assistance: around £3.5 million since 1998, including £650,000 announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during his visit there last September. Much of it is spent on training and equipment for law enforcement which bears the brunt of the fight with the drugs trade; over 3,000 law enforcement officers have been killed in clashes with armed traffickers in the past 20 years.
  5W
  We continually review the type of equipment and training we give to those engaged in tackling the drugs trade including Iranian law enforcers operating on the Afghan-Iranian border.

  Departmental Statements
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance his Department provides to its personnel regarding statements made in the public press. [70036]

  Mr. Straw
  FCO officials who deal with the press are governed by the Civil Service Code and are guided by Cabinet Office advice to Government information and communication officers (Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service), both of which can be found on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk). UK Heads of Mission abroad are encouraged to develop good relations with local media as part of the UK's public diplomacy strategy and to use their discretion as to media appearances.

  Trinidad and Tobago
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the constitutional position within Trinidad and Tobago. [68857]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A general election was held in Trinidad and Tobago in December 2001. The result was an unprecedented tie of 18 seats each to the ruling United National Congress Party (UNC) and the People's National Movement (PNM). President Robinson appointed Patrick Manning, leader of the opposition PNM, as the new Prime Minister. We understand that this decision, once taken by the President, cannot be challenged.

  Parliament has to be called within six months of a new Administration being sworn in to elect a speaker. PM Manning called Parliament on Friday, 5 April 2002. They failed to elect a speaker and Parliament was prorogued. Under the constitution, elections have to be called if Parliament has not reconvened within six months of its last sitting. This is an internal matter for the President and Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since 8 June 2001, indicating the(a) length and (b) number of responses received in each case. [68703]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  There have been no public consultations undertaken by my Department since 8 June 2001.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68694]
  6W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  Three members of staff made a significant contribution to my Department's input to the Spending Review.

TRANSPORT

  Public Transport (Safety)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been injured on(a) buses and (b) trains in each of the last five years through being unseated by (i) sudden braking and (ii) fast cornering. [65635]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]Information on the number of people injured through being unseated in buses and trains through (i) sudden braking and (ii) fast cornering is not available.

  The numbers of bus and coach passengers who were injured while (a) seated and (b) standing when the vehicle was either stopping or turning left or right are given in the table.

  Number of bus and coach passengers who were seated when injured in a road accident

  Bus/coach manoeuvre

  Accident year

  Stopping

  Turning left or right

  1997

  610

  423

  1998

  674

  441

  1999

  689

  524

  2000

  670

  493

  20011

  663

  415

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional

  Number of bus and coach passengers who were standing when injured in a road accident

  Bus/coach manoeuvre

  Accident year

  Stopping

  Turning left or right

  1997

  552

  85

  1998

  523

  82

  1999

  516

  91

  2000

  518

  122

  20011

  499

  89

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the projected costs are of upgrading the West Coast main line to allow trains to run at 140 mph. [67582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA is carrying out a strategic review of the West Coast project. The precise costs of the project will not be known until the final outputs have been determined.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Restricted Committee of the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other Extractive Industries 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. [67747]
  7W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The restricted committee of the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other Extractive Industries is due to meet next on 11 December 2002.

  Officials from the Health and Safety Executive, which is sponsored by my Department, represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for health and safety is a reserved matter. However, officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Road and Bridge Maintenance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of(a) guidelines and regulations and (b) statutory requirements issued and published within the last two years with regard to improving the co-ordination of road and bridge maintenance in urban areas. [68307]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Act 1980 places a duty on local authorities to maintain highways, but this does not extend to the co-ordination of road and bridge maintenance.

  In DfT's guidance on the Local Transport Plan Annual Progress reports for 2002–03, local authorities are encouraged to adopt an integrated highway maintenance policy and to ensure that this policy contributes towards delivering the vision for towns and cities contained in the Urban White Paper.

  The Code of Practice for Maintenance Management "Delivering Best Value in Highway Maintenance", published in July 2001, is an advisory code for local authorities and contains guidance on integrated highway network management.

  Copies of these publications are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the quality of road and bridge maintenance in urban areas over the last two years. [68308]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In July 2000 all local highway authorities in England produced local transport plans (LTPs), which set out the condition of their roads and bridges, as well as work planned over a five-year period (2001–6). These documents were examined by the then DETR, in order to calculate authorities' funding requirements for road and bridge maintenance, over the five-year period.

  Authority

  Title of bid approved

  Wards specified

  Blackpool

  Lifestyle line

  Park, Clifton.

  Bristol

  Lawrence Weston Transport Group

  Kingsweston.

  Essex

  Harlow Community Transport dial a ride

  n/a

  Greater Manchester

  Wythenshawe demand response service

  Baguley, Benchill, Brooklands, Sharston, Woodhouse Park.

  Call centre

  n/a

  Oldham bus service

  Werneth, Hollinwood.

  Halton

  Daresbury Park bus service

  n/a

  Accessible Transport

  n/a

  8W
  Last year, all highways authorities submitted annual progress reports (APRs), which included any supplementary road and bridge maintenance funding requirements, as well as progress made in this area since the previous year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made as to the disruption to traffic caused by road and bridge maintenance in London in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [69183]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During the period in question, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, through the Highways Agency, was highway authority for trunk roads in London. It was then—and still is—the Highways Agency's practice to assess the likely traffic impacts of maintenance projects before they start and plan them so as to minimise disruption. In 1998 and 1999, the planning of highway maintenance on other roads in London was the responsibility of the relevant authority.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the Spending Review. [68693]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A range of staff make a contribution to the Spending Review process.

  Significant Accidents
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he defines a significant accident in the context of MAIB investigations. [68749]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport is guided by the criteria laid down in the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999. These define "accidents" but do not categorise them in degrees of severity. There is no definition of "significant" accident.

  Urban Bus Challenge
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 104W, on the Urban Bus Challenge Fund, if he will list the wards served by the projects which were given awards as part of the Urban Bus Challenge. [69181]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Over 120 wards will benefit from projects to be supported following success in last year's Urban Bus Challenge competition. The information on wards served contained in the bids submitted is as shown in the table. In some cases, as indicated, the area to be served is not specified in terms of ward boundaries.
  9W

  Authority

  Title of bid approved

  Wards specified

  Hampshire

  Leigh Park Links

  Warren Park.

  Hartlepool

  Improved transport and infrastructure

  St. Hilda, Brus, Hart, Dyke House, Stranton, Rosmere, Jackson Brinkburn, Rift House, Seaton.

  Lancashire

  Skelmersdale demand responsive transit

  Tanhouse, Digmorr, Moorside.

  Leicester

  Community service for Braunstone

  Braunstone North.

  Merseyside

  Atlantic Gateway demand response service; Huyton/Prescot demand response service; Kirby/Gillmoss demand response service

  Cantril Farm, Cherryfield, Halewood East, Halewood South, Halewood West, Kirkby Central, Kirkby Park, Knowsley Park, Longview, Northwood, Prescot East, Prescot West, Princess, Roby, St. Gabriels, St. Michaels, Tower Hill, Whiston North, Whiston South, Allerton, Anfield, Arundel, Breckfield, Childwall, Church (Liverpool), Clubmoor, County, Croxteth, Dovecot, Everton, Gillmoss, Granby, Kensington, Melrose, Netherley, Picton, Pirrie, Smithdown, Speke, St. Mary's, Tuebrook, Valley, Vauxhall, Warbreck, Church (Sefton), Derby, Ford, Linacre, Litherland, Netherton, Orrell, St. Oswald, Rainhill.

  Norfolk

  (Joint proposal with Suffolk) Lowestoft corridor bus

  n/a

  Northumberland

  Connecting Blyth

  Cowpen, Plessey, Kitty Brewster, Croft.

  Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield access to employment

  Forest Town, Lindhurst, Oak Tree, Ravenscroft.

  Plymouth

  East/West corridor link

  City Centre, Cattedown, Hoe.

  South Yorkshire

  Parson Cross community bus service

  Southey Green, Owlerton, Nethershire.

  Stoke on Trent

  Health demand response

  Burslem Central, Burslem Grange, Turnstall North.

  Telford and Wrekin

  Integrated Taxi Network

  n/a

  Thurrock

  Demand response service

  Tilbury Riverside, Tilbury St. Chads, Grays Riverside, Grays Thurrock, Ockendon, Corringham West, Corringham and Fobbing, Belhus, West Thurrock, Chafford Hundred, Stanford-le-Hope East, Stanford-le-Hope West, Little Thurrock Blackshots, Little Thurrock Rectory.

  Transport for London

  Improved access for staff, patients and visitors to Hammersmith, Queens Charlotte and Charing Cross Hospitals

  North Fulham, White City and Shepherds Bush.

  Tyne and Wear

  West Newcastle better access to employment opportunities

  Elswick, Newburn, Blakelaw.

  Warwickshire

  Camp Hill provision to employment opportunities

  Camp Hill.

  West Midlands

  Birchfield provision of community bus

  Aston.

  Community transport for prison visitors

  n/a

  Dudley, provision of school mini bus service

  Castle and Priory, St. Thomas's, Netherton and Woodside.

  West Yorkshire

  East Leeds access to employment opportunities

  Richmond Hill, Hunslet, Seacroft, Whinmoor.

  Leeds Buddying scheme

  n/a

  Worcestershire

  High frequency cross-city bus service and demand responsive orbital minibus

  n/a

  Bus Services, London
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average frequency of buses in London during(a) peak, (b) off-peak and (c) night bus services was in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [69182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Bus services in London are now the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London
  10W
  (TfL). I understand from TfL that the information regarding average service frequency is not available in the form requested.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people whose cars were untaxed had enforcement action taken against them in each of the last five years. [69175]
  11W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The table details the number of vehicle excise duty evaders against whom enforcement has been taken in each of the last five years. The table breaks down the enforcement action into three categories—those who have settled out of court, those who have been prosecuted, and those who have been encouraged to relicense as a result of enforcement action.

  Year

  Out of court settlements

  Prosecutions

  Voluntary relicensing

  Totals

  1997–98

  268,163

  233,036

  110,074

  611,273

  1998–99

  218,786

  256,332

  125,952

  601,070

  1999–2000

  209,678

  239,291

  163,822

  612,791

  2000–01

  303,665

  226,643

  169,542

  699,850

  2001–02

  392,416

  249,545

  157,844

  799,805

  Search and Rescue Helicopter, Portland
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what risk assessment has been made regarding the safety of sub-aqua divers from Portland and Weymouth should the search and rescue helicopter at Portland be moved to Lee-on-Solent. [69072]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard agency has carried out an operational risk assessment with regard to the possibility of moving the Coastguard helicopter based at Portland to Lee-on-Solent.

  This analysis has demonstrated that the national criteria for response to all incidents, including sub-aqua divers, would still be met for the very high, high and medium risk areas within the Portland and Weymouth area. However, no decisions have been made about the future location of the helicopter.

  Vehicle Registration (Data Access)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been recently made to restrictions on public access to the personal details of the registered owner of a vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [69428]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No recent changes have been introduced. The vehicle register remains a semi-open record.

  The law allows keeper details to be made available to the police, to local authorities, for enforcement activities and to anyone who can demonstrate 'reasonable cause' for their request. All 'reasonable cause' applications must be in writing and be supported by witness details, police crime numbers, insurance claim details and repair bills.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities have carried out child road safety audits as part of their road safety plans; and what measures have been taken to implement them. [69384]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not have information from local authorities categorically stating that they conduct child safety audits. However, it is unlikely that many do not conduct the principles of audit. At its simplest, it means that local authorities should know where their child casualties are occurring, take measures to address the problem and monitor the results. Authorities are required
  12W
  to set local casualty reduction targets which should reflect the national targets. How they meet those targets are for local determination and the precise measures employed will depend upon local circumstances.

  M11
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist for a relief road between the A1055 and theM11 extension near Leyton; and if he will make a statement. [69122]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]There is a proposal for such a scheme, the Lower Lea Valley Spine Road. This is the London borough of Newham's responsibility, not the Government's. Further information may be obtained from:

  John Henman

  Head of Environmental Engineering Services

  The Environment Department

  London Borough of Newham Council

  25 Nelson Street

  East Ham

  London E6 6EH.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Strategic Rail Authority will announce the preferred bidder for the Trans-Pennine Express franchise. [69435]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority has received Best and Final Offers from the three short-listed counterparties: Arriva, Connex, and the FirstGroup/Keolis consortium. The authority is evaluating those proposals and will make an announcement in due course.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the accounting subsidiaries of the SRA. [69945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 214W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the SRA first made a payment to Network Rail as a legal entity. [69943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No payments have been made so far by the SRA to Network Rail.

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will offer a contract for a satellite tracking system to monitor oil spills; and if the contract will include night-time flying. [69687]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has concluded a trial on the potential for the use of satellite tracking systems to monitor oil spills and is currently evaluating the results. The MCA is also liaising with the Department for Trade and Industry on the best way forward for future satellite surveillance for the detection of marine oil spills in UK waters.
  13W
  To improve detection of oil spills during hours of darkness, the MCA has recently ordered increased night-time flying of its contracted aerial surveillance aircraft.

  Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people(a) were invited to respond

  Consultation

  (a) Organisations and interested parties consulted

  (b) Responses

  (i) Joint DTLR, DTI, DEFRA and Treasury consultation on the draft Powering Future Vehicles Strategy

  157

  77

  (ii) Road traffic consultation concerning the draft Road Traffic (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2002

  251

  59

  (iii) Electromagnetic compatibility consultation

  274

  107

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69306]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport sets out the specific business requirements that software is required to meet. Suppliers are free to propose open source software to meet these requirements.

  The Department's use of open source software will follow the Government's policy when published, currently planned for summer 2002. The draft policy may be viewed at http://www.govtalk.gov.ukhfc/rfc_document.asp?docnum=429.

  At present, less than 1 per cent. of departmental software is open source.

  School Transport
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the allocation of funding and (b) the number of schemes under Safe Routes to Schools by LEA. [69486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Aside from major local transport schemes (ie those with a gross cost exceeding £5 million) capital funding to local authorities for road maintenance and smaller scale integrated transport measures such as safe routes to school are provided in the form of a single block allocation. It is for the authorities to decide upon the use of such funds in line with the priorities and objectives established in their plans.

  We therefore do not allocate funding for specific safe routes to school projects. However, the table shows the information provided within the local transport plan Annual Progress Reports submitted in August 2001 by those English authorities outside London who estimated the number of schools implementing their first safe route scheme, established wholly or partly using local transport plan capital funding.

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Bath and NE Somerset

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Barnsley

  4

  3

  2

  3

  3

  Bedfordshire

  3

  4

  5

  5

  5

  Birmingham

  31

  15

  16

  15

  15

  14W
  and (b) responded to his consultation on (i) joint consultation with DTI and DEFRA, (ii) road traffic and (iii) electromagnetic compatibility. [69459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As well as the individually directed invitations to comment that are counted in the table, full consultation papers were available on the Department's website and supplied to enquirers on request.

  Authority

  2001—02

  2002—03

  2003—04

  2004—05

  2005—06

  Blackburn

  4

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Blackpool

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bolton

  3

  2

  3

  3

  3

  Bournemouth

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bracknell

  7

  7

  6

  5

  2

  Bradford

  30

  6

  8

  8

  8

  Brighton

  1

  2

  3

  3

  2

  Bristol

  8

  8

  8

  9

  10

  Buckinghamshire

  9

  11

  10

  10

  10

  Calderdale

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Cambridgeshire

  14

  13

  10

  10

  10

  Cheshire

  15

  20

  30

  30

  30

  Cornwall

  8

  8

  10

  10

  10

  Coventry

  11

  11

  11

  11

  11

  Darlington

  4

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Derby

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Derbyshire

  0

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Devon

  5

  9

  9

  8

  8

  Doncaster

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dorset

  6

  6

  6

  5

  6

  Dudley

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Durham

  15

  15

  20

  20

  20

  East Sussex

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  East Riding

  0

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Essex

  58

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Gateshead

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Gloucestershire

  4

  4

  2

  2

  2

  Halton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hampshire

  12

  9

  8

  6

  5

  Hartlepool

  5

  5

  5

  6

  6

  Herefordshire

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Isle of Wight

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  Kent

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Kingston upon Hull

  9

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Kirklees

  0

  2

  2

  4

  6

  Knowsley

  6

  12

  18

  24

  30

  Lancashire

  5

  15

  20

  20

  20

  Leeds

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicester

  11

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Leicestershire

  29

  28

  27

  27

  30

  Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  Liverpool

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Luton

  7

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Manchester

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Medway

  2

  2

  2

  4

  4

  Middlesbrough

  2

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Milton Keynes

  6

  10

  10

  10

  10

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  2

  3

  1

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  2

  2

  2

  2

  5

  North Somerset

  3

  6

  6

  6

  6

  North Tyneside

  14

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Newcastle

  10

  10

  10

  14

  14

  Norfolk

  10

  10

  10

  6

  6

  Northamptonshire

  16

  21

  21

  21

  21

  Northumberland

  7

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Nottingham

  8

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  19

  20

  21

  21

  Oldham

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15W

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Oxfordshire

  19

  29

  0

  0

  0

  Peterborough

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Plymouth

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Poole

  4

  4

  4

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Reading

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Rochdale

  4

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Rutland

  7

  4

  5

  5

  0

  South Gloucestershire

  4

  5

  7

  10

  15

  South Tyneside

  9

  7

  6

  6

  6

  Salford

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Sandwell

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  Sefton

  7

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Sheffield

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  12

  14

  14

  17

  12

  Slough

  2

  4

  5

  5

  6

  Solihull

  3

  2

  4

  5

  5

  Somerset

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton

  2

  9

  5

  5

  5

  Southend

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  St. Helens

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Staffordshire

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Stockton on Tees

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Stoke on Trent

  12

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Suffolk

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Sunderland

  9

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Surrey

  12

  19

  28

  35

  37

  Swindon

  12

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Tameside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Thurrock

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Torbay

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Trafford

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  West Sussex

  21

  13

  17

  23

  17

  Wakefield

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Warrington

  3

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Warwickshire

  19

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Wiltshire

  19

  20

  12

  12

  12

  Wirral

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Wokingham

  8

  15

  15

  10

  10

  Wolverhampton

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Worcestershire

  30

  60

  60

  60

  60

  York

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Source

  LTP Annual Progress Reports 2001

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make it a requirement that transport for schoolchildren and pre-school children should be fitted with seat belts. [69545]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All minibuses and coaches used specifically for school transport have since 1998 been required to be fitted with seat belts. This requirement would also apply to pre-school transport for children over three.

  In addition, all new cars and buses (apart from buses designed for urban use and standing passengers) are now required to be fitted with seat belts.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2002,Official Report, column 667W, how much has been (a) made available and (b) spent through the rural bus subsidy grant in each of the last five years, broken down by region; and if he will provide a regional breakdown of those services established through the rural bus subsidy grant scheme. [69351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]The first table shows the annual amounts of rural bus subsidy grant allocated for local authorities in each region. It also shows by region the amount of grant paid to authorities
  16W
  in each year which was dependent on their estimates of annual expenditure taking account of any grant unspent from a previous year. In 1998–99, the first year of this scheme, grant not required was reallocated and added to the amount distributed to schemes successful in that year's Rural Bus Challenge competition.

  £ million

  Region

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  South East

  Allocation

  6.18

  6.18

  6.18

  7.89

  9.03

  Paid

  4.55

  6.14

  6.04

  7.77

  NA

  South West

  Allocation

  6.36

  6.36

  6.36

  8.12

  9.29

  Paid

  6.19

  6.35

  6.46

  7.83

  NA

  East

  Allocation

  5.61

  5.61

  5.61

  7.16

  8.20

  Paid

  4.00

  5.59

  5.31

  7.01

  NA

  West Midlands

  Allocation

  3.40

  3.40

  3.40

  4.34

  4.97

  Paid

  2.16

  3.33

  3.32

  4.12

  NA

  East Midlands

  Allocation

  4.09

  4.09

  4.09

  5.22

  5.98

  Paid

  3.02

  4.04

  3.84

  5.21

  NA

  North West

  Allocation

  2.65

  2.65

  2.65

  3.38

  3.87

  Paid

  1.97

  2.55

  2.58

  3.22

  NA

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Allocation

  2.88

  2.88

  2.88

  3.68

  4.21

  Paid

  1.17

  2.88

  2.86

  3.59

  NA

  North East

  Allocation

  1.33

  1.33

  1.33

  1.70

  1.94

  Paid

  1.07

  1.12

  1.29

  1.65

  NA

  The second table shows the regional totals of new or improved services being supported by the grant in 2000–01, including those started in previous years. This has been compiled from local authority returns. Data are still being collected on 2001–02.

  Regions

  Services

  South East

  233

  South West

  389

  East

  147

  West Midlands

  259

  East Midlands

  242

  North West

  168

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  183

  North East

  111

  Transport for London
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's grant has been to Transport for London each year for the last four years. [69763]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport for London was created in July 2000.

  In the nine months between July 2000 and March 2001, grant paid to the GLA for the purposes of Transport for London was £297,811,000. For the 2001–02 financial year, this grant was £720,053,000. For 2002–03, grant has been determined at £1,023,018,000.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 984W, on what basis the details of the notification to the European Commission are confidential. [70082]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Details of the notifications of potential state aid are confidential between the Commission and the member state. But once the Commission has reached a decision, it issues a letter and this is published on the Commission's web page, though the member state to whom the letter is addressed can request that any commercially sensitive information is removed from the letter before publication.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 984W, what is the total amount of public sector grant to Network Rail which will be securitised; and what funding guarantees will be required to secure such a securitisation. [70081]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This will be a matter for Network Rail to take a judgment upon based on future discussions with potential lenders.

  US-UK Air Services
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to discuss the agreement of a liberalised US-UK air services agreement with the United States; and if he will make a statement. [70060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are keen to liberalise the UK-US air services agreement to provide increased competition on fair terms and improved access by UK airlines to the world's largest market. All the options open to the Government are being reviewed before a decision on the best way forward is taken.

  Singapore Airlines
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision he has made on an open skies agreement with Singapore to enable Singapore Airlines to commence services between London Heathrow and the US. [70061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's overall objective in negotiating air service agreements is to negotiate fully liberal agreements where possible. Singapore is one of a number of countries with which the Government intend to discuss the possibility of full liberalisation. The aim of such discussions would not be restricted to enabling a
  18W
  particular airline to operate to a particular destination, but would be to provide benefits to the consumers, airlines and economies of both countries.

  Light Dues
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the subject of light dues; what the nature of those representations were; and if he will make a statement. [70059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received representations on light dues from the maritime industry in response to our Consultation Paper entitled 'Light Dues Review: Meeting the Costs of Marine Aids to Navigation' published on 10 May. The Independent Light Dues Forum and Maersk Sealand have, in addition to their formal response, written separately on the scope and format of the Consultation Document.

  We will review the representations received following the end of the consultation period on 31 July.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the Chief Executive of the Fire College Moreton-in-Marsh was suspended; when he will tell him what specific allegations he faces; and what guidance has been given to the acting Chief Executive as to how long his services will be required. [58734]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Staffing and disciplinary matters are handled within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in accordance with the appropriate Staff Handbook. Within that framework personnel matters relating to individuals are a confidential matter between them and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

DEFENCE

  Defence Estates
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the property disposal programme of Defence Estates. [66974]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence disposal programme is driven by the operational requirements of the armed forces. We keep the estate under regular review to ensure that it is no larger than is required for operational purposes. The principles under which we manage the estate are set out in our Estate Strategy published in 2000.

  Land and property is regularly released for disposal, usually on the open market. At present, some 3,000 hectares of land, covering more than 70 sites across the United Kingdom are either in disposal or will come forward for disposal in the next 12 months. Further rationalisation and consolidation of the estate is likely to lead to additional sites and properties becoming surplus.

  Infantry Manning Levels
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on manning levels in the infantry. [66978]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of trained infantry in the Army has been increasing gradually and the current strength (as at 1 June 2002) of 25,526 is at the highest level for over five years.

  British Commitments
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent to which British commitments are stretching Army capacity. [66979]

  Mr. Ingram
  We do not believe that the armed forces are overstretched, but they are very busy. The announcement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 20 June about the contribution of British forces in operations in Afghanistan demonstrates our commitment to withdraw service personnel from operations at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to ease the demands placed on them.

  Currently around 25 per cent. of the Army is committed to operations compared to 44 per cent. at the height of the campaign in Kosovo. The latest assessment of the average unit tour interval is around 24 months, which is consistent with the Strategic Defence Review target.

  Warship Building
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on building Royal Navy warships in the United Kingdom. [66980]

  Dr. Moonie
  It remains our policy that all warships for the Royal Navy will continue to be built in the United Kingdom. The major programme of new naval procurement that is currently in progress will create or secure several thousand jobs in the United Kingdom shipyards and their ancillary industries throughout the country.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on MOD orders for shipbuilding in the United Kingdom. [66994]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is undertaking the largest programme of warship building in this country for decades. In the last two years, 15 new warships have been ordered for service with the Royal Navy, comprising six type 45 destroyers, four Alternative Landing Ships Logistic, two survey vessels and three offshore patrol vessels.

  In addition, our plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further ASTUTE class submarines and type 45 destroyers, the future surface combatant, and a number of support vessels.

  It remains our policy that all warships for the Royal Navy will continue to be built in the United Kingdom. This major programme of shipbuilding will create or secure several thousand jobs in UK shipyards and their ancillary industries throughout the country.

  Shoeburyness (New Ranges)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [66981]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I answered on 17 June, the Shoeburyness ranges are included in the arrangements being negotiated with QinetiQ for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence.

  Ordnance Production
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the future production of ordnance in the United Kingdom. [66982]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence considers achieving value for taxpayers' money, as well as security of supply, to be the key criteria in the procurement of safe and reliable munitions. In 1999, the MOD entered into a 10-year Framework Partnering Agreement with Royal Ordnance Defence, the United Kingdom's major producer of munitions. This agreement provides the company with a schedule of business and visibility of MOD's potential future requirements such that the company can provide the MOD with munitions at world benchmark prices.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future role of the Territorial Army in the war on terrorism. [66983]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Volunteer Reserves have important roles in both overseas operations and the defence of the United Kingdom. In overseas operations, they already have essential and well-defined duties, and the nature of their involvement is unlikely to change. The changed security threat could, however, involve the Volunteer Reserves in taking on additional roles. I announced on 12 June the publication of a discussion document, "The Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. This contained specific proposals to enhance the support that the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces, including the Volunteer Reserves, could provide to the civil authorities. This included a proposal to create reaction forces formed from Volunteer Reservists that could be called upon to assist the police in dealing with the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army. [66996]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards).

  Personnel (Religions)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements exist for armed forces personnel from non-Christian groups to practise their faith. [66984]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces are committed to giving all individuals the opportunity to practise their faith wherever possible. Where practical, areas for worship are
  21W
  made available in all service establishments, including ships and submarines at sea and, in most circumstances, arrangements can be made for daily prayer. Every effort is made to enable personnel to celebrate religious festivals and holidays, to comply with specific religious dress codes or dietary requirements, and to fast when required. However, there may be some circumstances when, in the interests of health and safety or operational effectiveness, some flexibility may be required on the part of the individual.

  Eurofighter
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Eurofighter aircraft and the date of its entry into service. [66985]

  Dr. Moonie
  The first Eurofighter aircraft is now expected to enter into service by the end of this year.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. [66987]

  Mr. Hoon
  The coalition has destroyed the Taliban regime and inflicted serious damage on al-Qaeda. Although remnants of both groups continue to pose a threat, coalition forces—including strong contingents from the United Kingdom—have had considerable success during recent operations. They destroyed weapons caches and bunker positions, obtained valuable intelligence material and denied ground to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in advance of the Loya Jirga, whose outcome was very welcome. We have made clear that the tempo and location of the campaign will vary according to the situation on the ground.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [66995]

  Mr. Hoon
  Overall the security situation in Kabul has greatly improved since the ISAF began its operations there last December. The security situation elsewhere in Afghanistan is more uncertain. But we were pleased with the outcome of the Loya Jirga, and are confident that President Karzai will strive to address these security concerns. The international community is also working to assist the Afghan Islamic Transitional Administration with security sector reform. This includes work on a national police force, border control force and judiciary as well as the Afghan Army.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the involvement of British personnel in southern Oruzgan in Afghanistan for the week of 26 June to 1 July; [68924]

  (2) whether British (a) troops and (b) support services were involved in gun battles in southern Oruzgan in Afghanistan during the week of 26 June to 1 July. [68925]

  Mr. Hoon
  British personnel were not involved in southern Oruzgan at that time.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the combined ISAF force will be after the planned summer withdrawal of troops. [64528]
  22W
  Mr. Hoon
  On 23 May 2002 the United Nations' Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1413 renewing the authorisation for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to operate only in Kabul and its immediate environs. The combined strength of the force is determined by that requirement. The reduction in the United Kingdom's contribution to the ISAF following Turkey's adoption of the Lead Nation role on 20 June 2002 is offset by the consequent increase in the size of the Turkish contingent. The overall strength of the ISAF will therefore remain at around 5,000 personnel.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on contact between the US gunship AC-130 and British personnel on 1 July; [68926]

  (2) if he will make a statement on contact between US bomber planes and British personnel on 1 July in Afghanistan. [68922]

  Mr. Hoon
  I assume this question refers to the regrettable bombing of a wedding party on 1 July in Afghanistan. United Kingdom personnel had no contact with the US AC-130 or bomber planes at that time.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66988]

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to improve support for service personnel on their return to civilian life. [66976]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and for Ribble North (Mr. Borrow).

  Fleet Air Arm
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm. [66989]

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Fleet Air Arm. [66992]

  Mr. Ingram
  The future of the Fleet Air Arm is assured as an integral part of the Royal Navy, under Flag Officer Maritime Aviation and CINCFLEET. Maritime aviation capabilities are provided on a tri-service basis, but led by seasoned Royal Navy and Royal Marines aviators in all three Service Commands. The three pillars of the Fleet Air Arm are the battlefield helicopters of the Commando Helicopter Force in Land Command, fixed-wing squadrons in Strike Command, and naval helicopters in the Fleet.

  Plans to build two large aircraft carriers are well advanced, with selection of a prime contractor expected in early 2003. Two of the four planned Harrier GR9 squadrons in the Joint Force Harrier will be predominately manned by Fleet Air Arm personnel, the other two predominantly by RAF. The first Merlin Mark 1 helicopter squadron is already in HMS Ark Royal, and plans are in hand to replace Maritime Lynx helicopter
  23W
  beginning in 2007. The first upgraded AEW Sea King flight will go to sea later this year, and the Joint Strike Fighter will be introduced from 2012.

  European Defence Capabilities
  Roger Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on improving defence capabilities among European partner countries in the last three years. [66990]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in improving defence capabilities among other allied European countries in the last three years. [66975]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are working within both NATO and EU structures to improve European defence capabilities. NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative has made significant progress in a number of areas since its launch in 1999. The creation of new High Readiness Force headquarters shows that, with sufficient commitment, allies can make real improvements in capabilities. In parallel, contributions from EU member states have so far met 104 of the 144 capability requirements underpinning the Helsinki Headline Goal agreed in December 1999. The remaining targets are being addressed through the European Capabilities Action Plan.

  We expect to launch a new capabilities initiative at the Prague summit in November. This will be designed to be more focused than DCI; to incorporate clear commitments from allies to making good key capability shortfalls, and to complement the EU's Headline Goal process.

  Gurkha Regiments
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Gurkha regiments. [66991]

  Mr. Ingram
  We recognise that Gurkhas make a very important contribution to the Army and we intend to maintain the two existing Royal Gurkha Regiments and the current force level of trained Gurkhas in the British Army.

  I am pleased to say that we plan to create two additional permanent Gurkha sub-units—a Queen's Own Gurkha Logistic Squadron, which will be part of 10 'Transport Regiment RLC, and a Queen's Gurkha Signal Squadron, which will be part of 21 Signal Regiment. This move will ensure that the Army is able to deliver enhancements envisaged under the Strategic Defence Review.

  RAF Engineers
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to improve retention of engineers in the Royal Air Force. [66993]

  Mr. Ingram
  Improving retention across all Branches and Trades is one of the Royal Air Force's highest priorities.
  24W
  The common thread in areas experiencing retention difficulties is the employability of and the opportunities available to highly trained specialists in the civilian work place. A buoyant market place acts as a significant pull.

  A number of measures have been introduced across the RAF to improve retention. These include monitoring and managing levels of separated service, enhanced and more personalised career management, improvements to welfare support services, such as child care facilities, and a re-engagement package for junior ground trade personnel.

  A review of the RAF's Engineer Branch structure is currently taking place. Among other things, the Review will consider measures to address any recruiting and retention issues. It is due to be completed by the end the year.

  Armed Services Housing
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the housing needs of former members of the armed services. [66997]

  Dr. Moonie
  There has been no direct discussion on this issue between my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Deputy Prime Minister. However, under the auspices of the Veterans Task Force, the Ministry of Defence continues to work in partnership with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, other Government Departments, Veterans' organisations and other non-Governmental organisations on ways to tackle problems of homelessness among the veterans' community. Recent examples of partnership initiatives in this area include the establishment of the Single Persons Accommodation Centre for the Ex-Services (SPACES) at Catterick, which is managed by the English Churches Housing Group, and enhanced co-operation between the charity "Shelter" and the Military Corrective and Training Centre in Colchester through the appointment of a Shelter Project Officer at the Centre. These initiatives were originally funded as pilot schemes by the Homelessness Directorate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In the light of their success, the MOD has assumed continuing funding responsibility from April 2002. In addition, the Homelessness Act places a new duty on local authorities to conduct a homelessness audit and prepare a strategy to prevent future homelessness. A new Order under the Act will be issued shortly to extend the groups of homeless people considered to be in priority need of housing. This will cover those who are vulnerable to homelessness as a result of their institutionalised background, including those who have served in the armed forces. I believe that these and other initiatives will provide significant additional help to those veterans likely to be the most vulnerable to homelessness.

  Imber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests for access to the village of Imber his Department has received in each of the past five years. [69237]

  Mr. Ingram
  In recent years the roads that cross Salisbury Plain training area have been opened on about 25 days each year in order to give the general public access
  25W
  to Imber village. Once a year, two services are also held at St. Giles Church, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. These occasions are well publicised and certainly obviate many requests for access. In addition, however, we have received both written and telephone requests to provide access to Imber village on days other than those when the roads are already open. As far as possible, these requests are accommodated. Unfortunately, no records are kept of the telephone requests, but the number of written requests in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  Number of written requests

  1998

  1

  1999

  1

  2000

  5

  2001

  7

  2002 to date

  8

  Total

  22

  Munitions
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the(a) estimated sale proceeds, (b) estimated redundancy lump-sum payments, (c) Ministry of Defence police transfer costs, (d) staff transfer costs, (e) costs of movement of stock, (f) cost of replacement facilities,(g) operating costs transferred to other locations and (h) T and H storage reprovision relating to the closure of Dean Hill Munitions Depot. [68907]

  Mr. Ingram
  Although the Ministry of Defence has assessed the disposal value of the West Dean site this is likely to be sold on the Open Market. To release our estimates of value could influence the eventual receipt. This information is therefore withheld under exception 7 of the Code of Practice to Government Information.

  The other information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Estimated redundancy lump-sum payments

  2,097,465

  Ministry of Defence police transfer costs

  440,000

  Staff transfer costs

  160,000

  Costs of movement of stock

  50,000

  Cost of replacement facilities

  1570,000

  Operating costs transferred to other locations

  286,000

  T and H storage reprovision relating to the closure of Deal Hill munitions depot

  450,000

  1 including 86,000 per annum

  2 per annum

  All of these aspects plus others were taken into account in the Investment Appraisal supporting closure.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a timetable has been established for the completion of the WMD response initiatives suggested by the US on the 6 to 7 June meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers; what the estimated cost is of the initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [69071]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the Defence Ministers' meeting, the NATO military authorities are conducting detailed work to develop and finalise the NBC Defence Initiatives
  26W
  for endorsement at NATO's forthcoming summit meeting in Prague in November. It is therefore too soon to estimate any costs. However, it is intended to implement all of the initiatives by 2004.

  The United Kingdom strongly supports these initiatives, which will enhance Alliance capability in this important area. We shall be taking a full part in the detailed development work.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet the official US delegation that is visiting NATO capitals next month with the aim of launching a round of discussions on co-operation in the US Missile Defence Programme; [68669]

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he plans with the missile defence delegation from the US shortly to visit the UK. [68772]

  Mr. Hoon
  An inter-agency delegation of United States officials is visiting London later this month for discussions with British officials on missile defence. This is one leg of a tour of a number of NATO capitals as part of the United States' continuing dialogue with allies on ballistic missile defence. I have no plans to meet the delegation

  Joint Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the full capability of the Joint Rapid Reaction Force has been established; and if he will make a statement. [69095]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The full capability of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces is due to be established by 2005. Initial capability was achieved, as planned, in 1999 and elements of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces have already been successfully deployed on a number of operations and exercises.

  HMS Bridport
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational status of HMS Bridport is; and when the vessel entered service. [69520]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Bridport is currently held at Extended Readiness at her base port, Faslane. She was first commissioned in 1993.

  HMS Nottingham
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the repair of HMS Nottingham; and for how long he anticipates the ship will be out of service. [69519]

  Mr. Ingram
  Repair options for HMS Nottingham are being considered. It is too early to say how long she will remain out of service.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Communication Masts
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take in relation to the planned erection of masts in areas of outstanding natural beauty by each of the emergency services. [68120]

  Alun Michael
  The Airwave service which is currently being rolled out for the Police is being provided by the operator mmO2. Other emergency services are also being invited to join the network. The network has no special planning status and mm02 will need to seek planning permission for the base stations and associated masts in the normal way.

  Although my Department does not have a role in the planning process for the masts, my officials have held a meeting with officials From the Home Office and the Department for Trade and Industry to discuss co-ordination of masts policy. They plan to hold a further meeting with officials from the Office of The Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the need for sensitive sighting of masts in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty.

  Energy Efficiency Programmes
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the advertising budget for her Department's energy efficiency programmes for each of the(a) past five years and (b) next two years. [64349]

  Mr. Meacher
  DEFRA does not have a specific advertising budget for energy efficiency programmes. Instead we provide funding to a number of organisations to provide a range of energy efficiency activities/programmes. These organisations use funding in a number of ways to promote energy efficiency, including advertising schemes, events, marketing and awards. These activities and their funding tend to be very inter-related with other energy measures, rather than stand alone. The main organisations which manage programmes to promote energy efficiency are:

  The Energy Saving Trust (DEFRA funding of about £22 million pa) encourages the sustainable use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. Work includes an Energy Efficiency Campaign to encourage domestic consumers to take up energy efficiency measures.

  The Carbon Trust (DEFRA funding of about £26 million pa) aims to enable UK business and public sectors to move towards a sustainable, low carbon economy whilst maintaining business competitiveness.

  The Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme (DEFRA funding of about £17 million pa) provides energy efficiency information and advice to the public and business sectors. The programme has now been transferred to the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust.

  The Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in England is the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, (DEFRA funding of over £600 million for the
  28W
  period 2000–2004) now marketed as the Warm Front Team. It is operated and marketed on the Department's behalf by scheme managers

  In addition energy efficiency has formed an element of my Department's Are You Doing Your Bit programme.

  Landfill
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the likely date for the introduction co-disposal practices under the landfill directive; what change to(a) guidance from her Department and (b) legislation (i) has taken place and (ii) is planned as a result; and if she will make a statement. [65627]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Landfill Directive bans the co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste at existing landfill sites from 16 July 2004. This requirement has been transposed into domestic legislation through the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 which came into effect on 15 June.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the addresses of landfill sites that have successfully complied with Landfill Directive 99/31/EC in order to operate beyond 16 July; [65538]

  (2) what proportion of existing landfills have demonstrated that they can comply with the Landfill Directive 99/31/EC in order to operate beyond 16 July. [65539]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: This information is not yet available. Operators of landfill sites who wish to continue to accept waste for disposal beyond 16 July 2002 must submit a site conditioning plan to the Environment agency by that date setting out how that site will meet the requirements of the Landfill Directive. On the basis of the information contained in the plans the Agency will make a decision on whether the site can or cannot meet those requirements. Sites which cannot meet the requirements will be closed. Sites which the Agency judge should be able to meet the requirements will be given a date by which they must submit an application for a Pollution Prevention and Control permit as part of the phased re-permitting of all landfill sites which will be complete by 2007.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what training programmes she has run for operators and staff at existing landfills to ensure that they are technically competent to manage the site and have the financial provisions to cover the maintenance and aftercare requirements of the site according to Landfill Directive 99/31/EC; how many staff have been made available; and if she will make a statement. [65540]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: The department does not run training courses for landfill operators and staff. Technical competence is assessed through the system of Certificates of Technical Competence awarded by the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. The Environment agency cannot issue a permit for a landfill unless they are satisfied that the management of the site is in the hands of a technically
  29W
  competent person and that final provision adequate to discharge the obligations arising from the permit has been made.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what change to(a) guidance from her Department and (b) legislation (i) has taken place and (ii) is planned as a result of changes required under the EU Landfill Directive; and if she will make a statement. 165628]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has issued an amended version of 'Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control—A Practical Guide' to reflect the requirements of the Landfill Directive and is currently preparing guidance to accompany the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. In addition, the Environment agency has published a wide range of guidance on the regulatory and technical requirements of the Directive.

  The regulatory and technical requirements of the Landfill Directive have been implemented through the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 which came into effect on 15 June. We will bring forward primary legislation to introduce a Tradable Allowance scheme that will assist Local Authorities in meeting their targets for the diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill, as set out in the Directive, as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what volume of sheep or lamb intestines were imported into(a) the EU and (b) the United Kingdom in each of the last three years for which figures are available from (i) China, (ii) Turkey, (iii) Iran, (iv) New Zealand, (v) Australia, (vi) USA, (vii) Syria, (viii) Pakistan, (ix) Lebanon, (x) Uruguay, (xi) Chile, (xii) Morocco, (xiii) India and (xiv) all other countries. [68497]

  Margaret Beckett
  (holding answer 9 July 2002]Overseas trade statistics are not collected at a sufficient level of detail to separately identify sheep or lamb intestines, either on an EU or UK basis.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to ban the use of waste cooking oil as an additive in animal feed. [68487]

  Margaret Beckett
  The proposed Commission Regulation on health requirements for animal by-products includes a ban on the feeding of catering waste to livestock. The Commission interprets the definition of "catering waste" to include used cooking oils.

  The Government opposed a total ban on cooking oils as a disproportionate method of removing the small risk of contamination, and following negotiation it is likely that we may be granted a transitional period to provide the industry with time (we have asked for a period of two years) to adjust.

  Swill Feeding
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it
  30W
  her policy to ban the import of pig meat and other products from countries which have not banned swill feeding. [68490]

  Margaret Beckett
  Imports of pig meat and other products are governed by European Community rules. These do not prohibit swill feeding but do require that products imported from third countries are produced to standards at least equivalent to those applied to Community production. The products must come from approved establishments in approved countries and must be accompanied by agreed veterinary certification confirming that public and animal health requirements for import have been complied with. All imported consignments are subject to veterinary checks at an authorised Border Inspection Post to ensure that import requirements have been complied with. Consignments that do not comply are rejected and will be re-exported or destroyed.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects an EU-wide ban on swill-feeding to come into force. [68491]

  Margaret Beckett
  The proposed EU Regulation on health requirements for animal by-products includes a ban on the feeding of catering waste to livestock.

  To secure adoption of the EU Regulation, expected this year, and to apply in member states six to seven months thereafter, it is likely that Germany and Austria, who opposed the ban, will be granted a transitional period in which to phase out swill feeding. The length of that period and the controls to apply during it will be proposed by the European Commission.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to compensate swill feeders for the financial losses caused by the ban on swill-feeding. [68486]

  Margaret Beckett
  Farmers have not under previous Governments been compensated for changes in feed material available for their livestock, and the Government do not consider it should alter this position in the light of the ban on feeding swill.

  BSE in Sheep
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she plans to implement the recommendations of the Food Standards Agency's report on BSE and Sheep, May 2002 relating to the(a) content and (b) timing of the National Scrapie Plan; and if she will make a statement. [64115]

  Margaret Beckett
  I assume the hon. Member refers to a report by the Food Standards Agency's Core Stakeholder Group on BSE and Sheep. The report does not recommend any changes to the content of the national scrapie plan. It recommends that the Food Standards Agency should support acceleration of the plan and should encourage sheep farmers to participate. The recommendations were directed at the Food Standards Agency itself, and I understand that the Agency's board adopted them at its meeting on 13 June. The recommendations are in line with existing Government policy.
  31W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission and publish an assessment of the impact on British industry of adding the intestines of all sheep to the list of specified risk material. [64114]

  Margaret Beckett
  We have no immediate plans to commission such an assessment. The proposal to add the intestines of all sheep to the current list of specified risk material arose in a recent report from a core stakeholder group commissioned by the Food Standards Agency. The group's recommendations have since been endorsed by the Board of the Agency. Before such a measure could apply in the UK, it would need to be agreed on a European Community-wide basis. To that end, the Agency has formally written to the Commission, to register the recommendation. We will keep the situation under review. If the European Commission make a proposal for regulation we would commission a regulatory impact assessment.

  Greenhouse Gases
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate the Government have made of the contribution that the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom will make to the reduction of greenhouse gases required for the United Kingdom to meet its(a) Kyoto targets and (b) domestic goal of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions. [68322]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since the Kyoto target and domestic goal apply to the whole of the UK it was agreed between the devolved Administrations and the Government that no specific targets would be allocated. The devolved Administrations have agreed to make an equitable contribution towards achieving both our Kyoto target and domestic goal and are implementing broadly the same policies as in England to achieve this end. These policies are outlined in the UK climate change programme, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Between 1990 and 1999 (the latest year for which figures at devolved Administration level are available), carbon dioxide emissions fell in all countries except Wales, where emissions increased by 1 per cent. The

  Date>

  Organisation

  To EC Directorates

  15 September 20001

  Enlargement

  15 September 20001

  Health and Consumer Protection

  24 September 2001 to 28 February 2002

  Health and Consumer Protection

  1 March 20021

  Health and Consumer Protection

  6 May 20021

  Health and Consumer Protection

  16 September 2001 to 30 April 2002

  Health and Consumer Protection

  1 September 20011

  Agriculture

  1 October 20011

  Research

  18 February 2002 to 5 July 2002

  Research

  19 February 2001 to 1 August 2001 (2)

  Environment

  17 September 2001 to 18 February 2002

  Environment

  16 May 20011

  Environment

  1 January 20001

  Environment

  16 October 20001

  Environment

  16 February 20021(2)

  Environment

  1 January 20021

  Competition

  18 February 20021

  Fisheries

  1 September 20001

  Fisheries

  17 January 20001

  Fisheries

  1 October 19991

  Legal

  1 July 19931

  Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office

  32W
  increase in Wales largely reflects the growth in the production of iron and steel. This off-sets significant reductions in other manufacturing areas. Over the same period, emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto target fell in all countries. The table gives a full breakdown of how emissions of carbon dioxide and the basket of six greenhouse gases collectively have changed for each of the devolved Administrations between 1990 and 1999.

  Table 1

  Percentage change between 1990 and 1999

  Country

  CO2

  Greenhouse gases

  England

  -11.5

  -17.5

  Northern Ireland

  -7.3

  -3.3

  Scotland

  -3.3

  -4.8

  Wales

  1.3

  -1

  Secondments
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 251W, on secondments, if she will list the dates of those secondments and the Government offices, European Commission Directorates and organisations in which they took place. [68775]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]Details of the secondments referred to in the answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 251W, are set out in the following tables.

  To Government offices

  Date

  Government office

  1 April 20011

  East

  1 April 20011

  East Midalnds

  1 April 20011

  London

  1 April 20011

  North East

  1 April 20011

  North West

  1 April 20011

  South East

  1 April 20011

  South West

  1 April 20011

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1 On-going
  33W

  Date

  Organisation

  To organisations abroad

  September 20011

  Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) Prague

  19 November 20001

  UN Nairobi

  26 March 2001 to 27 March 2002

  MoA France

  10 September 2001 to 9 January 2002

  MoA Lisbon

  16 July 20011

  Government of Gibraltar

  5 February 20011

  UN USA

  8 January 20011

  National Audit Office Budapest

  1 October 20011

  MoA Latvia

  To other organizations

  1 May 19981

  Oslo and Paris Commissions

  28 February 20011

  Oslo and Paris Commissions

  20 November 20001

  English Partnerships

  25 May 2000 to 24 April 2002

  South East Environment Development Agency

  1 August 2000 to 10 June 2002

  Shell

  4 December 20001

  Rural Stress Information Network

  1 November 20011

  National Farmers Union

  1 November 2001 to 1 February 2002

  National Farmers Union

  2 April 20011

  Carbon Trust

  24 April 2001 to 17 December 2001

  Carbon Trust

  2 April 2001 to 9 July 2001

  Carbon Trust

  May 2001 to January 2002

  Carbon Trust

  1 May 2001 to 13 October 2001

  Carbon Trust

  8 October 2001 to 11 January 2002

  English Heritage

  1 October 20011

  Green Alliance

  6 April 19981

  Fanning and Wildlife Advisory Group

  12 March 2001 to 11 June 2001

  Carillion Ltd.

  26 July 20011

  South West Regional Assembly

  12 June 2000 to 12 December 2001

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  26 June 20001

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  27 May 20021

  Institute of Grocery Distribution

  From other organizations

  16 October 20001

  Halcrow Ltd.

  9 July 20011

  Glaxco Smith Kline

  14 March 20011

  Environmental Resource Management

  15 September 20001

  English Nature

  16 January 20011

  English Nature

  1 January 20021

  English Nature

  15 January 20011

  English Nature

  1 February 2002 to 31 March 2002

  Environmental Campaigns

  5 February 2001 to 4 February 2002

  Environment Agency

  2 July 2001 to 1 July 2002

  Environment Agency

  5 October 20001

  Environment Agency

  30 May 2001 to 29 May 2002

  Environment Agency

  10 October 2001 to 10 April 2002

  Environment Agency

  7 January 20021

  Countryside Agency

  15 January 20021

  Countryside Agency

  1 March 20021

  World Wildlife Fund

  1 October 2001 to 1 April 2002

  Natural Environment Research Council

  5 November 20011

  Forestry Commission

  1 On going

  GMOs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the scientific assessment of GM issues announced on 31 May relates to existing regulatory processes for GM crops; and whether the findings will be submitted to(a) Action with Communities in Rural England and (b) the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. [65516]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government announced on 31 May that they will encourage a full and open debate on GM issues, including GM crops. We are promoting a genuine debate and dialogue, to identify the questions which the public has and provide information in response.
  34W
  GM crops have to go through a detailed safety evaluation before they can be approved for release. As one element of the debate there will be an assessment reviewing the current state of scientific knowledge in this area. This will contribute to the wider discussion and will be made freely available. If significant new evidence comes forward during the debate which is pertinent to the regulatory status of a particular GM crop or food it will be considered by the relevant Government advisory committee. The safety of GM crops is considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the safety of GM foods by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

  Diseases and Pests
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what outbreaks of serious(a) animal, (b) fish and (c) plant diseases and pests there have been in the UK since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [69094]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The information is as follows:
  (a) animal diseases
  There were outbreaks of classical swine fever in 2000 and foot and mouth disease in 2001.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Rhizomania (disease of sugar beet)

  10

  33

  68

  1

  Ralstonia solanacearum (potato brown rot)

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Bemisia tabaci (tobacco whitefly)

  26

  20

  32

  19

  3

  Liromyza huidebrensis (South American leaf miner)

  53

  42

  36

  13

  2

  Thrips palmi

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Viteus vitifoliae (Grape phylloxera)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Pepino mosaic virus (on tomatoes)

  0

  3

  6

  6

  0

  Soil borne wheat mosaic virus

  0

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Phytophthora ramorum (cause of sudden oak death)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  73

  1 No longer subject to statutory control after 1 April 2002.

  Further information is available on the plant health pages of the DEFRA website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/planth/ph.htm.

  Committee Mandates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee on the Monitoring Mechanisms of Emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the Community 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. [68557]

  Mr. Meacher

  The next meeting of the EU Monitoring Mechanism Committee is scheduled for 17 September 2002. Places per member state at this committee are limited, so officials from the Department usually represent the UK having consulted the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations on the UK line.

  Recycling
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition of recycling her Department uses to measure the statutory recycling rate for local authorities. [69113]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The definition of recycling used by the Department for measuring local authority recycling rates is that contained in the Best Value Performance Indicator 82a, under which local authorities are requested to report the percentage of household waste which has been 'sent for recycling'. `Recycled' is defined as "reprocessed in a production process for the original purpose, or for other purposes, but excluding energy recovery".

  In this context, household waste includes:
  waste collection rounds (including separate rounds for collection for recyclables);
  street cleansing and litter collection;
  36W
  (b) fish diseases
  There was an outbreak of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) in Scotland between May 1998 and May 1999. ISA is a serious fish disease which, in the event of an outbreak, is required to be controlled in accordance with measures specified in the Diseases of Fish (Control) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1447) as amended.
  (c) plant diseases and pests
  Statutory action has been taken is shown in the following table. This includes figures for Northern Ireland and Scotland provided by the devolved Administrations.

  bulky waste collections;

  hazardous household waste collections;

  household clinical waste collections:

  garden waste collections;

  drop-off/bring systems;

  any other household waste collected by the authority.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what advice her Department provides to assist local authorities to calculate their level of recycling; [69114]

  (2) how her Department defines community recycled programmes of household waste, as set out in Best Value Performance Indicator 82a. [69115]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding reply 11 July 2002]: Guidance on the calculation of household waste, including items that should be excluded from the calculation, is set out in the guidance on "Best Value Performance Indicators", first published in December 2000. This guidance underpins the DETR's "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies", which was published in March 2001.

  The Department has not defined the 'community recycling programmes' that may be included in this calculation. If there is any uncertainty about whether a particular approach should score in an authority's calculation, we would expect the relevant authority to raise this with their external auditor in the first instance.

  GM Foods
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding GM foods; and if she will make a statement. [69213]
  37W
  Mr. Meacher
  This year the Department has received over 40 representations on the subject of GM foods, from various organisations and individuals, including consumer groups. environmental groups, industry and members of the public.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent talks she has had regarding GM foods with members of the European Parliament; and what the conclusions from those talks were. [69015]

  Mr. Meacher
  In line with normal practice for reports passing through the European Parliament, written briefing setting out the UK Government's views on the Commission's proposals on the traceability and labelling of GMOs and on GM food and feed was sent to all UK Members of the Parliament in advance of the Parliament's discussions on these proposals. Officials from DEFRA and the Food Standards Agency spoke with and visited Members of the European Parliament interested in obtaining further information about the Government's view.

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in her Department. [69303]

  Alun Michael
  DEFRA's IT technical policies do not indicate the use of open source software. The vast majority of DEFRA software requirements are currently met by commercial off-the-shelf software; open source software usage is insignificant in overall percentage terms. DEFRA's use of open source software will follow the Government policy when published. The draft policy can be viewed on http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/defaultasp. It is understood that there are plans to publish the policy in summer 2002.

  Extraction
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many licences have been issued for sand extraction in(a) the UK, (b) Wales and (c) Ceredigion in each of the last 10 years; [67030]

  (2) what volume of sand was extracted through licences issued by her Department in (a) the UK, (b) Wales and (c) Ceredigion in each of the last 10 years. [67029]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  Sand extraction above mean low water comes within the planning powers of Local Minerals Planning Authorities. There are no central UK-wide, English or Welsh records of numbers of planning permissions issued for such extraction. Over the past 10 years, successive Secretaries of State with responsibility for planning have granted planning permission on appeal and in respect of called-in planning applications in England and Wales for a number of sand extraction proposals but there are no central UK-wide, English or Welsh records of the total tonnage of sand only permitted on a year-by-year basis.
  38W
  Nearly all sand extraction below mean low water is licensed by the Crown Estate, which owns most of the seabed around the UK coast. The Crown Estate advise me that:

  (a) it has granted the following numbers of aggregate (including sand) dredging licences in the UK and Wales over the past 10 years:

  UK

  Wales

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  1

  0

  1993

  1

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  1995

  3

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  1997

  2

  1

  1998

  1

  1

  1999

  1

  0

  2000

  2

  0

  2001

  1

  0

  Total

  12

  2

  (b) the following tonnages of aggregates (including sand) were extracted from UK and Welsh waters through licences that it has issued in each of the last 10 years:

  Total extraction UK (tonnes)

  Total Extraction Wales (tonnes)

  1991

  18,418,044

  2,015,721

  1992

  19,271,492

  2,354,782

  1993

  17,962,785

  2,133,668

  1994

  20,792,887

  2,211,015

  1995

  20,953,624

  2,235,543

  1996

  19,392,937

  1,948,028

  1997

  19,959,782

  2,030,693

  1998

  20,471,191

  1,878,373

  1999

  20,910,185

  1,717,428

  2000

  23,056,885

  1,602,394

  2001

  21,151,015

  1,549,431

  Total

  222,340,827

  21,677,076

  and that

  (c) it has granted no licences in waters off Ceredigion.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she plans to(a) increase and (b) reform sand extraction in (i) the UK, (ii) Wales and (iii) Ceredigion; and if she will make a statement. [67028]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The rates of production from areas with the benefit of planning permission for extraction of sand from the land and areas subject to marine minerals dredging licences at sea depend on demand from the market, although marine consents and some planning permissions for extraction from land specify maximum annual tonnage that can be removed. Policies for the supply of sand, administration of the development control system, and determination of applications for marine minerals dredging licences are devolved matters which are, in Wales, for the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made with reducing the UK's carbon dioxide emissions in the last five years. [68187]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table shows the UK's carbon dioxide emissions over the five year period of 1996–2000 (2000 being the last year for which confirmed figures are available). During this period the UK's carbon dioxide emissions fell from 159.1 million tonnes of carbon to 152.1 million tonnes of carbon, a reduction of 4.4 per cent. The rise in emissions between 1999 and 2000 were mainly due to an increased use of coal in the energy mix, because of maintenance and repair at nuclear and combined cycle gas turbine stations and higher gas prices at the end of the year.

  Emissions of carbon dioxide (as million tonnes of carbon)

  Percentage change from previous year

  1996

  159.1

  —

  1997

  152.5

  -4.1

  1998

  153.2

  +0.5

  1999

  150.8

  -1.6

  2000

  152.1

  +0.9

  Rural Development Plan
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much modulated match funds have been allocated to each devolved Administration within the UK to fund the Rural Development Plan each year since the programme commenced. [695711

  Alun Michael
  Budgets have been provided to the devolved Administrations to allow for the spending of modulation receipts to be match funded, with the match funding occurring at the point that the modulated funds are spent. In 2001, the first year of modulation, the level of match funding was £3.3 million in England, £323,000 in Scotland and £53,000 in Northern Ireland. There were no modulation funded payments in Wales in 2001 and hence no match funding.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Global Environment Fund
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the replenishment of the global environment fund; and what criteria have been adopted for allocations of finances from this fund. [70000]

  Clare Short
  The UK has taken the lead in arguing for a substantial replenishment of the Global Environment Facility. Along with the vast majority of other contributors to the Facility, we believe new money of between $2.5 to $2.7 billion over the next four years would be a satisfactory outcome. The final meeting of the replenishment process is scheduled for 6 August and 7 August in Washington.
  40W
  Criteria for funding, and funding proposals themselves, are approved by the GEF Council, which meets twice-yearly, and has representatives of all GEF participants. These criteria change in the light of experience, but include how incremental environmental costs and benefits should be defined; and how funds should be most effectively deployed in the GEF's operational areas, such as climate change, biodiversity, desertification and eliminating persistent organic pollutants.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since 1997, indicating for each consultation(a) if copies were available online, (b) if copies were available in print, (c) the date the time period given for responses opened and (d) the date the time period given for responses closed. [69803]

  Clare Short
  We do not keep a record of all consultations held since 1997, and it would involve disproportionate cost to compile such a list. However, all current consultations are now featured on DFID's website as well as being available in printed format.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the length was of each public consultation undertaken by her Department since 8 June 2001. [68741]

  Clare Short
  Since June 2001 the Department for International Development has completed one public consultation process on a strategy paper for achieving the Millennium Development Goal on hunger. More than 1,000 people outside Government, in the United Kingdom and internationally, were sent copies of the consultation paper, which was also placed on the DFID website, between February 2002 and 31 March 2002.

  The consultation for a DFID-wide research policy study, "Research For Poverty Reduction", commenced April 2002 and ended 10 May 2002. The consultation for "Better Livelihoods for Poor People: The Role of Agriculture" commenced November 2001 and ended 24 June 2002.

  The following consultations are currently under way, with information available in print form and electronically:
  "Energy for the Poor" (commenced May 2002, ends 31 July 2002)
  "Making connections: Infrastructure for poverty reduction" (commenced May 2002, ends 31 July 2002).

  The Department pursues more focused consultation exercises with outside bodies and experts on particular issues. The Department also regularly makes available, via its website and through civil society networks, briefing notes on major international meetings in which it is involved, such as the United Nations Financing for Development Conference in Monterrey in March, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children in May, International Monetary Fund and World bank meetings, and European Union Development Council meetings.
  41W
  The Department has just finished its third round of Development Policy Forums across the UK, to share thinking and ideas on key development issues. Over 2000 representatives from across society—including from NGOs, trade unions, private sector, faith organisations and universities—participated in the 11 one-day forums, between 6 February and 8 July 2002. The forums focused on globalisation and its potential to reduce world poverty, with participants invited to debate the specific themes of trade, environment and the private sector.

  Bilateral aid to low income countries 1995–96 to 2000–01

  Total bilateral programme (£ million)

  of which, country specific aid (£ million)

  of which, to low income countries £ million)

  Percentage of total bilateral programme

  Percentage of country specific aid

  1995–96

  1,123

  869

  602

  54

  69

  1996–97

  1,075

  855

  575

  53

  67

  1997–98

  1,043

  824

  536

  51

  65

  1998–99

  1,164

  920

  666

  57

  72

  1999–2000

  1,323

  1,056

  710

  54

  67

  2000–01

  1,414

  1,167

  886

  63

  76

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority is given to the quality of governance in determining the allocation of financial assistance to overseas countries. [68812]

  Clare Short
  The primary determinants of our allocations between countries are the extent of poverty and our judgments about where we can be most effective. The quality of governance is an important factor in assessment of our potential effectiveness, alongside such issues as the policies, commitment and capacity of Government and other institutions and the adequacy of alternative sources of finance.

  Somalia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what impact the ban on livestock exports is having on the humanitarian situation in Somalia. [68819]

  Clare Short
  The livestock trade is a very important sector for the Somali economy. The current trade restrictions are having a negative impact on people's livelihoods and on the revenue of regional administrations. We continue to lobby for the lifting of restrictions.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what difficulties have arisen in the provision of humanitarian assistance in Somalia as a result of the recent violence in the country. [68814]

  Clare Short
  Insecurity in Somalia has hampered the provision of humanitarian assistance over the past decade, particularly in the south. United Nations agencies and international non-government organisations (through whom the UK and EU make their contribution) provide support through cross-border operations. Violence in the regions of Bay, Puntland and Gedo continues to make humanitarian access difficult.

  Overseas Aid
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the Government's overseas aid budget was spent on low income countries in each year since 1995. [68817]

  Clare Short
  The percentage of my Department's bilateral assistance programme spent on low income countries since 1995 is set out in the table. However, the more commonly used indicator is the proportion of country specific DFID programme going to low income countries in each year so these figures have also been included.

  Mozambique
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what impact the recent dry weather has had on the production of food in Mozambique; and if she will make a statement; [68815]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to ensure the adequate provision of food supplies to people living in the northern and central provinces of Mozambique; and if she will make a statement. [68816]

  Clare Short
  The Crop and Food Supply Assessment undertaken jointly by the Government of Mozambique, WFP and FAO (available on www.fao.org) concluded in June and severe dry weather during the 2001–02 cropping season had sharply reduced crop yields in southern and parts of central Mozambique. In the main cereal growing areas of the northern region and remaining parts of the central region, abundant and well distributed rains led to increased production of cereals. Overall, 2002 cereal output is estimated at 1.77 million tonnes, 5 per cent. above last year, and maize output at 1.24 million tonnes, an increase of 8 per cent. The exportable maize surplus in northern and central areas is projected at 100,000 tonnes, but this cannot be transported economically to the South due to long distances, poor infrastructure, and the proximity of markets in Malawi.

  Approximately 515,000 people in poor households in 43 districts of the Southern and Central regions are affected by the drought. This is about 15 per cent. of the total population of the two regions but less than 3 per cent. of the country's total population. Immediate food aid needs for these areas have been estimated at 50,000 tonnes.

  Food aid is important, but measures are also needed to ensure that seeds and other agricultural inputs are available to enable drought-affected farming families to restart
  43W
  agricultural production during the main planting season 2002–03. Working through the Ministry of Agriculture, DFID and other donors have already supported the provision of inputs to affected households. Our latest information is that immediate food aid needs are covered by other donor countries, but we are monitoring the situation closely. We are discussing with Government and other donors how the additional £1 million allocated for Mozambique as part of DFID's regional response to the drought during the period to March 2003 can be used to best effect, particularly to facilitate access to inputs and to improve food security over the next harvest.

  Syria
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has given to the Government of Syria for the rehabilitation of the country's irrigation system since the collapse of the Zeyzoun dam. [68813]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not provided any direct assistance to the Government of Syria for the rehabilitation of the country's irrigation system following the collapse of the Zeyzoun dam. Information from agencies on the ground, including the Red Cross and the EC, indicate that the immediate needs of the affected population have been well attended to.

  Programme/project

  £Expenditure

  Commonwealth Science Council

  258,425

  SciDevNet Pilot: Pilot to increase access to scientific news and information and more informed debate by scientists, policy makers and users of science and technology.

  77,017

  GDNet Pilot: Pilot for Internet project to strengthen the capacity of research institutes

  72,254

  Other knowledge activities:

  1. Research report

  1,200

  2. Research guide

  5,373

  3. Knowledge management and international development workshop

  35,471

  4. Workshop on China and Clean Development Mechanism

  26,777

  Other activities:

  2. Wilton Park Conference WP644

  45,000

  3. LDC3 meeting

  25,073

  4. White Paper team

  43,984

  5. Information and Communication Technologies Study

  11,209

  6. Greater Donor Harmonisation

  44,144

  7. Utstein Meeting

  5,203

  8. Sector-wide Approaches training consultancy

  20,000

  Total

  671,130

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the overseas trips on departmental business that have been undertaken in each of the last five years by officials in her Department; and what the(a) cost, (b) purpose and (c) result was in each case. [68734]

  Clare Short
  The detailed information requested is not readily available and to compile it would involve a disproportionate cost. DFID has some 25 country and regional offices located overseas, and this, as well as the

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to resume giving aid to Tanzania. [69241]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) on Monday 8 July,Official Report, column 616W.

  International Development Targets
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State For International Development if she will make a statement on progress towards international development targets. [68762]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 15W.

  Knowledge for Development Challenge Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown of her Department's expenditure since 2000–01 on the Knowledge for Development Challenge Fund. [67525]

  Clare Short
  Our latest estimate of DFID expenditure in 2001–02 on the Knowledge for Development Challenge Fund was £671,130. The breakdown was:

  international nature of our activities, makes overseas travel a normal part of our business.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce the details of the new system of local government finance due to be introduced in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [66162]
  45W
  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) on 8 July 2002,Official Report, columns 680–81W.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from unitary authorities in respect of changes to the standard spending assessment formula. [68888]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have received written representations from a number of unitary authorities recently, as well as discussing SSA-related issues with councils face-to-face on occasion. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced to Parliament on 8 July, we are now in a period of formal consultation on options for the new grant distribution system. We will carefully consider all of the responses to the consultation before taking decisions.

  Infrastructure Projects Green Paper
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what communications took place between his Department and Mr. Richard Everitt with regard to the preparation of and drafting of the Government's recent planning Green Paper on major infrastructure projects. [68247]

  Mr. McNulty
  None.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the average amount of Council Tax charged per household is in each(a) metropolitan area, (b) Government office region and (c) local authority; [68895]

  (2) what the average amount of Council Tax paid per household at Band D is in each (a) metropolitan area, (b) Government office region and (c) local authority. [68896]

  Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need: Local authorities in England

  Financial year totals

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North East

  5,430

  4,380

  4,460

  4,850

  5,220

  5,580

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  8,940

  9,130

  8,260

  8,370

  9,150

  10,820

  East Midlands

  8,940

  7,550

  7,770

  7,120

  7,370

  7,230

  Eastern

  8,380

  8,120

  8,680

  8,720

  9,800

  10,120

  London

  25,930

  24,570

  26,470

  28,440

  29,630

  31,130

  South East

  13,540

  12,170

  12,690

  12,810

  14,760

  14,430

  South West

  9,450

  9,000

  8,920

  9,790

  11,210

  11,200

  West Midlands

  15,510

  14,670

  13,970

  13,210

  13,860

  14,600

  North West

  14,690

  13,060

  12,930

  12,820

  13,350

  13,260

  England total

  110,810

  102,650

  104,150

  106,130

  114,350

  118,360

  Notes:

  1. Figures prior to January 1997 reflect decisions under the 1985 Housing Act; subsequent decisions are under the 1996 Housing Act, plus any residual 1985 Act cases.

  2. Totals may not equal the sum of components because of rounding.

  Source:

  ODPM P1(E) quarterly housing activity returns.

  Transport Works Authorisation Branch
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the current applications for orders to the
  46W
  Mr. Leslie
  Figures for the average council tax payable per dwelling and the average council tax payable per Band D property in 2002–03 are given in the DTLR News Release on "Council Taxes in England—2002/03" (2002–0124, 21 March 2002).

  Figures for each government office region are given in Table 1, and those for each local authority area—including each metropolitan district area—are given in Table 2.

  Copies are available in the Libraries of the House and from the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at http://www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctax023.htm.

  Urban Allotments
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the total acreage of urban allotments in(a) 1972, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest year for which figures are available. [68882]

  Mr. McNulty
  Based on the "English Allotments Survey—1997", commissioned by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, estimates are that the area of allotments in England in 1970 was 54,000 acres and in 1996 was 25,393 acres. The figures for 1972 and 1990 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column 902W, on rural housing, how many households were identified as being in priority need for housing in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c)1998, (d) 1999, (e) 2000, (f) 2001 and (g) 2002 in English local authorities by region. [68757]

  Mr. McNulty
  National and regional information on the number of households accepted by local authorities under the homelessness provisions of Housing Acts, as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need, is published in a quarterly Statistical Release. Latest figures, issued on 17 June 2002, are as follows:

  Transport Works Authorisation Branch of his Department, giving for each (a) the date the application was made, (b) the expected date the order will be made and (c) for what reason the order has not yet been made. [69497]
  47W
  Mr. McNulty
  Current applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 are listed in the table. The expected date of the decision is shown, rather than

  Title of proposed order

  Date of application

  Expected date of decision

  Reason for no decision to date

  London International Freight Exchange (LIFE). (Two consolidated applications)

  128 June 1999

  August 2002

  Inspector's report under consideration. Further information had to be sought from parties after close of inquiry

  Railtrack (Thameslink 2000) (Two consolidated applications)

  123 September 1999

  Autumn 2002

  Inspector's report under consideration. Major case raising complex issues

  Alconbury Airfield (Rail Facilities and Connection to East Coast Main Line)

  30 December 1999

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Awaiting inspector's report. Inquiry closed 16 October 2001

  Railtrack (West Coast Main Line)

  29 February 2000

  By January 2003

  Inspector's report just received (5 July 2002)

  Fawley Branch Line Improvements

  2 October 2000

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Part of ongoing inquiry into proposed Dibden Bay deep water terminal

  Yorkshire Marina (Bridlington)

  9 October 2000

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Inquiry continuing.

  Railtrack (West Coast Main Line) (No.2)

  28 February 2001

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Awaiting inspector's report. Inquiry closed 28 March 2002

  Strand Road, Preston Railway

  31 October 2001

  August 2002

  Decision being finalised

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Thames Tunnel Approach)

  9 November 2001

  July 2002

  Decision imminent

  Greater Manchester (Leigh Busway)

  31 January 2002

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Public inquiry to open on 10 September 2002

  London Gateway Logistics and Commercial Centre

  14 February 2002

  Within six months of receipt of inspector's report

  Public inquiry to be arranged

  River Tyne (Tunnels)

  31 May 2002

  See next column

  Objection period continuing; procedure yet to be determined

  Docklands Light Railway (Woolwich Arsenal Extension)

  10 July 2002

  See next column

  Application just received; procedure yet to be determined

  1 Date of amending application

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff work in the Transport Works Authorisation Branch of his Department. [69484]

  Mr. McNulty
  13.

  Telecommunications Working Group
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the representatives of(a) the mobile phone network industry, (b) central and local government and (c) other organisations sitting on the Telecommunications Working Group. [R][69483]

  Mr. McNulty
  Members of the Telecommunications Working group are:

  Name

  Department/organization

  Christopher Bowden

  Office of Deputy Prime Minister

  Charlotte Sewell

  Office of Deputy Prime Minister

  Jim Davies

  Department for Trade and Industry

  George Hooker

  Department for Health

  Russell Kent-Smith

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Kevin O'Dell

  Department for Education and Skils

  Peter Roberts

  National Assembly for Wales

  Lee Searles

  Local Government Association

  Gerry Ansell

  London borough of Waltham Forest

  Ian Fletcher

  Wycombe district council

  Graham Jones

  London borough of Harrow

  Phil Joyce

  Leeds city council

  John Walker

  City of Westminster

  Jane Evans

  Hutchison 3G

  Peter Foster

  02

  Alan Freeman

  02 (also Airwave)

  Nick Greer

  Vodafone

  Adrian Manger

  T Mobile

  Adrian Reeve

  Orange

  Saleem Shamash

  Crown Castle

  Nicole Hughes

  Federation of Electronic Industries

  48W
  that for the making of the order, because I cannot prejudge that an order will be made in any particular case.

  In addition, the following people do not attend meetings but receive and comment upon working group papers:

  Name

  Department/organization

  Alan Cameron

  Scottish Executive

  John Linden

  Department for the Environment Northern Ireland

  Normal Smith

  Health and Safety Executive

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria he plans to use for the redistribution of the pooled right to buy receipts from local authorities; and if they will include land value and development costs. [69257]

  Mr. McNulty
  We will be consulting on the operation of the new arrangements for pooling a proportion of future local authority housing capital receipts shortly.

  Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the standard spending assessment was for each social services authority in England in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02; and what it is projected to be for the financial year 2002–03, adjusted for inflation at current values. [69714]

  Mr. Leslie
  A table showing the information requested for both total SSA and personal social services SSA has been placed in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Commons Journal
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the House of Commons Commission is collaborating with the History of Parliament Trust and the Humanities Research Institute of the University of Sheffield in producing an electronic version of the House of Commons Journal. [68885]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I understand that in February 2001 the Trustees of the History of Parliament commissioned the Humanities Research Institute of the University of Sheffield to create a searchable electronic text of Volume 1 of the House of Commons Journal, covering the period 1547 to 1628. This was intended as a pilot study in digitising the contents of the early Journals of the two Houses, which are of great historical value but have hitherto suffered from lack of an adequate index. The electronic text of Volume which has now been submitted to the Trustees, will be of particular use in the preparation of the 1604–1629 section of the History.

  I also understand that, as a follow-up to the pilot study, the Trust has collaborated with the Institute of Historical Research and the Victoria County History in a successful bid to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for funding for a larger pilot project in digitisation of historical sources; this project will include the digitisation of a further volume of the Journal of this House.

  History of Parliament Trust
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission (1) if he will make a statement on the size of the House of Commons Commission's grant in aid to the History of Parliament Trust for each year since 1995–96; [68883]

  (2) if he will provide a specific grant to subsidise the retail cost of "The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1690–1715". [68884]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission provides funds for the work of the History of Parliament Trust in line with the Trust's three-year financial plans and annual estimates. These plans allow for the work of the Trust to proceed at its present level of activity. Since 1999, the House of Lords has also provided support for the Trust. These grants in aid cover the whole of the Trust's running costs, and represent a significant subsidy.

  The table shows the grant in aid made to the Trust since 1995–96:

  Grant in aid

  £

  Year

  House of Commons

  House of Lords

  Total

  1995–96

  947,000

  —

  947,000

  1996–97

  1,077,000

  —

  1,077,000

  1997–98

  1,057,000

  —

  1,057,000

  1998–99

  1,058,000

  —

  1,058,000

  1999–2000

  968,000

  200.000

  1,168,000

  2000–01

  1,017,000

  210,000

  1,227,000

  2001–02

  1,056,500

  260,000

  1,316,000

  50W
  The retail price charged for the Trust's publications represents only the cost of printing and distribution of the volumes, rather than the costs of the research, which are met by the grant in aid from the Houses of Parliament. This mechanism provides more certainty of support for the research work, while indirectly subsidising the cost of the publications. I understand that there are no plans for a specific retail price subsidy. The pricing policy has always been governed by the need to strike a balance between affordability and the need to make some financial return on sales, recognising that the great majority of sales are likely to be to institutions rather than to individuals. By the standards of academic publications, the History's volumes are reasonably priced and are affordable by university libraries, country record offices and public libraries.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) if she will state the total volume of paper purchased by the House in the last 12 months; what proportion of this comes from recycled sources; and what plans there are to increase this proportion: [65616]

  (2) if she will state the (a) policy on and (b) total value and volume of the purchase and use of goods and materials from renewable or recycled sources by the House in the last 12 months; and what plans there are to (i) update the policy and (ii) increase the proportion of goods and materials used from such sources. [65617]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Administration Committee has oversight of the provisions of stationery for use by Members. The House's policy is to use recycled products where practicable and cost-effective; there are no plans to change the policy.

  The House does not keep central records of paper used by the six House Departments; but we estimate that some 80,000 reams (200 tonnes) were used during 2001–02 at a cost of approximately £1.5 million. Over 50 per cent. of the paper used was recycled and chlorine-free. Within these figures, major users were the Vote Office (9,100 reams) and the Serjeant at Arms Department (45,000 reams).

  The Serjeant at Arms Department has been providing recycled stationery to Members of Parliament for a number of years. All Members' stationery purchased through the House's central stationery contract (both paper and envelopes) is made from recycled paper. During 2001–02 approximately 162 tonnes of stationery were purchased at a cost of around £1 million. The amounts were:

  Description

  Quantity

  Volume (tones)

  Bespoke paper

  115,000

  47

  Photocopier paper

  130,000

  75

  Envelopes

  6,500,00

  40

  1 Reams

  In 1998, on the recommendation of the Committee, recycled paper was introduced for all letterhead paper and envelopes purchased by Members of Parliament. All virgin pulp papers were withdrawn. Recycled photocopier paper has been supplied for a number of years.
  51W
  As part of the "local paper for London" scheme organised through the BioRegional Development Group, Evolve Business photocopier paper has been introduced. Members now use this paper in their parliamentary and constituency offices and in photocopiers on the parliamentary estate.

  For information on the purchase and use of other goods and materials from renewable or recycled sources, I refer the hon. Member to replies given by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 11 July 2002, Official Report, columns 1116–17W.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  North Taunton Sports Centre
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are taken to monitor the spending of grants awarded by the Sports Lottery Fund to local authorities, with specific reference to those made to the North Taunton Sports Centre. [68467]

  Mr. Caborn
  All projects supported by the Sport England Lottery Fund are subject to compliance procedures during construction and are monitored once the project has been completed and has been operating for a year. The compliance procedures provide for payments only on receipt of invoices and architects' certificates and for retention of the final 10 per cent. of the award until completion of the project. Post completion monitoring involves a site visit by a team of architects and independent consultants where the award is greater than £500,000. This investigation assesses all aspects of the project, including the design of the facility, its management and financial viability, coaching and sports development opportunities, and the project's impact on target groups. The applicant's views on Sport England and the application process are also monitored.

  A proportion of projects receiving awards of less than £500,000 receive a site visit as follows:

  £250,000 to £500,000 75 per cent. of projects receive a site visit

  £100,000 to £250.000 50 per cent. of projects receive a site visit

  under £100,000 10 per cent. of projects receive a site visit.

  Projects which are not initially selected for a site visit receive a questionnaire. Cases where questionnaires are not returned or where the contents of a questionnaire raise concerns are followed up by further contact from, initially, the monitoring team at Sport England, and, if appropriate, with a site visit.

  Taunton Deane borough council was awarded £2,383,020 in October 1999 for the building of The Wellspring Centre (now called North Taunton Sports Centre). So far Sport England has made payments to the Council in February, June, September, October and November 2001 amounting to 90 per cent. of the award. It is aware through discussions with Taunton Deane council that completion of the project has been delayed due to problems with the original contractor but it is understood that management consultants have now been appointed by the Council and it expects the building to be completed by the end of the year.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment she had made of the cost to voluntary sports organisations of undertaking Criminal Records Bureau information checks; and if she will make a statement; [68873]

  (2) if she will issue guidelines to voluntary sporting organisations who lack funding to undertake Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks; [68832]

  (3) what discussions she has had with voluntary organisations and non-Governmental bodies on the cost of Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks for volunteers; and if she will make a statement. [68869]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department was involved in discussions on the potential costs of the Disclosure service provided by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and supported successful representations to the Home Office that fees should be waived for higher level disclosures for volunteers. The CRB has been fully operational only since 11 March 2002 so hard data on actual costs is not yet available. The CRB itself and the Child Protection in Sport Unit both provide comprehensive guidance on requesting disclosures from the CRB which can be found on their respective websites (www.crb.gov.uk and www.sportprotects.org.uk). The costs to sports organisations deploying volunteers will be minimised because a) the CRB has waived fees on higher level disclosures for volunteers and b) Umbrella Bodies, such as governing bodies, can commission disclosures on behalf of other organisations, enabling them to keep down internal administrative costs. The Department is keeping track of developments in this area through its link with the child Protection in Sport Unit (jointly funded by the NSPCC and Sport England) and other bodies.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what additional funding has been made to enable sporting organisations to implement the Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks on the use of volunteers. [68872]

  Mr. Caborn
  No additional funding has been made available by this Department to sporting organisations to pay for Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure information checks.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the status is of(a) referees and umpires, (b) referees' assistants, (c) match officials and (d) others who receive remuneration for their involvement in sports matches with regard to Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks; [68870]

  (2) what her definition is of a volunteer for whom Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks are necessary. [68871]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Home Office announced in February of last year that Standard and Enhanced Disclosures will be issued free of charge to volunteers. The Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 define a volunteer as a person engaged in an activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit some third party other than or in addition to a close relative. Those persons in the categories mentioned who met the criteria for these levels
  53W
  of disclosure which are set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 and section 115 of the Police Act 1997 and whose remuneration amounted only to travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses would, of course, be entitled to a free disclosure.

  Racing Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons the racing industry was charged for the acquisition of the Tote; and what account was taken of historic funding by the racing industry of the Tote when setting the sale price. [693691

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable them to sell the Tote to a racing trust but no sale price has yet been set. It is appropriate for a price to be paid because there is a legitimate taxpayer interest in the Tote business.

  Child Protection
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent meetings she has had with Ministers in other Departments with regard to(a) child protection in sport and (b) inter-agency working on child protection in sport. [688331

  Mr. Caborn
  While there have been no ministerial meetings specifically on this issue recently, officials regularly discuss this important issue with colleagues in other Government Departments and other agencies. The Department is a member of the Steering Group of the Child Protection in Sport Unit which brings together stakeholders from within and outside Government to influence the unit's future direction, work and priorities.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of energy use in her Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [65953]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 385–86W.

  University Students (Low Income Families)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Department has to ensure more young people from low-income families enter university. [66584]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are determined to encourage more young people from lower income backgrounds to enter higher education. Our secondary school reforms will help raise participation and attainment levels so that more young people will be eligible to benefit from HE. We have committed over £190 million over three years to the Excellence Challenge to raise aspirations and attainment of young people in some of the most deprived areas of
  54W
  the country. This includes making available 25.000 Opportunity Bursaries to encourage young students from low-income families into higher education. Young people in schools and FE colleges in Excellence Challenge areas will also benefit from the Aimhigher road show, which was launched earlier this year to promote higher education.

  School Science Lessons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills under what circumstances animals are killed specifically for use in school science lessons.
  [67627]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]Animals are principally used for whole mammal dissection purposes and may be used in nerve/muscle physiology demonstrations.

  Teachers also buy organs from butchers, for example livers from animals eaten by humans, for science lessons. There is no requirement in the national curriculum for dissection to be carried out, although individual teachers may choose to use dissection to illustrate various aspects of the science curriculum. In the Key Stage 3 schemes of work which have been published recently by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, organ dissection is suggested as one of a range of possible teaching activities in some contexts.

  Where dissection is used, teachers must always take account of potential threats to the well-being of pupils, particularly in relation to health and safety, religious or ethnic background and individual sensitivities.

  National Child Care Strategy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 1057W, on the National Child Care Strategy, if she will break the figures down by London borough. [67761]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information is shown in tables 1, 2 and 3. Figures for new child care places were first collected at a local authority level from April 1999. Between April 1997 and December 2001, some 66,600 new child care places were created in London helping 122,000' children. Of these places, 9,784 places helping 18,379 children were created between April 1997 and March 1999.

  The available information is shown in tables 1 and 2 and 3.

  Table 1: New child care places and children helped in London between April 1999 and December 2001

  London borough

  New places

  Children helped

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,283

  2,378

  Barnet

  3,314

  5,961

  Bexley

  1,906

  3,352

  Brent

  2,145

  3,927

  Bromley

  2,496

  4,526

  Camden

  1,463

  2,665

  City of London

  614

  1,204

  Croydon

  2,460

  4,332

  Ealing

  2,847

  5,027

  Enfield

  2,013

  3,495

  Greenwich

  2,832

  5,505

  Hackney

  1,641

  2,981

  55W

  Table 1: New child care places and children helped in London between April 1999 and December 2001

  London borough

  New places

  Children helped

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,556

  3,001

  Haringey

  2,591

  4,726

  Harrow

  887

  1,624

  Havering

  599

  1,096

  Hillingdon

  2,112

  3,663

  Hounslow

  915

  1,655

  Islington

  1,484

  2,635

  Kensington and Chelsea

  682

  1,252

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,709

  3,039

  Lambeth

  2,971

  5,609

  Lewisham

  840

  1,530

  Merton

  893

  1,598

  Newham

  1,850

  3,438

  Redbridge

  1,035

  1,932

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,823

  3,278

  Southwark

  2,612

  4,845

  Sutton

  1,631

  3,003

  Tower Hamlets

  691

  1,179

  Waltham Forest

  2,210

  4,144

  Wandsworth

  986

  1,813

  Westminster

  1,716

  3,190

  Total

  56,807

  103,594

  Table 2: Child care grant funding for 2002–03

  £

  London borough

  Total revenue allocation

  Barking and Dagenham

  427,080

  Barnet

  673,750

  Bexley

  480,940

  Brent

  574,580

  Bromley

  570,250

  Camden

  420,020

  City of London

  143,600

  Croydon

  705,260

  Ealing

  647,610

  Enfield

  613,560

  Greenwich

  561,600

  Hackney

  557,520

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  371,240

  Haringey

  541,380

  Harrow

  456,060

  Havering

  460,180

  Hillingdon

  528,420

  Hounslow

  486,380

  Islington

  439,030

  Kensington and Chelsea

  368,240

  Kingston upon Thames

  337,330

  Lambeth

  637,910

  Lewisham

  594,300

  Merton

  408,230

  Newham

  719,300

  Redbridge

  511,050

  Richmond upon Thames

  383,220

  Southwark

  614,800

  Sutton

  395,700

  Tower Hamlets

  584,740

  Waltham Forest

  545,650

  Wandsworth

  511,240

  Westminster

  422,750

  Total

  16,692,920

  56W

  Table 3

  Borough

  Total DIES revenue allocation(£)

  Total capital allocation(£)

  Total place target

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.780,019

  746,400

  400

  Barnet

  341,047

  149,280

  80

  Bexley

  1,015,621

  429,180

  230

  Brent

  1,556,801

  653.100

  350

  Bromley

  626,913

  261,240

  140

  Camden

  1,346,621

  578,460

  310

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Croydon

  1,028,205

  447,840

  240

  Ealing

  1,465,426

  615,780

  330

  Enfield

  1,513,531

  634,440

  340

  Greenwich

  2,001,326

  839,700

  450

  Hackney

  2,441,802

  1,026.300

  550

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,022,584

  429,180

  230

  Haringey

  1,967,046

  839,700

  450

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  888,725

  373,200

  200

  Hillingdon

  288,675

  130,620

  70

  Hounslow

  957,287

  410,520

  220

  Islington

  1,868,253

  783,720

  420

  Kensington and Chelsea

  936,490

  391.860

  210

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  2,188,580

  933,000

  500

  Lewisham

  1,966,147

  839,700

  450

  Merton

  292,385

  130,620

  70

  Newham

  2,530,851

  1,082,280

  580

  Redbridge

  1,092,386

  466,500

  250

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  2,301,424

  970,320

  520

  Sutton

  582,176

  242.580

  130

  Tower Hamlets

  2,375,606

  1,007,640

  540

  Waltham Forest

  1,853,303

  783,720

  420

  Wandsworth

  617,139

  261,240

  140

  Westminster

  1,055,181

  447,840

  240

  Total

  39,901,550

  16,905,960

  9,060

  1 The figure of 122,000 quoted in the earlier answer refers to number of children helped by new places rather than the number of new places created.

  EU Schools Materials
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had on the(a) development and (b) use of EU-funded Socrates material in schools. [68649]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]The material produced in the Socrates programme is a matter for the participants, working within the parameters of the programme, and the Department is not involved in its development, or in consultation on its use.

  Schools are free to use any material in their teaching, subject to Section 407 of the Education Act 1996. This article requires school governing bodies, head teachers and local education authorities to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that where political or controversial issues are brought to pupils' attention, they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many first preferences for(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools were not met in the last five years in (i) Boston and Skegness, (ii) Lincolnshire and (iii) England. [68661]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Morley and Rothwell
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Morley and Rothwell have their tuition fees paid for them(a) in full, (b) in part and (c) not at all since 1997. [69366]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data on tuition fees for the constituency of Morley and Rothwell are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in Morley and Rothwell(a) receive full or part entitlement to Education Maintenance Allowance and (b) how that compares to other pilot areas. [69364]

  Margaret Hodge
  We do not ask the local education authorities who administer the EMA scheme to classify recipients by constituency. However, 4,624 young people in Leeds have received an allowance in this academic year. Of these, 2,579 (56 per cent.) received the full allowance and 2,045 (44 per cent.) received a part allowance. Recently published evaluation reports show that the average proportion of EMA recipients across the 56 pilot areas receiving the full allowance is 63 per cent.

  Graduate Teacher Programme
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions she has had with the TTA on the reduction in the number of designated recommending bodies for the graduate teacher programme; and if she will make a statement. [69863]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has held no such discussions with the Teacher Training Agency. The agency announced the creation of the first 80 designated recommending bodies on 24 June. There has consequently been no reduction in their number, and at least as many trainees are expected to enter the Graduate Teacher Programme next year as did so in 2001–02.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there are in each(a) Government office region and (b) local education authority. [68902]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show provisional vacancy numbers by region for January 2002 and final vacancy numbers by local education authority for January 2001. Figures are not yet available for 2002 at local education authority level.

  Vacancy1 numbers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England by Government office region: January 2002

  Government office region

  20022

  North East

  140

  North West

  320

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  370

  East Midlands

  270

  West Midlands

  470

  East of England

  680

  London

  1,320

  South East

  770

  South West

  170

  Total vacancies

  4,480

  58W
  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration). Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis of less than one term.

  2 Provisional.

  Vacancy numbers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by LEA1 and Government office region: January 2001

  Number of vacancies

  North East

  Gateshead

  6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  19

  North Tyneside

  14

  South Tyneside

  0

  Sunderland

  20

  Hartlepool

  5

  Middlesbrough

  20

  Redcar and Cleveland

  18

  Stockton on Tees

  15

  Darlington

  8

  Durham

  37

  Northumberland

  0

  Total

  162

  North West

  Cumbria

  6

  Cheshire

  25

  Halton

  6

  Warrington

  11

  Bolton

  7

  Bury

  4

  Manchester

  0

  Oldham

  16

  Rochdale

  5

  Salford

  4

  Stockport

  25

  Tameside

  23

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  11

  Lancashire

  61

  Blackburn with Darwen

  19

  Blackpool

  5

  Knowsley

  12

  Liverpool

  0

  St. Helens

  8

  Sefton

  15

  Wirral

  20

  Total

  283

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Kingston-Upon-Hull, City of

  8

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  6

  North East Lincolnshire

  20

  North Lincolnshire

  10

  North Yorkshire

  12

  York

  6

  Barnsley

  20

  Doncaster

  10

  Rotherham

  1

  Sheffield

  14

  Bradford

  0

  Calderdale

  7

  Kirklees

  10

  Leeds

  47

  Wakefield

  14

  Total

  185

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  45

  Derby

  16

  Leicestershire

  30

  Leicester

  42

  Rutland

  0

  Lincolnshire

  20

  59W

  Vacancy numbers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by LEA1 and Government office region: January 2001

  Number of vacancies

  Northamptonshire

  20

  Nottingham

  41

  Total

  214

  West Midlands

  Herefordshire

  18

  Worcestershire

  8

  Telford and Wrekin

  5

  Staffordshire

  40

  Stoke-on-Trent

  20

  Warwickshire

  42

  Birmingham

  83

  Coventry

  24

  Dudley

  align="right">28

  Sandwell

  align="right">49

  Solihull

  32

  Walsall

  17

  Wolverhampton

  32

  Total

  402

  East of England

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Peterborough

  7

  Norfolk

  71

  Suffolk

  89

  Bedfordshire

  76

  Luton

  63

  Essex

  220

  Southend-on-Se

  24

  Thurrock

  69

  Hertfordshire

  50

  Total

  672

  London

  City of London

  0

  Camden

  0 59

  Greenwich

  63

  Hackney

  101

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  49

  Islington

  56

  Kensington and Chelsea

  36

  Lambeth

  51

  Lewisham

  71

  Southwark

  100

  Tower Hamlets

  157

  Wandsworth

  53

  Westminster

  49

  Barking and Dagenham

  24

  Barnet

  100

  Bexley

  85

  Brent

  23

  Bromley

  63

  Croydon

  77

  Ealing

  66

  Enfield

  65

  Haringey

  43

  Harrow

  58

  Havering

  38

  Hillingdon

  52

  Hounslow

  18

  Kingston upon Thames

  23

  Merton

  18

  Newham

  103

  Redbridge

  40

  Richmond upon Thames

  30

  Sutton

  10

  Waltham Forest

  7

  Total

  1,788

  60W

  Vacancy numbers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by LEA1 and Government office region: January 2001

  Number of vacancies

  South East

  Bracknell Forest

  16

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  34

  West Berkshire

  10

  Reading

  37

  Slough

  62

  Wokingham

  18

  Buckinghamshire

  59

  Milton Keynes

  21

  East Sussex

  43

  Brighton and Hove

  17

  Hampshire

  175

  Portsmouth

  59

  Southampton

  50

  Isle of Wight

  7

  Kent

  196

  Medway

  51

  Oxfordshire

  16

  Surrey

  104

  West Sussex

  82

  Total

  1,057

  South West

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  9

  City of Bristol

  25

  North Somerset

  7

  South Gloucestershire

  7

  Cornwall

  0

  Devon

  47

  Plymouth

  1

  Torbay

  9

  Dorset

  18

  Poole

  19

  Bournemouth

  7

  Gloucestershire

  14

  Somerset

  11

  Wiltshire

  19

  Swindon

  20

  Total

  213

  England total

  4,976

  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration). Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis of less than one term.

  Source:

  DfES annual 618G survey.

  Child Care (Regulation)
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many professional staff she estimates need to be transferred from local authorities to Ofsted as a result of the transfer of responsibility for the regulation of child care to Ofsted. [69141]

  Margaret Hodge
  In September 2001, 1,431 staff transferred from local authorities to the Office for Standards in Education. No further transfers are envisaged.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the length was of each public consultation undertaken by her Department since 8 June 2001. [68740]
  61W
  Estelle Morris
  The following table provides a list of written consultations with the public carried out by this Department since 8 June 2001 including the duration of

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  End date

  Duration (in days)

  Teachers' Professional Development—Standards Framework Consultation

  11 June 2001

  20 July 2001

  39

  Teachers' Professional Development Division—Development Portfolio Consultation

  11 June 2001

  20 July 2001

  39

  Consultation on Professional Duties of Advanced Skills Teachers

  26 June 2001

  21 August 2001

  56

  July European Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning

  26 June 2001

  28 September 2001

  94

  Education Development Plans from 2002—Consultation on draft guidance

  27 June 2001

  19 September 2001

  84

  Consultation on Extending the Use of Parenting Orders

  9 July 2001

  9 October 2001

  92

  Inspection of Local Education Authorities

  11 July 2001

  11 October 2001

  92

  Employment of Teachers who have successfully completed their course of teacher training but have not passed their skills test

  24 July 2001

  8 August 2001

  15

  Standards for the awards of qualified teacher status—initial teacher training

  26 July 2001

  2 November 2001

  99

  Consultation on Inspection arrangements—initial teacher training 2002–03

  26 July 2001

  2 November 2001

  99

  Draft Regulations Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as Amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001

  30 July 2001

  22 October 2001

  84

  The Way Forward—A Modernised Framework for School Governance

  5 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  63

  Better Beginnings—Improving quality and increasing provision in early years education and childcare

  5 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  63

  Consultation on School Admissions

  5 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  63

  Consultation on Exclusion Appeal Panels

  5 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  63

  Registration and Monitoring of Independent Schools

  5 September 2001

  9 November 2001

  65

  Schools Achieving Success

  5 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  63

  Improving inspection, improving schools

  10 September 2001

  10 November 2001

  61

  Consultation on targets for English and mathematics at Key Stage 2 in 2004

  18 September 2001

  14 December 2001

  87

  16–19 Organisation and Inspection: A consultation document

  24 September 2001

  7 November 2001

  44

  Expert support for the development of Foundation Stage Practice

  5 October 2001

  28 December 2001

  84

  City Academies: Arrangements for Pupils with SEN and Disabilities

  8 October 2001

  29 December 2001

  82

  Consultation on Proposals arising from the Treasury Review of teachers' Ill Health Retirement

  2 November 2001

  25 January 2002

  84

  Excellence Fellowship Awards

  6 November 2001

  14 December 2001

  38

  Teachers' Pay Reform—Performance Pay Progression Grant

  23 November 2001

  4 January 2002

  42

  Building a Strategy for Children and Young People

  25 November 2002

  1 March 2002

  96

  Consultation on Review of Learning Partnerships

  17 December 2001

  16 February 2002

  61

  Consultation on Review of Arts and Humanities Research Funding

  18 December 2001

  2 February 2002

  46

  Quinquennial Review of Investors in People UK

  1 January 2002

  28 February 2002

  58

  Consultation on Accessible Schools: Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils

  14 January 2002

  25 March 2002

  70

  Revised Guidance on Exclusion from School—Draft for Consultation

  24 January 2002

  19 April 2002

  85

  Quinquennial Review of Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  1 February 2002

  15 March 2002

  42

  Consultation on Raising Standards—Training and Development for Leaders and Managers

  4 February 2002

  1 May 2002

  86

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards

  12 February 2002

  31 May 2002

  108

  62W
  each consultation. The Department has complied with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultation in each case, applying exemptions where appropriate.
  63W

  Title of consultation

  Start date

  End date

  Duration(in days)

  National Centre for Excellence in Science Teaching

  18 February 2002

  8 May 2002

  79

  The Adult Common Basic Data Set

  25 February 2002

  17 May 2002

  81

  Early Years and Childcare Regulations

  27 February 2002

  24 May 2002

  86

  14–19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards: A Summary

  1 March 2002

  31 May 2002

  91

  Investors in Children Consultation Paper

  14 March 2002

  6 June 2002

  84

  Proposals to introduce a mandatory requirement for first-time headteachers to hold the (NPQH)

  15 March 2002

  28 June 2002

  105

  Consultation on Publication of School and College Performance Tables in 2002

  19 March 2002

  24 May 2002

  66

  Electronic Communications in Education: an Order under the Electronic Communications Act 2000

  8 May 2002

  31 July 2002

  84

  STRB report on teacher workload

  8 May 2002

  3 July 2002

  56

  Performance Pay Progression: Reconsultation on Revised Special Grant Report

  14 May 2002

  13 June 2002

  30

  Together From the Start—Practical guidance for professionals working with disabled children (birth to 2) and their families

  28 May 2002

  23 September 2002

  118

  Developing Early Intervention/Support Services for Deaf Children and their Families

  28 May 2002

  23 September 2002

  118

  Department for Education and Skills—Race Equality Scheme: Draft Consultation May 2002

  31 May 2002

  30 August 2002

  91

  Supporting the cost of home-based childcare

  7 June 2002

  30 August 2002

  84

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications

  1 July 2002

  30 September 2002

  91

TREASURY

  Regeneration Funding
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was allocated to reviving(a) coalfield communities, (b) steel communities, (c) rural communities, (d) inner-city areas and (e) seaside towns in each of the last 10 years. [68937]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: A large number of different funding sources support the revival of vulnerable communities and it is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. However, our strong record on support for these types of communities includes:
  coalfield regeneration by English Partnerships of £385 million over 10 years to 2006–07;
  Coalfield Regeneration Trust of £90 million over seven years to 2004–05;
  £60 million since 2000–01 on rural programmes by the Countryside Agency;
  some £120 million of support from the Regional Development Agencies for rural development and communities;
  New Deal for Communities partnerships will receive £2 billion over 10 years;
  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is £900 million over three years; and
  Single Regeneration Budget partnerships that cover coastal areas have been allocated some £440 million since 1995.

  Regeneration programmes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in devolved areas are a matter for their devolved Administrations.

  Equity Shares
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the real rate of return on equity shares quoted on the London stock exchange has been since 1 May 1997. [70075]

  Ruth Kelly
  Between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 2002, the total real return for the FTSE Index was 6.2 per cent. The total real return from the All-Share Index over the same period was 7.7 per cent.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60948]

  Ruth Kelly
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body. All details are already published.

  From May 1997, in this Department there was the First Lord of the Treasury on an annual salary of £58,557; two Cabinet Ministers at an annual salary of £43,991; two Ministers of State, one at an annual salary of £31,125 and one unpaid; one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, at an annual salary of £23,623. In addition, there was also a Chief Whip for the House of Commons at an annual salary of £36,613, a Deputy Chief Whip at an annual salary of £31,125 and 14 Government and Assistant Government Whips at an annual salary of £20,029. There was also Chief Whip for the House of Lords at an annual salary of £51,838, a Deputy Chief Whip at an annual salary of £43,632 and a further five Lords in Waiting at an annual salary of £39,462.
  65W
  From June 2001, in this Department there was the First Lord of the Treasury on an annual salary of £113,596; two Cabinet Ministers at an annual salary of £68,157; two Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £35,356; one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, at an annual salary of £26,835. In addition, there was also a Chief Whip for the House of Commons at an annual salary of £68,157, a Deputy Chief Whip at an annual salary of £35,356 and 14 Government and Assistant Government Whips at an annual salary of £22,753. There was also a Chief Whip for the House of Lords at an annual salary of £68,283, a Deputy Chief Whip at an annual salary of £59,961 and a further five Lords in Waiting at an annual salary of £54,224.

  Inflation
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigation National Statistics is making into evidence of appreciable differences in inflation rates between regions; and if he will make a statement. [69245]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 15 July 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on what investigation National Statistics is making of evidence of appreciable differences in inflation rates between regions. I am replying in his absence. (69245)
  There is currently no official research being conducted into the differences in inflation rates between regions. The data required to make such calculations to an appropriate degree of accuracy are not currently available to National Statistics from either the national Retail Price Index (RPI) or other official sources.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the effect on the UK economy of long-term exchange rate stability. [69372]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is difficult to separate the effect of exchange rate movements on the economy from the effects of other factors. The most recent assessment of the UK economy was published in Budget 2002, and the next assessment will be published in PBR 2002.

  Consumer Complaints
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions are available to consumers when the FSA and PIA Ombudsman bureau do not take action on their individual grievance. [69315]

  Ruth Kelly
  Firms that have been authorised by the FSA are required to have their own internal complaints arrangements for their customers. Where a firm is unable to resolve a complaint itself, the customer can pursue the complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service, which replaced the PIA Ombudsman Bureau on 1 December 2001. An ombudsman's decision is binding on the firm if the customer accepts it. If the FOS is not able to resolve the complaint to the customer's satisfaction, this does not affect the customer's legal rights to go to court.

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69320]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is planned to publish the Government's policy for open source software in summer 2002. The draft policy was made available for consultation from December 2001 until 12 March 2002.

  The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Treasury use of open source software will follow the Government policy when it is published. The policy references the European Commission's initiative "eEurope—An Information Society for all".

  At present there is minimal use of open source software in the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and Treasury although the new technical architectures in IR and C7E are substantially compliant with the e-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) which mandates open standards and specifications.

  The policy of all three Departments is to select the most appropriate software to support its business needs taking account of functionality, cost, reliability and ease of support. IT procurements will include open source software solutions alongside proprietary ones.

  The draft Government policy can be viewed at http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/rfc/rfc_document.asp?docnum=429

  National Statistics Code of Practice
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to(a) publish and (b) implement the final version of the National Statistics Code of Practice; and if he will make a statement. [69243]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on when the National Statistics Code of Practice is expected to be published and implemented. (69243)
  I published my first draft of the Code of Practice in December 2001 to mark the start of a three-month public consultation. I will submit my proposals for final publication within a month. These will reflect both the broad level of support received for the first draft, as well as more detailed suggestions for change.

  PISA 2000
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if pupils in a pupil referral unit(a) were eligible for selection for PISA 2000 from their original school and (b) permitted by their original school to sit the test. [69992]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning if pupils in a pupil referral unit (a) were eligible for selection for PISA 2000 from their original school and (b) if selected, permitted by their original school to sit the test. (69992)

  67W
  The rules for school and student level exclusions in PISA are published in Appendix A of the ONS report, published in May 2002: Student Achievement in England-Results in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy among 15-year-olds from the OECD PISA 2000 study and will be more fully treated in the OECD Technical Report on PISA.
  The report is available free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vInk=8169&More=N

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures were undertaken to ensure that the list of pupils provided by the schools selected for the PISA 2000 survey was the full list. [70010]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning what measures were undertaken to ensure that the list of pupils provided by the schools selected for the PISA 2000 survey was the full list. (70010)
  The sampling frame contained information on the numbers of students in a school who were within scope for PISA. Where the list provided differed significantly from the number expected this was investigated with individual schools. All sampling procedures were subject to approval by the international sampling referees.
  The report on PISA is available free at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?v1nk=8169&MorN.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the figure of 927 into refusals and absentees in the PISA 2000 survey. [70011]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if the figure of 927 for refusals and absentees in the PISA 2000 survey could be broken down. (70011).
  The information requested is currently unavailable. I will write to you in the near future.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the figure of 233 pupils in the category labelled left/no longer attending school or exempt from PISA between(a) left/no longer attending and (b) exempt from PISA. [69993]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if the 233 figure of pupils in the category labelled left/no longer attending school or exempt from PISA between (a) left/no longer attending and (b) exempt from PISA could be broken down. (69993)
  The information requested is currently unavailable. I will write to you in the near future.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the number of jobs that have been
  68W
  created over the past six years in (a) Leeds, (b) Yorkshire and the Humber and (c) London expressed as a percentage of the work force in each of those areas. [69949]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Cohn Challen, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of jobs created in Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber and London. (69949)
  There are no figures for job gains or job losses but an indication can be obtained by comparing the annual surveys of employee jobs. The latest available figures are from the 2000 Annual Business Inquiry. The 2001 results are due to be published in December 2002. No annual survey was undertaken in 1994 so the 1995 Annual Employment Survey has been used. The percentages requested are as follows:

  Number of jobs created in Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber and London

  Area

  Net percentage change between 1995 and 2000

  Leeds

  7.6

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  6.5

  London

  17.4

  Sterling Coin Types
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's plans are for dealing with the sterling coin types that will be withdrawn in the next five years. [69783]

  Ruth Kelly
  There are no current plans to withdraw any UK coins.

  Investor Confidence
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to raise investor confidence in the stock market. [69751]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are committed to securing macroeconomic and financial stability. This is the best long-term basis for promoting investor and business confidence.

  The Government have also reformed the regulation of the financial sector by establishing the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as the single, independent regulator, and introduced a new framework which brings together the FSA, the Bank of England, and the Treasury, to pursue financial stability.

  The Government have established a joint DTI-Treasury chaired group to co-ordinate the analysis of and response to the auditing and accounting issues raised by recent US corporate failures.

  Basic Bank Accounts
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter from the FSA Consumer Panel on their report into basic bank accounts. [70266]
  69W
  Ruth Kelly
  Colin Brown, chairman of the Financial Services Consumer Panel, wrote to me on the subject of basic bank accounts and enclosed the panel's research on 23 April this year. I have placed a copy of my reply, dated 16 May, in the Commons Library.

  Private Companies (Grants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which private companies received grants over £1 million from his Department in each of the last three years, indicating the(a) amount and (b) purpose. [70262]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury has not made any grants to private companies in the last three years.

  Devolved Administrations
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the funding rules for the devolved administrations applied in the 2002 Spending Review. [70607]

  Mr. Boateng
  Copies of the updated Statement of Funding Policy, which sets out the funding arrangements for the devolved administrations, have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  LIFE Instrument
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Committee on the Financial Instrument for the Environment 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. [68561]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Financial Instrument for the Environment, commonly known as the "LIFE Instrument", provides co-financing for actions both in nature conservation (LIFE-Nature) and in other fields of the environment (LIFE-Environment), as well as specific environmental actions outside the EU (LIFE Third Countries).

  Decisions on funding of projects submitted under the LIFE Nature component are made by the European Commission with the assistance of the Habitats Committee. The Habitats Committee is next due to meet at a date to be arranged in November 2002. UK representation ordinarily consists of an official from my Department together with a scientific adviser from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. However, wider representation on the Committee depends on the agenda items under discussion. Officials from the Scottish Executive attend as necessary in accordance with their interests and have attended all recent Habitats Committee meetings. The Scottish Executive is kept fully informed of developments and has the opportunity to make an assessment of all projects involving Scottish participation. Decisions on funding of projects submitted under the LIFE-Environment and LIFE Third Countries components are made by the European Commission with the assistance of the LIFE Committee. This Committee is next due to meet at a date to be arranged in early 2003. UK representation ordinarily consists of an official from my Department. However, officials from the Scottish
  70W
  Executive have attended as necessary in accordance with their interests, most recently in February 2002. The Scottish Executive is kept fully informed of developments and has the opportunity to make an assessment of all projects involving Scottish participation.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the custom houses in the south of England; on what date each opened; and how many staff are based in each; [67624]

  (2) what plans he has to (a) reorganise and (b) close custom houses in the south of England; and if he will make a statement; [67626]

  (3) if he will list the custom houses in the south of England which have closed since 1997; when each (a) opened and (b) closed; and how many staff were based in each in that year. [67625]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Only a small proportion of existing Customs and Excise properties are known as Custom Houses. The name is usually an historical one and does not relate to the specific functions carried out in the buildings.

  Custom Houses in the South of England are located at Avonmouth, Falmouth, Gravesend, Heathrow, Isles of Scilly, London, Newhaven, Plymouth and Shoreham.

  I regret that information on the dates they opened, and on buildings that have been closed in the last five years, is not readily available.

  Customs and Excise keep their accommodation under constant review to ensure that it continues to meet their operational needs and is organised in the most cost-effective way. Of the Custom Houses listed above the only ones where plans for change are under active consideration are Falmouth, where the lease is due to expire, and the Isles of Scilly, following the proposed withdrawal of the Customs permanent presence there in September.

  We do not provide information on staffing levels at specific locations for the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member of 10 June 2002, Official Report, column 837W.

  Conception Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) conceptions, (b) maternities and (c) abortions have been recorded for girls (i) over 16 and (ii) in each age cohort under 16. [69004]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Andrew Turner, dated 15 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many (a) conceptions (b) maternities and (c) abortions have been recorded in each year since 1992 for girls (i) under 16 and (ii) in each age cohort under 16. (69004)
  Figures based on conceptions occurring in 1992–2000 to girls aged under 16 are shown in the attached table.
  71W

  Conceptions at ages under 16 by outcome, age cohort and year of occurrence 1992–2000 England and Wales

  Year of conception

  Age cohort-year of birth/Conceptions leading to:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  1976

  Maternity

  21,663

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  21,340

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  23,003

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1977

  Maternity

  1,604

  21,565

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  1,575

  21,352

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  3,179

  22,917

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1978

  Maternity

  375

  1,611

  21,627

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  509

  1,636

  21,404

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  884

  3,247

  23,031

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1979

  Maternity

  61

  402

  1,758

  21,808

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  80

  561

  1,814

  21,424

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  141

  963

  3,572

  23,232

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1980

  Maternity

  3—

  55

  409

  1,922

  22,072

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  3—

  71

  607

  1,787

  21,713

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  3—

  126

  1,016

  3,709

  23,785

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1981

  Maternity

  3—

  10

  72

  435

  1,916

  21,828

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  3—

  4

  86

  525

  1,923

  21,557

  2—

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  3—

  14

  158

  960

  3,839

  23,385

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1982

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  45

  432

  1,885

  21,798

  2—

  2—

  Abortion

  3—

  3

  3—

  86

  615

  1,891

  21,680

  2—

  2—

  All conceptions

  2—

  3

  3

  131

  1,047

  3,776

  23,478

  2—

  2—

  1983

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  71

  376

  1,749

  21,600

  2—

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  98

  558

  2,031

  21,565

  3—

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  169

  934

  3,780

  23,165

  3—

  1984

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  69

  402

  1,680

  1,655

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  94

  613

  1,953

  1,714

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  163

  1,015

  3,633

  3.396

  1985

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  67

  404

  1.604

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  91

  586

  1,989

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  158

  990

  3,593

  1986

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  57

  394

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  70

  567

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  17

  127

  961

  1987

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  58

  Abortions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  76

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2—

  4

  20

  134

  1988

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  5

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  6

  12

  1989

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4

  3—

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  4

  13

  72W 73W

  Conceptions at ages under 16 by outcome, age cohort and year of occurrence 1992–2000 England and Wales

  Year of conception

  Age cohort—year of birth/Conceptions leading to:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20001

  1990

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1991

  Maternity

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Abortion

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All conceptions

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  All conceptions at ages under 16

  Maternity

  3,707

  3,643

  3,875

  4,218

  4,498

  4,164

  4,023

  3,762

  3,729

  Abortion

  3,510

  3,624

  3,920

  3,833

  4,359

  4,107

  4,429

  4,183

  4,382

  All conceptions

  7,217

  7,267

  7,795

  8.051

  8,857

  8,271

  8,452

  7,945

  8.111

  1 Figures for 2000 are provisional.

  2 Any conceptions at ages 16 or over are excluded from the figures presented.

  3 Figure suppressed to prevent disclosure of counts of three or less.

  Development Assistance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will produce a timetable for raising UK official development assistance to the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP. [68818]

  John Healey
  The Government remain fully committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. oda/GNI target. The Chancellor announced in the Spending Review that UK official development assistance as a proportion of Gross National Income will rise to 0.40 per cent. in 2005–06, from a level of 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04 and 0.26 per cent. in 1997, taking the ratio to its highest level since 1981. As a result, the UK will exceed the average EU target for oda/GNI of 0.39 per cent. by 2005–06 and be more than double the current G7 country oda/GNI average of 0.18 per cent. and current OECD ratio of 0.22 per cent.

  The UK will continue to use international meetings, such as G7/8 meetings, and bilateral meetings to encourage other partners to follow our lead.

  Global Poverty
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to reduce global poverty. [68769]

  John Healey
  In recent months, the UK Government have been at the forefront of efforts to mobilise the international community to tackle global poverty by promoting a global new deal between developed and developing countries—a new development compact building the foundations for a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and sustainable development.

  This effort focused on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), including halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, ensuring all children can attend school, and dramatically reducing child and maternal mortality rates.

  Pledges from the US and the EU made at Monterrey in March will, from 2006, raise an extra $12 billion each year for achieving the MDGs with—following the G8 summit in Kananaskis in June—possibly half or more of these funds going to Africa.
  74W
  Furthermore, following the outcomes of the Spending Review 2002, announced by the Chancellor today, the UK has increased its aid commitments to developing countries from 0.33 per cent. of national income in 2002–03 to 0.4 per cent. by 2005–06. This is the largest ever rise in UK aid, and a 93 per cent. real terms increase since 1997, which makes clear the Government's commitment to the United Nations 0.7 per cent. target. The increase means the UK's aid to national income ratio will be more than double the current G7 country average, and far ahead of the current OECD average of 0.22 per cent. In addition, the Department for International Development has announced, for the first time, a £1 billion annual bilateral programme for Africa by 2005–06.

  On debt relief an extra $6 billion is being provided so far this year—taking the total to $62 billion across 26 HIPCs. At the G8 summit, leaders agreed to fund the financial shortfall in the HIPC Initiative, pledging an extra $1 billion. In return for good governance, prudent new borrowing and sound debt management, the G8 will take action to secure the participation of all creditors, and ensure a robust exit from debt.

  The UK Government have endorsed the World bank's education fast tracking initiative, launched in May 2002, which provides the first focused financing framework for achieving the Education for All goals. In addition, at the G8 summit in June, Heads of Government agreed to increase significantly bilateral assistance for countries that have demonstrated a strong and credible policy and financial commitment to these goals. In the coming months the UK will work to take forward this agreement and urge other donor Governments and the multilateral development banks to join our renewed effort to ensure that, by 2015, every child can go to school.

  Just as the UK Government are committed to significantly increasing investments in education, so too we should accelerate support to build universal and equitable health care systems. The UK is encouraging the World bank, UN agencies and other donors to work together to ensure that developing countries with credible policy commitments have the resources necessary to strengthen health systems. In 2002 the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria was launched. To date more than $1.9 billion has been pledged to the fund, of
  75W
  which the UK has committed $200 million over five years. And in addition to on-going commitments to combat these three killer diseases, the G8 Heads of Government have committed to provide sufficient resources to eradicate polio by 2005. The UK has also introduced a tax credit to encourage companies to increase research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention and treatment of malaria, TB and those strains of AIDS which predominantly affect people in developing countries.

  In the months ahead and at the annual meetings of the IMF and World bank in October, the UK will press for further joint action in meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of waste produced in his Office was(a) recycled, (b) composted and (c) re-used, broken down into (i) paper, (ii) plastics, (iii) aluminium cans and (iv) other in each year since 1997; what plans there are to increase these proportions; and if he will make a statement. [65691]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 11 July 2002,Official Report, columns 1100–01W.

  Future of Farming and Food
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received about implementing the recommendations of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food; and if he will make a statement. [69572]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received over 100 letters this year about farming, including ones on the recommendations of the Policy Commission report on the Future of Farming and Food. I have also hosted a seminar with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Sir Donald Curry, key industry and other players, to discuss how we can deliver the recommendations of the commission.

  The Government's discussion document, "Sustainable Food and Farming: Working Together", invited views on how to take forward the Policy Commission's recommendations. Responses will help inform the construction of the new strategy for food and farming, to be launched in the autumn.

  This strategy will announce details of the policy measures that we will put in place to deliver the vision identified in the Policy Commission's report. Today's spending review settlement demonstrates our commitment to this vision. It invests £500 million in sustainable farming, including a programme rising to £200 million in 2005–06 with which to address the report's key recommendations. And it allows for the rolling out of the proposed broad and shallow agri-environment scheme, financed through increased modulation and Exchequer matched funding in 2005–06.

SCOTLAND

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the performance targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999–2002 and 2001–04; and if she will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60459]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department sponsors the Boundary Commission for Scotland. The Scotland Office has no public service agreements and no dditional performance targets have been set for the Commission.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment she has made of the benefits of access to broadband services for Scotland; and if she will make a statement; [61795]

  (2) what targets she has set for the roll out of broadband services across Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [61796]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government believe that the roll out and adoption of broadband across the UK can make an important contribution to delivering social and economic benefits. In "UK Online: The Broadband Future", published in February 2001, the Government set a target for the UK to have most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. The Scottish Executive are taking forward the roll out of broadband in Scotland and have published "Connecting Scotland: Our Broadband Future", which aims to make broadband connections more affordable and available.

  Basle II
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the Treasury about the effect on the Scottish financial sector of the current terms of Basle II. [66091]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues.

  The Treasury are closely following the on-going discussions on the Basle II Accord which has yet to be finalised and I am kept informed of developments. The Treasury are aware of the potential impact on the financial industry, including that of Scotland, when Basle II is transposed into an EU directive. The UK will negotiate to ensure that the directive is flexible, effective and proportionate.

  Scottish Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she intends to introduce orders into the House to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Boundary Commission in time for the next general election. [67114]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am required by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to lay the Boundary Commission for Scotland's report before Parliament, together with the draft of an Order in Council giving it effect, with or without modifications, as soon as may be after the Commission
  77W
  submits its report. The Boundary Commission is required to submit its report between December 2002 and December 2006. It is a matter for the Commission when, within that time scale, it does so.

  Scottish Electoral Process
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will set up a joint commission between the UK Parliament and Government and the Scottish Executive and Parliament to discuss the Scottish electoral process. [67113]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no plans to set up a joint commission for this purpose.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Military Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many standard individual and

  SIELS and OIELS issued

  January 2001

  February 2001

  March 2001

  April 2001

  May 2001

  June 2001

  July 2001

  August 2001

  September 2001

  SIELS

  Bahrain

  4

  3

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  1

  2

  1

  Georgia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  India

  68

  67

  60

  45

  61

  71

  49

  47

  71

  Israel

  —

  46

  26

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Jordan

  6

  6

  5

  11

  5

  —

  26

  2

  5

  Kenya

  3

  1

  3

  3

  3

  2

  5

  4

  1

  Kyrgyzstan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Oman

  4

  5

  7

  10

  8

  11

  8

  6

  4

  Pakistan

  2

  6

  16

  5

  16

  18

  7

  9

  15

  Philippines

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Tajikistan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  27

  14

  14

  7

  19

  10

  6

  12

  16

  Uzbekistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yemen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  OIELS

  Bahrain

  2

  1

  —

  —

  4

  2

  5

  1

  2

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Georgia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  India

  7

  4

  6

  5

  6

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Israel

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  5

  Jordan

  —

  1

  2

  1

  2

  —

  2

  3

  1

  Kenya

  —

  2

  —

  3

  2

  3

  3

  1

  3

  Kyrgyzstan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oman

  5

  5

  4

  5

  6

  9

  7

  2

  8

  Pakistan

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  Philippines

  2

  —

  1

  5

  2

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Tajikistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turkey

  7

  5

  4

  5

  9

  12

  3

  3

  5

  Uzbekistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Yemen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  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.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated(a) level and (b) cost of
  78W
  open individual export licences have been granted to (a) Georgia, (b) Uzbekistan, (c) Kyrgyzstan, (d) Tajikistan, (e) Turkey, (f) the Philippines, (g) Kenya, (h) Ethiopia, (i) Djibouti, (j) Bahrain, (k) Oman, (l) Jordan, (m) Yemen, (n) India, (o) Pakistan and (p) Israel in each month from January 2001 to September 2001; and if she will make a statement. [65097]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The number of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) issued where the end users are in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, the Philippines, Kenya, Ethiopia, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, India, Pakistan and Israel in each month from January 2001 to September 2001, is set out in the table. During that same period no SIELs or OIELs were issued where the end user was in Djibouti.

  For information on SIELs issued to end users in Israel between May 2001 and October 2001 I refer the right hon. and learned Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) of 23 November 2001, Official Report, columns 558–59W.

  energy use in her Department and associated agencies was in each year since 1997; what proportion of energy was generated from renewable sources; and if she will make a statement. [65952]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 2 July 2002,Official Report, columns 245–46W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Management Committee for the Control and Production of Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer 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. [68556]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next meeting of the Management Committee established under Article 18 of EC Regulation 2037–2000 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is scheduled for 18 and 19 September 2002. Places per EU member state at this committee are limited so the UK delegates to the meeting represent the interests of the Scottish Executive. As with other committees of this type, the Department consults the Scottish Executive and the other devolved Administrations on the UK line.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Directive on the Incineration of Hazardous Waste 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. [68560]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There have been no meetings of such a committee. None is now likely, since that directive (94/67/EC) has been superseded by Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste and is to be repealed from 28 December 2005.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the application of the regulation authorising voluntary participation by undertakings in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme 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. [68562]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next meeting is scheduled for October 23 and October 24 this year. The European Commission has not yet circulated a final agenda.

  As all foreign policy issues are non devolved, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as member state.

  The UK is represented at the committee by DEFRA and accompanied by a representative from the designated Competent Body for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Representatives from the Scottish Executive have not attended. Other Departments and devolved Administrations are consulted prior to meetings of the committee on matters that are of direct interest to them. The Competent Body liaises with each of the devolved Administrations on routine matters concerning the operation of the scheme within the UK.

  We actively support EMAS, whose aims are to encourage organisations to commit to legal compliance and continuous improvement in their environmental
  80W
  performance and to publish an environmental statement. The scheme was set up in 1993 by EU Regulation 1836–93 and became fully operational in April 1995. The regulation was revised in 2001 by Regulation 761–2001 which among other things widened participation from industrial sites to all forms of organisation. To register for EMAS an organisation must have its environmental management system verified and its environmental statement validated by an independent and accredited "verifier". The Competent Body for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland maintains a public register of participants together with information about the scheme at www.emas.org.uk. Similar information at the EU level is also held on the European Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/emas/.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the Implementation of the Directive on Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control 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. [68559]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no committee of that precise title. However, the European Commission has convened since 1998 five annual meetings of an 'Expert Group' on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) in relation to the 1996 directive concerning that subject. The most recent meeting was in February this year and the next is expected, although not yet scheduled, in the early part of 2003. Members of the Scottish Executive have not so far attended, although they would be welcome to join officials of the Department in doing so.

  Directives (Trade Barriers)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of motor vehicles and their trailers 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. [66420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee but we expect it to be held in the autumn. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility for motor vehicle and trailer technical standards is a reserved matter.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the EU Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress of Directives on the Removal of Technical Barriers to Trade in the Sector of Agricultural and Forestry Tractors 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. [66419]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  81W
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this committee. Officials from my Department represent the UK on this committee as policy responsibility for agricultural and forestry tractor technical standards is a reserved matter.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to improve corporate attitudes to health and safety. [69173]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government and the Health and Safety Commission will continue to pursue measures, launched in 2001 to implement key aspects of the Revitalising Health and Safety strategy, aimed at promoting greater corporate responsibility for health and safety. These include voluntary measures to improve the reporting of the management of health and safety by top companies from the current level of 50 per cent. and increase board and directors' responsibility for, and involvement in, managing the risks to occupational health and safety.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of magistrates court cases were adjourned in each year since 1992(a) in total, (b) through non-attendance of witnesses and (c) through non-attendance of defendants. [68221]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not available. Data on adjourned cases in magistrates courts were not collected on a national basis (England and Wales) until April of this year. The first quarterly figures will he available later this year. Figures from the pilot scheme which ran for three months in nine magistrates courts committee areas (April to June 2001) show that out of a total of 6,213 trials, 1,176 were logged as adjourned trials. 338 (29 per cent.) of these adjourned trials were caused when the witnesses (prosecution and defence) failed to attend and 260 (22 per cent.) were adjourned due to the non-attendance of the defendants.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the estimated cost was of cases adjourned in magistrates courts in each year since 1992. [68222]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not available. Data on adjourned cases in magistrates courts did not start to be collected on a national basis (England and Wales) until April of this year. This new collection exercise started as a result of the National Audit Office report in December 1999 which identified that over £41 million a year was wasted on cracked and ineffective hearings. Pilot work was then undertaken and a scheme developed with the Crown Prosecution Service and other criminal justice agencies before the full national data collection scheme started in April 2002. The first quarterly figures are due to be available later this year.

  Fines
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of fine-defaulters on income support and income-related jobseeker's allowance were subject to three or more attachment of benefit orders for any period since 1990 for which figures are available. [65124]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is currently not collected centrally but we are examining whether it would be possible by research or sampling to estimate the data requested, as well as new ways to collect information on defendant means.

  Union Jack
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that it is always lawful to display the Union Jack. [68049]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government see no need to introduce such legislation. There are no restrictions under the general law on the display of the Union Flag on land in England and Wales other than those imposed by the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Trade Marks Act 1994, which relate to the reproduction of flags in trade marks. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport issues guidance, in consultation with the Lord Chamberlain's Office, as to the days The Queen has approved for flags to be flown from Government buildings.

  British ships are entitled to fly the Red Ensign, which includes a Union Flag in the corner. This is internationally recognised at sea as the flag of a British ship.

  Judge Hutton
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 610W, when she will make her final decision about the conduct of Judge Hutton; and if she will make a statement. [69131]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor has now received his officials' report about the conduct of Judge Hutton, who was alleged to have fallen asleep in court last December. He is considering the contents and expects to make a public statement about his final decision shortly.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66203]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None of the telephone lines made available by the Lord Chancellor's Department for public inquiry currently use 0870 telephone numbers.

  Contact Orders
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evidence she has received from(a) Women's Aid, (b) the NSPCC and (c) other children's organisations regarding unsupervised contact; and will she make a statement. [68214]
  83W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have received information from the Women's Aid Federation of England, the NSPCC, Barnardos and NCH on unsupervised contact. Specifically I have received information in which it is alleged that 15 children have been killed during unsupervised contact. I have undertaken to investigate these cases in partnership with the Home Office and Department of Health.

  E-voting
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people voted by(a) text-mail in the Sheffield area and (b) e-mail, telephone and mobile in St. Albans; and what plans there are to extend e-voting to other parts of the UK. [68118]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the three wards in Sheffield where the electoral pilot scheme was conducted in the May 2002 local election, 1,327 people voted by SMS text message. In addition, 2,833 people used the internet to vote, 61 people used electronic kiosks, 912 people used postal votes and 7,978 voted in conventional polling stations.

  In the two wards in St. Albans where the electoral pilot scheme took place, 825 people voted using the internet and 744 voted by telephone (landline or mobile). In addition, 377 used postal votes and 1,095 people voted at electronic kiosks in polling stations or a local supermarket.

  We intend in September to issue a prospectus inviting local authorities to participate in further pilot schemes in the May 2003 elections. Our prospectus will take account of the Electoral Commission's formal evaluation of each of the May 2002 electoral pilot schemes, which will be presented to the Deputy Prime Minister shortly.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Members' Pensions
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 74W, on Members' pensions, when the statutory instrument to give effect to the recommendations of the SSRB will be tabled. [70293]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In July of last year the House voted to increase the accrual rate of the parliamentary pension from one-fiftieth to one-fortieth. The Government did not accept the proposal in the resolution that all the cost should fall on the Exchequer. I therefore announced on 7 May that I had referred the cost of this improvement to the SSRB.
  84W
  The SSRB has now reported. In brief, they recommend that the cost of the faster accrual rate, which is estimated at 5.1 per cent. of pay, should in the short-term be split with Members contributing 3 per cent. and the Exchequer contributing 2.1 per cent. The SSRB further recommends that this additional Exchequer contribution should be taken into account in subsequent reviews of MPs pay so that eventually the full cost of the accrual rate is borne by MPs.

  The Government accept these recommendations of the SSRB. I am therefore today laying an Order giving effect to the new accrual rate and also to other recommendations of the SSRB which the House approved last July

  There are two remaining issues, whether survivor pensions should be extended to unmarried adult dependants and whether survivor pensions should continue if a spouse remarries. It is the Government's policy that neither the cost of extending pensions to surviving adult dependants, nor that of the SSRB recommendation to pay pensions to surviving spouses for life, should fall on the taxpayer. Following the vote last year, the trustees of the pension scheme were asked to consider how these proposals could best be implemented at no cost to the Exchequer. The trustees only reported on 5 July. There has not therefore been sufficient notice for the Government to reach a view on these proposals and whether they do protect the taxpayer against any additional cost. I expect to bring forward proposals to the House in the autumn. Changes will be backdated to today's date.

  The new contribution rate for Members will be 9 per cent. of pay. The statutory instrument provides that contracting into the new accrual rate will be optional for existing members of the scheme.

  I hope this sensible compromise will be welcome. I believe it fairly recognises the decline in the average length of service of MPs, which has had the effect that only a handful of Members now achieve the maximum pension entitlement.

CABINET OFFICE

  Software
  Brian White
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what his policy is towards using open source software; and what percentage is used in his Department. [69318]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is planned to publish the policy on the use of open source software within the UK Government in summer 2002. The Cabinet Office will implement this policy. A draft version of the policy went out to consultation between December 2001 and March 2002 and is available for viewing on Govtalk (www.govtalk.gov.uk). There are no statistics currently available on the percentage of open source software use in the Cabinet Office.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sentencing
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to strengthen the guidelines for judges for sentencing criminals. [57414]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: Sentencing is a matter for the judiciary. A review of the Sentencing Framework was established by the Home Secretary on 16 May 2000 and published its proposals on 5 July 2001. The review was asked to consider what principles should guide sentencing decisions and what type of disposal should be made available to the courts so as more effectively to reduce re-offending. Public consultation ended formally on 31 October 2001.

  One of the recommendations of the review is for the creation of new, codified guidelines for the use of discretion in all criminal courts, and the establishment of a new body to draft the guidelines and be responsible for monitoring their application.

  The Government are considering the options for taking this recommendation forward and will set out final proposals in a White Paper due for publication shortly.

  Number of violent crimes1 recorded by police force area by quarter, from January 2000 to March 2001; with 2000–01 total

  Police force area

  January 2000 to March 2000

  April 2000 to June 2000

  July 2000 to September 2000

  October 2000 to December 2000

  January 2001 to March 2001

  April 2000 to2 March 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  4,973

  4,576

  4,583

  5,246

  4,666

  19,071

  Bedfordshire

  1,477

  1,583

  1,548

  1,540

  1,675

  6,346

  Cambridgeshire

  1,661

  1,926

  1,869

  1,730

  1,894

  7,419

  Cheshire

  1,592

  1,584

  1,646

  1,538

  1,722

  6,490

  Cleveland

  1,151

  1,087

  1,013

  1,023

  1,107

  4,230

  Cumbria

  1,227

  1,243

  1,012

  1,111

  1,048

  4,414

  Derbyshire

  2,690

  2,936

  2,627

  2,572

  2,401

  10,536

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,350

  3,352

  3,677

  3,233

  3,093

  13,355

  Dorset

  1,096

  1,191

  1,294

  1,086

  1,024

  4,595

  Durham

  1,343

  1,473

  1,486

  1,325

  1,365

  5,649

  Essex3

  1,853

  3,303

  3,152

  2,918

  2,859

  12,232

  Gloucestershire

  1,239

  1,418

  1,440

  1,463

  1,388

  5,709

  Greater Manchester

  12,278

  13,650

  12,964

  12,511

  12,799

  51,924

  Hampshire

  4,452

  4,692

  4,859

  5,102

  4,627

  19,280

  Hertfordshire3

  1,121

  1,394

  1,388

  1,301

  1,307

  5,390

  Humberside

  2,430

  2,567

  2,812

  2,829

  2,582

  10,790

  Kent

  3,473

  4,172

  4,028

  3,765

  3,131

  15,096

  Lancashire

  2,734

  2,877

  3,236

  3,845

  3,912

  13,870

  Leicestershire

  3,086

  3,115

  3,215

  2,937

  3,135

  12,402

  Lincolnshire

  962

  1,040

  1,090

  1,075

  1,010

  4,215

  London, City of

  138

  150

  159

  162

  134

  605

  Merseyside

  4,515

  4,794

  4,920

  4,966

  4,562

  19,242

  Metropolitan police3

  50,408

  52,544

  51,708

  49,905

  50,870

  205,027

  Norfolk

  1,583

  1,632

  1,718

  1,617

  1,504

  6,471

  Northamptonshire

  1,469

  1,479

  1,498

  1,501

  1,573

  6,051

  Northumbria

  4,194

  3,933

  3,777

  3,617

  3,907

  15,234

  North Yorkshire

  1,337

  1,425

  1,356

  1,289

  1,303

  5,373

  Nottinghamshire

  4,491

  4,622

  4,297

  4,362

  4,560

  17,841

  South Yorkshire

  2,338

  2,360

  2,514

  2,646

  2,557

  10,077

  Staffordshire

  4,408

  4,448

  4,604

  4,648

  4,893

  18,593

  Suffolk

  1,402

  1,839

  1,880

  1,493

  1,781

  6,993

  Surrey3

  1,458

  2,268

  2,333

  2,156

  2,257

  9,014

  Sussex

  4,550

  5,112

  5,461

  4,391

  4,541

  19,505

  Thames Valley

  2,090

  4,427

  4,450

  4,480

  4,598

  17,955

  Warwickshire

  646

  696

  687

  770

  965

  3,118

  West Mercia

  2,268

  2,216

  2,053

  1,904

  2,592

  8,765

  West Midlands

  13,673

  15,303

  15,669

  15,513

  15,812

  62,297

  West Yorkshire

  5,426

  5,582

  5,611

  5,571

  5,572

  22,336

  Wiltshire

  1,120

  1,245

  1,311

  1,287

  1,199

  5,042

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,371

  1,444

  1,578

  1,342

  1,387

  5,751

  Violent Crimes
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many violent crimes were committed in each police authority area in each(a) month and (b) year since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [66614]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: The available figures for recorded crime relate to quarter years from the beginning of 2000 to the end of March 2001, and are given in the table.

  It should be noted that recorded violent crime is subject to changes in reporting and recording. For example, the 2001 British Crime Survey found that, over England and Wales as a whole, reporting to the police of common assault rose from 29 per cent. in 1999 to 39 per cent. in the year 2000. Also, the British Crime Survey has shown that, in England and Wales as a whole, the number of common assaults recorded in the survey decreased by 14 per cent. between the 1999 and 2000 calendar years, whereas common assaults recorded by the police increased by an estimated 9 per cent.

  From April 2002 the Home Office has started collecting recorded crime data from the police on a monthly basis. These data will be made available in due course, although the format and frequency of publication has yet to be decided.
  87W

  Number of violent crimes1 recorded by police force area by quarter, from January 2000 to March 2001; with 2000–01 total

  Police force area

  January 2000 to March 2000

  April 2000 to June 2000

  July 2000 to September 2000

  October 2000 to December 2000

  January 2001 to March 2001

  April 2000 to2 March 2001

  Gwent

  3,545

  3,954

  3,891

  3,855

  3,182

  14,882

  North Wales

  1,545

  1,610

  1,485

  1,384

  1,448

  5,927

  South Wales

  3,441

  3,378

  3,643

  3,544

  3,697

  14,262

  England and Wales total

  172,604

  185,640

  185,542

  180,553

  181,639

  733,374

  1 Violent crimes comprise offences of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  2 Financial year total.

  3 Some Metropolitan police areas were transferred to Surrey, Essex or Hertfordshire on 1 April 2000.

  Drugs
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were(a) found guilty, (b) cautioned and (c) imprisoned for drugs offences in respect of (i) cannabis, (ii) amphetamines, (iii) LSD, (iv) cocaine, (v) ecstasy, (vi) heroin and (vii) crack in each year since 1981; [66667]

  (2) how many drugs seizures there were by the police and Her Majesty's Customs of (a) cannabis, (b) amphetamines, (c) LSD, (d) cocaine, (e) ecstasy, (f) heroin and (g) crack in each year since 1981; [66661]

  (3) what quantities of (a) cannabis, (b) amphetamines, (c) LSD, (d) cocaine, (e) ecstasy, (f) heroin and (g) crack were seized by the police and by Her Majesty's Customs in each year since 1981. [66666]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information requested on the number of drug seizures and the quantities seized by the police and Her Majesty's Customs is given in the Supplementary Tables volume of the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, United Kingdom". Information on people cautioned or found guilty (including custodial sentences) of drug offences is contained in the main publication volume. Copies of these volumes, together with the Area Tables volume, are available in the Library.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the United Kingdom aged(a) 34 years and younger and (b) 35 years and older are estimated to have taken (i) cannabis, (ii) amphetamines, (iii) LSD, (iv) cocaine, (v) ecstasy, (vi) heroin and (vii) crack. [66665]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The most up-to-date estimates currently available are from the 2000 British Crime Survey. Data are only available for England and Wales.

  Table 1: Estimates of the number of 16 to 34-year-olds having ever used various drugs in their lifetime, in England and Wales in 2000

  Best estimate

  Lower estimate

  Higher estimate

  Cannabis

  5,526.000

  5,305,000

  5,746,000

  Amphetamines

  2,624,000

  2,807,000

  2,451,000

  LSD

  1,345,000

  1,216,000

  1,486,000

  Cocaine

  1,217,000

  1,094,000

  1,352,000

  Ecstasy

  1,427,000

  1,294,000

  1,571,000

  Heroin

  206,000

  157,000

  269,000

  Crack

  247,000

  193,000

  315,000

  88W

  Table 2: Estimates of the number of 35 to 59-year-olds having ever used various drugs in their lifetime, in England and Wales in 2000

  Best estimate

  Lower estimate

  Higher estimate

  Cannabis

  3,208,000

  3,035,000

  3,390,000

  Amphetamines

  1,047,000

  943,000

  1,161,000

  LSD

  489,000

  419,000

  570,000

  Cocaine

  385,000

  323,000

  458,000

  Ecstasy

  154,000

  116,000

  203,000

  Heroin

  93,000

  65,000

  132,000

  Crack

  71,000

  47,000

  107,000

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department succeeded in reducing access to drugs for those aged between 5 and 16 years between 1998 and 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [66290]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Results from the 2001 Survey of Drug use, Smoking, and Drinking among school children aged 11 to 15 years in England (published in a Statistical Press Notice by Department of Health on 15 March 2002) show that 42 per cent. have ever been offered at least one or more drugs.

  A revised method of measuring the prevalence of drug use was introduced in 2001 and the questions used in 2001 provide new estimates of drug use and are not strictly comparable with results from previous years. The results from previous surveys are 34 per cent. in 1998, 35 per cent. in 1999, and 35 per cent. in 2000.

  Information regarding younger children is not available centrally.

  Overstayers
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 498W, to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), how many applications have been made under the regularisation scheme for overstayers; how many applicants have had their cases decided; how many cases are (a) under consideration and (b) awaiting action; and how many applicants have had their cases refused. [65239]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: A total of 17,120 applications were received for consideration under the Regularisation Scheme for Overstayers. During the last financial year (2001–02) a sift of the cases yielded a total of 1,288 easily identifiable grants under existing policy concessions. During the current financial year significantly more caseworking staff and resources are being devoted to the more detailed
  89W
  consideration of the remaining cases. To date 341 further grants have been identified together with 111 refusals. This leaves 15,380 cases to be decided. Of these 10,895 cases are currently awaiting consideration in Integrated Casework Directorate (North). Work is also under way to validate the status of the remaining 4,485 cases, which are currently being dealt with in other areas of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Of all the applications received, 1,629 applications have been granted.

  The intention is to complete consideration of all outstanding cases by April 2003.

  Yarl's Wood Fire
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who took the decision not to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood; and on what advice that decision was based. [168634]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Minister responsible at the time made the decision based upon advice from a number of different expert sources.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 102W, on crime and disorder partnerships, what sanctions he can impose if the police do not discuss with their local partners significant changes in policing practice which might affect how the partnership delivers its crime and disorder reduction strategy. [67778]

  Mr. Denham
  Each police force is required under section 96 of the Police Act 1996 to obtain the views of the community on policing in that force area and their co-operation in crime prevention. The police authority for that area is responsible for making arrangements for this in consultation with the chief officer. If it appears to the Secretary of State that these arrangements are inadequate, he may ask for a report. Having considered that report, he can require the arrangements to be reviewed and a further report submitted.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 further places a statutory requirement on the police and the local authority jointly to develop and implement a strategy for tackling crime and disorder. There are no specific sanctions under the 1998 Act but this does not preclude Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary from examining and, if necessary, criticising the police if they fail to work effectively with other agencies.

  The Local Government Act 1998 places a duty on police authorities, as best value authorities, to ensure continuous improvement by undertaking reviews of all the service's functions. All best value reviews must follow a process of challenge, compare, compete and consult. Any best value review which focuses on performance in service delivery to the public will therefore include consulting the users of the service. Police authorities publish information about best value reviews completed in the previous year and projected for the coming year in their annual Performance Plans.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children seeking asylum have arrived in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [67609]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers, including when asylum seekers first enter the United Kingdom, is not available. Information on the numbers of unaccompanied children who applied at port and in-country during the last five years available, is given in the table.

  Unaccompanied1,2,3 children aged 17 or under applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, 1996 to 2000

  Year of application

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  1996

  477

  154

  631

  1997

  671

  431

  1,102

  1998

  1,083

  1,954

  3,037

  1999

  1,498

  1,851

  3,349

  20004

  1,394

  1,339

  2,733

  1 Unaccompanied at the point of their arrival and not known to be joining.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at local enforcement centres.

  3 Figures exclude disputed age cases.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Corresponding data for 2001 will be published in the annual statistics bulletin 'Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 2001' on 31 July, available from the Library or via the RDS website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

  Reliable information on the number of children who have entered the United Kingdom as asylum seekers, accompanied by an adult, could only be obtained by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons applied for political asylum in 2001; how many of those applicants came to the UK from France; and how many of the asylum seekers who came to the UK via France in 2001 had first applied for asylum in France. [69273]

  Beverley Hughes
  Provisional figures show that in 2001, 71,700 principal applicants applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Including dependants, the number of applicants was estimated to be 88,300.

  I regret that reliable information on the entry routes of asylum seekers from their country of origin to the United Kingdom, or on whether applicants have previously applied for asylum outside the United Kingdom, is not available. In 2001 over a third (36 per cent.) of applications were made at United Kingdom ports, while most applications (64 per cent.) were made in country.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are living in the Greater London area. [68440]
  91W
  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested. We currently only have statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).

  As at the end of March 2002 the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation in London was 1,870, and the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) receiving subsistence only support in. London was 21,3701.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each region are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Figures exclude cases where the asylum seeker's support has been ceased.

  Asylum seekers are only allocated accommodation in London in exceptional circumstances i.e. medical reasons.
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what European countries his Department are in discussions with to ensure there is co-operation in relation to asylum procedures being followed by the United Kingdom. [68442]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are in discussion with all European Union states on a broad range of measures designed to establish minimum standards for asylum procedures and policies across the European Union. The European Council in Seville set a timetable for their completion by the end of 2003. This includes negotiations on a revised proposal concerning asylum procedures within the European Union.

  The United Kingdom will continue to play a leading role in the process through active participation in negotiations with other member states. We have done so already with regard to adopted measures, such as the directive establishing minimum standards for temporary protection or where a general approach has been agreed, as is presently the case for the reception conditions directive.

  In addition, we co-operate with other member states in procedural terms in order to implement the Dublin Convention to determine the state responsible for examining an application for asylum. Although unable to accede to the Dublin Convention such co-operation has also extended to Norway and Iceland since 1 April 2001, as a result of a separate agreement between those countries and the European Union member states to apply the Dublin Convention criteria.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the proportion of asylum claimants who lose contact with his Department; what research this estimate is based upon; and if he will make a statement. [68075]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available and no such estimate has been made. Asylum applicants do not always inform the Immigration Service prior to leaving the United Kingdom. We are making improvements in the area of contact management as detailed in the current Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.
  92W
  This states that those in the proposed accommodation centres may be required to report on a daily basis within the accommodation centre. We will seek to maintain contact with those asylum seekers who are dispersed. Those who do not require National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation will also be required to report at the NASS address, at reporting centres or at police stations attended by staff from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. During the induction process asylum seekers will be advised of their obligations to notify any change of address and to report as required. Provision of support will be made conditional on asylum seekers reporting as required.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the research paper published by South Bank university in June on "Maintaining Contact: What Happens after Detained Asylum Seekers get Bail". [68206]

  Beverley Hughes
  We welcome the contribution the research conducted by South Bank university makes to the on-going debate about the use of immigration detention powers. We are aware of its conclusions and currently studying the whole report.

  We are making improvements in the area of contact management as detailed in the current Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill. This states that those in the proposed accommodation centres may be required to report on a daily basis within the accommodation centre. We will seek to maintain contact with those asylum seekers who are dispersed. Those who do not require National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation will also be required to report at the NASS address, at reporting centres or at police stations attended by staff from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. During the induction process asylum seekers will be advised of their obligations to notify any change of address and to report as required. Provision of support will be made conditional on asylum seekers reporting as required.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers detained and subsequently released on bail lost contact with his Department's authorities in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [68077]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 November,Official Report, column 444W, on asylum seekers, when the study was commissioned; and if he will publish its conclusions. [68800]

  Beverley Hughes
  A study to review methods used in different countries to attempt to estimate the size of their illegally resident populations was commissioned by the Home Office in January of this year. This work will assess the applicability of those methods to the United Kingdom context. The study is still on-going and will be published later this year.

  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 target to increase to
  93W
  85 per cent. the percentage of appealed asylum decisions applied by the Immigration Appellate Authority at Adjudicator level. [68796]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Witnesses
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research since 1992 has been conducted into interviews with(a) witnesses and (b) vulnerable witnesses; who conducted the research; and when it was published. [67654]

  Hilary Benn
  In 1995 the Home Office published a report entitled "Videotaping Children's Evidence: An Evaluation" by Graham Davies, Clare Wilson, Rebecca Mitchell and John Milsom.

  It published a further report in 2001 entitled "National Evaluation of the PEACE Investigative Interviewing Course" by Colin Clarke and Rebecca Milne. This covers the interviewing of suspects as well as witnesses and victims of crime. It includes a literature review.

  Police net pensions costs in England 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  1999–2000 Net pensions

  2000–01 Net pensions

  2001–02 Net pensions

  Police

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  Avon and Somerset

  25,869

  14.84

  29,290

  16.16

  31,585

  16.65

  Bedfordshire

  7,595

  11.94

  8,292

  12.48

  9,078

  12.84

  Cambridgeshire

  9,255

  12.33

  10,285

  12.98

  10.674

  12.69

  Cheshire

  12,539

  11.07

  12,895

  11.25

  16,599

  13.63

  City of London

  8,211

  14.19

  9,052

  15.36

  9,578

  16.05

  Cleveland

  12,339

  14.47

  12,993

  15.18

  13,478

  14.85

  Cumbria

  9,577

  14.78

  10,361

  15.37

  10,765

  15.25

  Derbyshire

  11,969

  11.34

  14,862

  13.41

  14,473

  12.37

  Devon and Cornwall

  25,008

  14.29

  25,535

  13.96

  28,313

  14.81

  Dorset

  11,183

  14.53

  11,343

  14.00

  12,728

  15.05

  Durham

  10,070

  12.64

  10,327

  12.04

  10,991

  12.54

  Essex

  20,162

  12.00

  20,853

  11.30

  25,211

  12.94

  Gloucestershire

  8,808

  13.40

  9,755

  14.20

  10,301

  14.26

  Greater Manchester

  59,681

  15.92

  60,833

  15.21

  66,792

  16.25

  Hampshire

  22,675

  11.48

  21,960

  10.84

  24,537

  11.35

  Hertfordshire

  11,721

  11.22

  11,854

  9.80

  12,308

  9.51

  Humberside

  15,189

  13.33

  16,963

  14.15

  18,572

  14.49

  Kent

  21,132

  11.35

  24,134

  12.50

  26,759

  12.94

  Lancashire

  23,004

  12.64

  25,753

  13.54

  28,568

  14.35

  Leicestershire

  12,376

  11.54

  13,342

  12.11

  14,706

  12.63

  Lincolnshire

  10,634

  15.33

  11,821

  16.25

  12,820

  16.86

  Merseyside

  38,079

  15.33

  40,246

  15.65

  43,542

  16.43

  Metropolitan

  215,071

  11.70

  243,511

  13.25

  254,767

  12.87

  Norfolk

  10,141

  11.63

  11,570

  12.64

  12,354

  12.55

  North Yorkshire

  12,901

  16.50

  13,657

  16.31

  14,757

  17.19

  Northamptonshire

  7,425

  10.74

  8,706

  11.91

  8,484

  10.83

  Northumbria

  29,508

  13.87

  31,170

  14.27

  32,794

  14.41

  Nottinghamshire

  17,847

  13.79

  18,346

  13.66

  21,457

  15.30

  South Yorkshire

  18,791

  10.68

  19,165

  10.59

  22,805

  12.18

  Staffordshire

  19,796

  15.59

  18,843

  14.84

  22,866

  17.03

  Suffolk

  10,479

  14.86

  10,029

  13.54

  11,130

  14.34

  Surrey

  10,331

  10.32

  11,191

  9.32

  11,605

  9.48

  Sussex

  24,538

  14.82

  27,578

  15.99

  29,312

  15.94

  Thames Valley

  20,961

  9.23

  23,169

  9.78

  24,971

  9.90

  Warwickshire

  7,983

  14.47

  9,000

  15.25

  10,300

  16.51

  94W
  The Home Office commissioned BMRB, an independent research company. to produce the "Witness Satisfaction Survey 2000" arid the "Vulnerable Witness Survey". Both were published in 2001.

  Air Weapons
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of armed response team call outs were to(a) air weapons and (b) replica weapons incidents in the last 12 months. [67832]

  Mr. Denham
  I am advised by the Association of Chief Police Officers that this information could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensions
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for each police authority in England. the amount spent on pensions in(a) each of the last three years and (b) the current year, and the percentage each figure represents of that authority's total revenue spending in each of those years. [67659]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table. Figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.
  95W

  Police net pensions costs in England 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  1999–2000 Net pensions

  2000–01 Net pensions

  2001–02 Net pensions

  Police

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  Costs£000

  As a proportion of net expenditure Percentage

  West Mercia

  13,603

  12.21

  16,665

  13.26

  18,183

  13.65

  West Midlands

  43,192

  11.32

  46,959

  11.89

  51,133

  12.45

  West Yorkshire

  40,259

  14.07

  43,114

  14.18

  47,066

  14.98

  Wiltshire

  7,776

  11.14

  8,000

  11.11

  9,272

  12.26

  Total

  897,678

  12.69

  973,422

  13.26

  1,055,634

  13.63

  Note:

  Actual expenditure for 1999–2000, estimates for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (police statistics)

  Street Crime
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on requiring the prioritisation of street crime by chief constables; and what statutory power he has to require them to prioritise specified categories of crime. [68022]

  Mr. Denham
  Finding effective means of tackling street crime is a Government priority following a rapid rise in such offences in recent years (including a 13 per cent. rise in robbery offences in the year up to March 2001). To achieve this, the Government are working jointly with the 10 forces which account for over 80 per cent. of such offences, and who have agreed collectively to make street crime a priority as part of this multi-agency initiative.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory power he has to require chief constables to attend meetings with him on crime. [68023]

  Mr. Denham
  The Secretary of State does not have, nor does he need, a statutory power to have a meeting with a chief constable to discuss any topic. The Secretary of State may, however, require a chief constable to submit a report to him on any matter concerned with the policing of the chief constable's police area under s.44 of the Police Act 1996.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory power the Government have to require the dismissal of chief constables; and what powers he exercised in respect of the dismissal of the chief constable of Sussex. [68020]

  Mr. Denham
  Under current provision, a police authority has the powers to call upon its chief constable to retire in the interests of the effectiveness and efficiency of the force. Exercise of that power is subject to the safeguard of requiring the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a reserve power to direct the police authority to take action; where be does so, he is required by statute to appoint an inquiry to consider the circumstances. These powers are contained in sections 11 and 42 respectively of the Police Act 1996, which carried forward powers established under the Police Act 1964.
  96W
  The Police Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, contains clauses designed to improve these existing powers, and to make them operate more effectively for all concerned.

  The Secretary of State did not exercise his formal powers under the 1996 Act in relation to the chief constable of Sussex.

  Crime Reports
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory power the Government have to require the submission of(a) weekly and (b) other reports on specified categories of crime to (i) the Prime Minister, (ii) his Department and (iii) other Ministers. [68021]

  Mr. Denham
  Although sections 45(1) and 58 of the Police Act 1996 enable the Secretary of State to require a range of information to be provided by chief officers, the use of this power has not been considered. The Street Crime Initiative benefits from the committed participation of the 10 police forces involved.

  Work Permits
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were granted in 2001, broken down by category. [67927]

  Beverley Hughes
  A total of 117,386 work permit applications were approved in 2001. The table provides a breakdown by category:

  Type of permit

  Number issued

  Business and commercial

  105,016

  Sports and entertainments

  5,532

  Training and work experience

  6,838

  Total

  117,386

  Chief Constable, Leicestershire
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Chief Constable of Leicestershire in his official capacity. [68015]

  Mr. Denham
  I last met the Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary on Monday 28 January 2002 when I visited his force.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measurements are used to assess antisocial behaviour; and what targets are given for the police to tackle antisocial behaviour. [66891]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]Antisocial behaviour is assessed using information from the British crime survey which provides a measure of the public's perception of the level of disorder and antisocial behaviour in their area. The police's contribution to the overall target of reducing antisocial behaviour is measured using Best Value Performance Indicator 122, feelings of public safety. This is a subset of the British crime survey data broken down by police force area.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent communications he has had with voluntary organisations and non-governmental bodies with regard to the cost of Criminal Records Bureau disclosure information checks for volunteers; and if he will make a statement. [69130]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 10 July 2002,Official Report, column 1079W.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards granting leave to remain on compassionate grounds to people who are receiving NHS treatment for HIV or AIDS. [69017]

  Beverley Hughes
  The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), now given effect in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Policy for cases involving HIV/AIDS or other serious medical conditions was recently reviewed to ensure compatibility with the Human Rights Act and recent developments in ECHR case law; to ensure a consistent approach in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) towards cases involving consideration of medical issues; and to take account of developments in drug therapy used to treat HIV/AIDS.

  The new policy came into effect for applications made on or after 19 December 2000, and applies to all cases where an applicant is seeking to stay in the United Kingdom because they are suffering from a serious medical condition. Under this policy the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 3 of the ECHR will be engaged where the following requirements are satisfied:

  (i) the United Kingdom can be regarded as having assumed responsibility for a person's care; and

  (ii) there is credible medical evidence that return, due to a complete absence of medical treatment in the country concerned, would significantly reduce the applicant's life expectancy; and

  (iii) subject them to acute physical and mental suffering.

  All applications to stay on medical grounds are given careful individual consideration of their particular circumstances.

  Crime (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) burglaries, (b) violent crimes, (c) drug offences and (d) thefts of vehicles were recorded by the Wandsworth police division of the Metropolitan police in each of the last five years; and what the total numbers of crimes committed in the division were in those years. [68443]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Numbers of recorded crimes for some offences and groups of offences have been collected centrally by police basic command unit since 1 April 1999, and the data for the years ending March 2000 and 2001 have been published in Home Office Statistical Bulletins 12–00 and 12–01.

  The available details for the Wandsworth Basic Command Unit (BCU) are as follows:

  Number of recorded crimes

  Offence/offence group

  Year ending March 2000

  Year ending March 2001

  Domestic burglary

  3,379

  2,716

  Violent crime1

  6,798

  6,580

  Theft of vehicle

  1,835

  1,955

  1 Violent crime consists of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery.

  The figures for the year ending March 2002 are due to be published on 12 July 2002.

  Passports
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the reasons underlying his decision to abolish passport exit controls in 1997. [68083]

  Beverley Hughes
  A detailed study of the residual embarkation control was undertaken against the background of the decision by the Government in 1994, to abolish checks on passengers travelling from sea ports and small airports to continental destinations.

  The residual embarkation control did not contribute to the overall effectiveness of the immigration control but was resource intensive. In 1997, 8 per cent. of the Immigration Service's operational duties were deployed to the operation of the embarkation control. After a lengthy period of consultation with interested parties, the Government decided in March 1998 to replace the routine presence of immigration officers with a new arrangement where the control could be set up at short notice in response to specific operational need. This was combined with an increased use of closed circuit television technology.

  The reconfiguration of the embarkation control means that the Immigration Service can now use its resources more flexibly, concentrating on crucial areas such as clandestine entry, removals and secure border control.

  UK Airwave Project
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the UK Airwave Project, stating(a) its agreed cost, (b) how cost overruns will be dealt with and (c) how many suppliers will be able to supply operating equipment to the programme over its lifetime. [68067]
  99W
  Mr. Denham
  The projected cost of the Airwave framework arrangement over the next 19 years is £2.9 billion, at 1999 prices.

  Airwave is a private finance initiative (PFI), hence the main contractor, 02, will be required to compensate police authorities for delays or failures on their part that undermine the service or cause additional expense to forces. The contract is structured such that additional costs will only fall to the public sector if changes are made to the agreed specification within the framework arrangement at the request of the contracting authority, the Police Information Technology Organisation.

  It is very difficult to estimate how many suppliers of the relevant equipment there are likely to be over the lifetime of Airwave. In such a market, and with a contract of this length, it is important to maintain an open and competitive supply of equipment, which offers the opportunity to realise future technological advances.

  Operation Lancet
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the Independent Review of Operation Lancet. [70608]

  Mr. Denham
  I am publishing today Operation Lancet—A Case Study Review report. Copies are available in the Library.

  999 calls, 1993 to 2000–01

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Force

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  England and Wales

  13

  83

  13

  87

  12

  87

  12

  84

  Durham

  10

  95

  10

  95

  10

  98

  10

  97

  West Midlands

  15

  96

  15

  97

  15

  95

  15

  97

  Humberside

  15

  68

  15

  80

  15

  80

  15

  77

  Gloucestershire

  10

  77

  15

  84

  15

  86

  15

  93

  Derbyshire

  30

  —

  15

  —

  15

  88

  15

  90

  Suffolk

  10

  97

  10

  99

  10

  89

  10

  88

  Gwent

  6

  98

  6

  99

  6

  99

  6

  99

  West Mercia

  10

  95

  10

  93

  10

  89

  10

  92

  Cumbria

  15

  99

  15

  99

  10

  99

  10

  99

  Essex

  10

  88

  10

  85

  10

  90

  10

  91

  North Wales

  10

  86

  10

  88

  10

  84

  10

  82

  Norfolk

  10

  86

  10

  84

  10

  86

  10

  73

  Warwickshire

  15

  89

  15

  92

  15

  90

  15

  75

  Dyfed-Powys

  10

  95

  10

  95

  10

  96

  10

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  20

  82

  20

  87

  20

  92

  15

  90

  Leicestershire

  15

  84

  15

  80

  15

  69

  15

  76

  Sussex

  10

  80

  10

  90

  10

  91

  10

  93

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  86

  10

  88

  10

  91

  10

  86

  South Yorkshire

  30

  82

  30

  84

  20

  80

  20

  78

  Greater Manchester

  15

  94

  15

  96

  15

  94

  15

  78

  Northamptonshire

  10

  —

  10

  93

  10

  95

  10

  97

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  94

  12

  74

  12

  80

  12

  82

  Merseyside

  6

  78

  6

  77

  6

  57

  10

  70

  Wiltshire

  15

  93

  15

  92

  15

  93

  15

  88

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  10

  86

  10

  88

  10

  92

  West Yorkshire

  15

  77

  15

  79

  15

  78

  15

  77

  Lancashire

  10

  91

  10

  87

  10

  93

  10

  96

  Surrey

  15

  85

  15

  95

  15

  87

  15

  93

  Cheshire

  15

  —

  15

  91

  15

  94

  15

  92

  South Wales

  10

  87

  10

  81

  10

  80

  10

  84

  North Yorkshire

  5

  66

  5

  78

  5

  78

  5

  82

  Bedfordshire

  10

  84

  10

  86

  15

  86

  15

  85

  Kent

  10

  92

  10

  95

  10

  89

  10

  92

  Hertfordshire

  20

  96

  20

  95

  20

  92

  10

  76

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  89

  10

  89

  10

  84

  10

  93

  Metropolitan police

  15

  86

  15

  81

  15

  89

  15

  90

  Staffordshire

  15

  92

  15

  93

  15

  93

  15

  92

  Dorset

  10

  84

  10

  85

  10

  82

  10

  77

  100W
  The review contains helpful recommendations about good practice in the investigation of police misconduct and lessons which can be applied in the development of the new police complaints system. We will ensure that the recommendations are taken forward as part of that work.

  I am very grateful to William Taylor and the review team for completing up the review following the sad death of its initial leader, Sir John Hoddinott.

  Emergency Calls
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of 999 calls was not answered within 10 seconds in each police force in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, ranked from best to worst performance for the most recent year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [66887]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The information requested is available from 1993 for all police force areas in England and Wales. A complete set of 2001–02 data is not yet complete, but it will be published in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's annual report in October, a copy of which is placed in the Library. The information which is available is set out in the table. City of London calls are handled by the Metropolitan police. Police authorities set their own target times for responses to 999 calls and these are given in the table.
  101W

  999 calls, 1993 to 2000–01

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Force

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Northumbria

  15

  85

  15

  91

  15

  94

  15

  93

  Cleveland

  20

  97

  20

  98

  15

  96

  10

  91

  Hampshire

  10

  85

  10

  88

  10

  86

  10

  —

  City of London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lincolnshire

  10

  92

  10

  93

  10

  95

  10

  95

  1 Data collected by the Metropolitan Police Service

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Force

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  Target time (seconds)

  Percentage of 999 calls answered within target time

  England and Wales

  12

  89

  11

  89

  12

  84

  11

  87

  Durham

  10

  97

  10

  98

  10

  98

  10

  99

  West Midlands

  15

  98

  15

  98

  15

  97

  15

  97

  Humberside

  15

  86

  15

  96

  15

  94

  15

  96

  Gloucestershire

  12

  97

  12

  94

  12

  95

  12

  95

  Derbyshire

  15

  94

  10

  86

  10

  92

  10

  94

  Suffolk

  10

  96

  10

  98

  10

  95

  10

  94

  Gwent

  6

  99

  6

  98

  6

  93

  6

  93

  West Mercia

  10

  92

  10

  94

  10

  93

  10

  92

  Cumbria

  10

  98

  10

  99

  10

  98

  10

  92

  Essex

  10

  79

  10

  78

  15

  86

  15

  92

  North Wales

  10

  86

  10

  89

  10

  88

  10

  92

  Norfolk

  10

  70

  10

  87

  10

  93

  10

  91

  Warwickshire

  15

  77

  15

  82

  15

  91

  15

  91

  Dyfed-Powys

  8

  92

  8

  80

  8

  92

  8

  91

  Nottinghamshire

  15

  88

  15

  89

  15

  90

  15

  90

  Leicestershire

  15

  86

  15

  92

  15

  90

  15

  90

  Sussex

  10

  89

  10

  86

  10

  81

  10

  90

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  86

  10

  92

  10

  90

  10

  90

  South Yorkshire

  15

  77

  15

  86

  15

  88

  15

  90

  Greater Manchester

  15

  81

  15

  86

  15

  85

  15

  90

  Northamptonshire

  10

  97

  10

  98

  10

  95

  10

  89

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  82

  12

  81

  12

  90

  12

  89

  Merseyside

  10

  87

  10

  90

  10

  90

  10

  89

  Wiltshire

  15

  89

  15

  96

  15

  96

  10

  88

  Thames Valley

  10

  92

  10

  92

  10

  89

  10

  88

  West Yorkshire

  15

  89

  15

  90

  15

  86

  15

  86

  Lancashire

  10

  95

  10

  93

  10

  92

  10

  86

  Surrey

  15

  95

  15

  94

  15

  86

  15

  86

  Cheshire

  14

  90

  14

  89

  15

  84

  15

  86

  South Wales

  10

  81

  10

  80

  10

  79

  10

  86

  North Yorkshire

  5

  87

  5

  88

  5

  86

  5

  85

  Bedfordshire

  15

  79

  15

  77

  15

  77

  15

  85

  Kent

  10

  92

  10

  93

  10

  95

  10

  85

  Hertfordshire

  10

  84

  10

  72

  10

  83

  10

  84

  Devon and Cornwall

  10

  93

  10

  93

  10

  86

  10

  84

  Metropolitan police

  15

  91

  15

  87

  15

  71

  15

  84

  Staffordshire

  15

  89

  15

  87

  15

  79

  10

  83

  Dorset

  10

  76

  10

  78

  10

  81

  10

  80

  Northumbria

  15

  89

  10

  86

  10

  80

  10

  79

  Cleveland

  10

  95

  10

  95

  10

  92

  10

  79

  Hampshire

  10

  83

  10

  83

  10

  80

  10

  74

  City of London

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Lincolnshire

  10

  95

  10

  95

  10

  92

  10

  n/a

  1 Data collected by the Metropolitan Police Service

  Robbery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent estimated annual cost to(a) public funds, (b) private citizens and (c) insurance companies is of robbery. [68790]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The most recent publicly available estimates of annual costs of robbery were published in Home Office Research Study 217 "The Economic and Social Costs of Crime" in December 2000.
  102W

  (a)The annual cost to public funds of robbery

  The estimated annual cost of robbery to public funds in 1999–2000 is £770 million. This figure includes costs to both the criminal justice system and health services.

  (b) The annual cost to private citizens of robbery

  The estimated annual cost of robbery to private citizens in 1999–2000 is £1.5 billion. This includes the value of property stolen and the physical impact of the crime on the victim.

  103W

  (c) The annual cost to insurance companies of robbery

  A rough estimate of the annual insurance administration costs associated with robbery is £19.6 million. Insurance administration costs are harder to estimate than costs to public funds or private citizens.

  Mentoring Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the mentoring projects in receipt of grant funding over the next three years. [68793]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The information requested is given in the table.

  £

  Name of organisation

  Amount of grant 2002–03

  Amount of grant 2003–04

  Amount of grant 2004–05

  African Family Support Centre

  40,112

  46,312

  NIL

  Age Concern Cambridgeshire

  49,999

  53,138

  NIL

  Age Concern Ledbury and District

  19,498

  20,044

  NIL

  Big Brothers and Sisters

  200,000

  200,000

  NIL

  Bishop Creighton House

  24,421

  28,604

  NIL

  Bolton Lads and Girls

  57,400

  59,398

  NIL

  Carlisle Mencap

  12,028

  12,392

  NIL

  Chance (UK) Ltd

  47,089

  48,548

  NIL

  Dines Green Streets Ahead

  29,649

  30,505

  NIL

  Enfield Business Education Partnership

  21,500

  22,800

  NIL

  Family Service Units

  26,117

  32,139

  NIL

  FOCUS

  38,712

  38,712

  NIL

  Fun in Action for Children

  30,000

  40,000

  NIL

  Home Start Bournemouth

  24,500

  25,113

  NIL

  Home Start Nottingham

  31,368

  32,151

  NIL

  Home Start Sittingbourne and Sheppey

  12,715

  13,034

  NIL

  Home Start Stoke-on-Trent

  35,811

  37,259

  NIL

  Home Start Wisbech

  28,250

  29,500

  NIL

  Lambeth Wellcare

  30,157

  31,033

  NIL

  NECA Services Ltd

  50,319

  51,384

  NIL

  Northorpe Hall Trust

  35,661

  37,490

  NIL

  One to One Youth Befriending

  58,187

  60,916

  NIL

  PACT Community Projects

  30,938

  31,711

  NIL

  RAMP- The Renewal Programme

  48,435

  65,622

  NIL

  REACH

  43,900

  46,425

  NIL

  RPS Rainer

  51,413

  54,413

  NIL

  SCOPE (Ref M452)

  50,000

  50,000

  NIL

  SCOPE (Ref M384)

  44,803

  45,982

  NIL

  Second City, Second Chance

  16,125

  15,430

  NIL

  SENSE

  16,830

  26,775

  NIL

  Somerset Youth Voluntary Network

  45,000

  45,000

  NIL

  SOVA

  49,447

  49,797

  NIL

  Swindon Education Business Partnership

  27,000

  27,000

  NIL

  Terence Higgins Trust

  25,337

  26,096

  NIL

  The Befriending Network

  40,000

  42,500

  NIL

  The Kings Cross Project

  28,354

  29,204

  NIL

  The Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  58,369

  59,267

  NIL

  The London Connection

  12,161

  NIL

  NIL

  Those on the Margins of Society

  50,000

  50,000

  NIL

  National Mentoring Network1

  600,000

  601,500

  NIL

  1 (Mentor points) 25 per cent. costs funded by Department for Education and Skills.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects(a) the project establishing national recruitment standards for the police service to be completed and (b) the national recruitment standards to come into effect for all police services in the United Kingdom; and (c) what representations have been made by the Durham Constabulary regarding their eyesight criteria to the project establishing national recruitment standards. [68315]
  104W
  Mr. Denham
  The information is as follows:

  (a) it is the intention to complete the work of the National Recruitment Standards Project during 2003.

  (b) national recruitment standards on eligibility criteria and fitness have already been introduced.

  New job related medical and eyesight standards are expected by the end of 2002.

  A new recruitment application form for the police service is expected to be introduced by January 2003.

  A new national assessment and selection process for police recruits is due to be phased in later this year and over 2003.

  (c) The Home Office provides guidance to forces on eyesight standards. The present guidance for eyesight is that candidates' unaided vision must be 6/24 or better in either eye and aided vision must be 6/12 or better in either eye, 6/6 or better binocularly. All forces were asked to apply the standards consistently pending the outcome of the research to develop new job-related eyesight standards.

  Durham Constabulary informed the Home Office of a pilot scheme which they had run. During this pilot they had lowered their unaided vision to 6/60, provided candidates could achieve a vision of 6/6 with the assistance of contact lenses. This had allowed them to recruit seven additional people. However, in order to co-operate with the Home Office request, the pilot scheme was terminated on 1 August 2001.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the target for the number of referrals to drug treatment through drug treatment and testing orders in 2000–01 was not met. [68784]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) were rolled out from October 2000. No formal target for the number of Orders was set for 2000–01. 2001–02 was the first full year of their operation and saw 4,835 DTTOs—over 80 per cent. of our target of approximately 6,000. Some DTTO programmes were affected by local implementation problems, mainly relating to treatment capacity to handle referrals. Arrangements are now in place to ensure any difficulties are closely monitored and dealt with as they arise. Our ability to maintain effective operation is enhanced by the good working arrangements in place with the Department of Health and the National Treatment Agency to address problems quickly. The rate of the upward trend in DTTOs indicates that we should be on track to meet our target of 6,000 Orders in 2002–03.

  PSA Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will announce the outcome of his review of the PSA target to reduce the availability of class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008; [68797]

  (2) when the review of the target for the proportion of people under 25 using class A drugs will be completed. [68781]
  105W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The hon. Member for Buckingham has asked two questions about the drugs strategy targets. The reply to each question is the same and I am therefore responding to them together.

  The review of drugs strategy targets forms part of the current spending review (SR2002).

  Mrs. Zakir Ahmadyar
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will inquire into the case of Mrs. Zakir Ahmadyar to deal with the questions raised in the letter of 27 June, from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable); and if he will make a statement; [69426]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter of 27 June from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on Mrs. Zakir Ahmadyar; and if he will make a statement. [69425]

  Beverley Hughes
  The issues summarised in the hon. Member's letter of 27 June were the subject of communications between the hon. Member and my Private Office between 7 June and 17 June.

  My letter to him dated 8 July sought to apologise for those aspects of the handling of this case that were not satisfactory, as well as to explain the reasons for my decision.

  I am meeting the hon. Member soon to discuss this matter further.

  Speeding Convictions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drivers have lost their licence to drive as a result of speeding convictions in each of the last five years. [64213]

  Mr. Denham
  Information for England and Wales for the years 1996 to 2000 (latest available) is given in the table.

  Disqualifications imposed

  Number of offences

  1996

  9,587

  1997

  10,061

  1998

  12,215

  1999

  12,050

  2000

  11,283

  Police Standards Unit
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Police Standards Unit was established; how much it cost in 2001; how many staff it employs; and what its remit is. [62347]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 July 2002]: The first members of the Police Standards Unit started in post on 9 July 2001. The staffing compliment of the Unit is 29. To date £709,000 has been spent on the Unit.

  The Unit's terms of reference, as set out in the White Paper Policing a New Century: a blueprint for reform' are as follows:
  106W
  The Standards Unit exists to deliver the Government's commitment to raise standards and improve operational performance in the police and in crime reduction generally in order to maintain and enhance public satisfaction with policing in their area.

  Its core objective will he to identify and disseminate best practice in the prevention, detection and apprehension of crime in all forces in order to reduce crime and disorder as well as the fear of crime.

  The Unit will:
  Work with forces and Basic Command Units (BCUs) to ensure the most effective use of intelligence, detection and successful prosecution procedures;
  Identify BCUs or forces performing below their best based on Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reports, statistical information, or particular cases of concern;
  Engage directly with the BCU or force to establish the nature of the problems, the extent to which best practice may be lacking, and the remedial action required;
  Engage similarly with other local agencies where it is apparent that they are contributing significantly to the causes of poor performance;
  Identify where, in exceptional circumstances, combined cross-cutting measures engaging other agencies are required to focus on and achieve early change within a specific geographic area or BCU boundary;
  Draw validated best practice from HMIC, National Police Training, the Crime Reduction College and other agencies, spread its use through local engagement, and identify for professional evaluation any new examples or techniques it comes across;
  Have a capacity to provide short-term funding to support the remedial action it has identified and which could not otherwise be undertaken;
  Identify cases in which the Home Secretary should consider the use of powers under the Police Act (1996), the Local Government Act (1999), or other relevant legislation;
  Identify issues which raise policy, technical or legal questions for the Home Office to address.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work carried out to date by Dr Kevin Bond in respect of the Police Standards Unit. [61181]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Dr. Kevin Bond took up post on 7 January 2002. Under his leadership, the Police Standards Unit (PSU) is now developing a number of projects related to police performance management and the identification and dissemination of good practice in key areas.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff were involved in each of the last three years in preparing draft answers to written parliamentary questions; [49136]

  (2) what the cost was to his Department of answering written parliamentary questions in 2001; and how that cost was calculated. [49094]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend, Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Cook) on 17 April 2002,Official Report, column 929W. The Home Office answered 4,067 written questions in 2001, at an approximate cost of £516,195.

  Imported Labour
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many documented cases his Department have received from the Professional Contractors Group relating to employers in the technology sector importing labour from abroad in an effort to reduce employment costs; and what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that the work permit system is not abused in this way. [66015]

  Beverley Hughes
  In March 2002, the Professional Contractors Group (PCG) provided Work Permits UK (WPUK) Allegations team a dossier of 85 cases (relating to 61 separate employers) specifically relating to the replacement of United Kingdom Information Technology contractors with lower paid employees from overseas.

  Most of the cases are complaints about employment policies of employers, rather than specific allegations of abuse of the work permit arrangements, and as such it does not warrant any further action by Work Permits (UK). 12 cases contained specific information about abuse of the work permit arrangements, and these are being pursued by WPUK. A list has been returned to PCG setting out whether cases continue to be investigated.

  The overall aim of the work permit arrangements is to strike the right balance between enabling employers to recruit or transfer skilled people from abroad while safeguarding the interests of the resident work force. However, the arrangements cover only those vacancies which are to be filled by an employee working on a PAYE basis, and as such, there are safeguards to ensure that resident workers willing to work on such a basis are not disadvantaged.

  In the cases provided by the PCG, it is apparent that the majority refer to a 'contractor' being replaced by an incoming 'employee' (under PAYE). It is a commercial decision by the employer whether they offer employment terms on a self-employment, contractual or direct PAYE basis.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many work permit applications have been(a) granted and (b) refused by Work Permits UK on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria in each month since June 2001: [66014]

  (2) how many permit applications Work Permits UK have approved on the grounds of shortage occupations criteria when the specific skills possessed have been described as IT skills. [66012]

  Beverley Hughes
  Work Permits UK currently operates shortage occupation lists in respect of the Information Technology (IT), health care and engineering sectors and a fourth list in respect of other miscellaneous shortage occupations, which currently includes actuaries, Civil Aviation Authority licensed aircraft engineers, teachers and veterinary surgeons.
  108W
  The following table sets out the number of work permits approved and refused in each month in the period between 1 June 2001 and 30 June 2002 under shortage occupations criteria and those approved specifically under shortage occupations criteria in the IT sector in the same period:

  Work permit applications under shortage occupation criteria (all)

  Work permit applications under shortage occupation criteria (IT sector)

  Approved

  Refused

  Approved

  Refused

  2001

  June

  4,381

  72

  1,139

  30

  July

  4,979

  120

  1,126

  27

  August

  4,420

  99

  1,197

  32

  September

  3,617

  117

  1,142

  55

  October

  4,428

  97

  1,315

  40

  November

  3,975

  95

  1,188

  28

  December

  3,393

  142

  926

  33

  2002

  January

  4,392

  211

  1,476

  72

  February

  4,082

  303

  1,543

  99

  March

  4,617

  321

  1,596

  148

  April

  4,439

  253

  1,270

  149

  May

  4,606

  255

  1,136

  122

  June

  3,916

  150

  834

  71

  Total

  55,245

  2,235

  15,888

  906

  Civil Contingencies Secretariat
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 619W, on the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, if he will list (a) the members of the civil contingencies committee and (b) what reports it has made in the last five years; and if he will place the reports in the Library. [66064]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The only standing member of the Civil Contingencies Committee is the Chairman, the (Home Secretary). Others, including Her Majesty's Treasury and the devolved Administrations, are invited to attend, depending on the contingency.

  The Terms of Reference of the Civil Contingencies Committee are:
  "to co-ordinate the preparation of plans for ensuring in an emergency the supplies and services essential to the life of the community; to keep these plans under regular review; and to supervise their prompt and effective implementation in specific emergencies".
  The Civil Contingencies Committee has therefore made no reports in the last five years. However, I did update parliamentary colleagues by letter on this work on 1 November last year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 30 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to Mrs. Vida Obiri. [66210]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 July 2002.

  Pathology
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the(a) functions and (b) terms of reference of the Policy Advisory Board for Forensic Pathology are; how, and for how long, the board was appointed; what the membership is and who the officers of the board are; how it is serviced; and how many times it has met in the last year; [41103]

  (2) how many pathologists are approved for working with the police and coroners on suspicious deaths; what qualifications are required for a pathologist to be approved; in what circumstances a pathologist may be removed from the approved list; on how many occasions the disciplinary tribunal has met in the past 10 years; and what the results were of its deliberations. [41104]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The Police Advisory Board for Forensic Pathology, advises the Home Secretary on forensic pathology matters with particular reference to the national aspects of forensic pathology services in England and Wales, such as appointment and accreditation, quality assurance, training and Research and Development. The Board was set up by the then Home Secretary in 1990; there was no specified time limit to the Board.

  A copy of the Terms of Reference of the Board and a list of the current numbers has been placed in the Library.

  Officers of the Board are Anthony Whitehead (chair) who is also the head of Science and Technology Unit (STU) in the Home Office and Trevor Rothwell (Secretary). The Board is served by the two officers and STU. The Board meets annually. It last met in January 2001.

  There are currently 48 pathologists on the Home Office Register of Forensic Pathologist approved for working with the police on suspicious deaths.

  Before applying to be put on the register pathologists must:
  have a medical degree
  be a member of the Royal College of Pathologists
  have at least six months experience at an approved centre for training.
  In addition they must also have either

  the Diploma in Forensic Pathologists (through the Royal College of Pathologists)

  or
  the Diploma in Medical Jurisprudence (through the Society of Apothecaries).

  A pathologist not found to be performing appropriately in the first two years of his or her time as a Registrant, can be removed from the Register as the initial approval is time limited. Otherwise pathologists can be removed from the register by invoking the Board's Complaints and Disciplinary Procedures. Suspension or removal from the register is dependent on the outcome of a hearing of a Disciplinary Tribunal.

  In the last 10 years a disciplinary tribunal has been convened once. This Tribunal recused itself before the completion of the hearing.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52835]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 April 2002]: The information requested is in the table.

  DWP Library subscription to Newspapers as of 26 April 2002— cost showing annual average figure

  Newspaper

  Number

  Cost (£)

  Monday-Friday

  Financial Times

  27

  6,480.00

  Times

  21

  2,016.00

  Daily Telegraph

  18

  2,160.00

  Guardian

  19

  2,280.00

  Independent

  18

  2,160.00

  Daily Mail

  13

  1,248.00

  The Express

  8

  672.00

  Daily Mirror

  12

  844.80

  Sun

  11

  792.00

  Eastern Daily Press

  1

  240.00

  Le-Monde

  1

  240.00

  Daily Star

  7

  504.00

  Daily Record

  3

  252.00

  Evening Standard

  8

  756.00

  Evening Standard—News extra

  10

  840.00

  Scotsman

  4

  480.00

  Morning Star

  2

  288.00

  Liverpool Echo

  2

  480.00

  Manchester Evening News

  1

  240.00

  Total number and (annual costs)

  186

  22,972.80

  Saturday

  Times

  2

  67.20

  Daily Telegraph

  2

  —

  Guardian

  2

  96.00

  Independent

  2

  86.40

  Daily Mail

  1

  28.80

  The Express

  2

  24.00

  Daily Mirror

  1

  21.60

  Sun

  1

  19.20

  Le-Monde

  1

  48.00

  Daily Star

  1

  16.80

  Daily Record

  1

  19.20

  Scotsman

  1

  48.00

  Total number and (annual costs)

  17

  475.20

  Sunday

  Sunday FT

  8

  384.00

  Sunday Times

  2

  115.20

  Sunday Telegraph

  2

  96.00

  Sunday Observer

  2

  115.20

  Sunday Independent

  2

  115.20

  Mail on Sunday

  1

  52.80

  The Sunday Express

  1

  48.00

  Sunday Mirror

  1

  48.00

  News of the World

  1

  31.20

  Sunday People

  1

  31.20

  Sunday Post

  —

  31.20

  Scotland on Sunday

  —

  38.40

  Sunday Business

  1

  24.00

  Total number and (annual costs)

  22

  1,130.40

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62208]

  Maria Eagle
  During the last year Ministers and officials have met with all three of these organisations on a number of occasions.

  New Deal
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many New Deal schemes(a) he and (b) his Ministers have visited since 7 June 2001; and if he will make a statement. [63447]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 7 June 2001, Ministers in this Department have made over 30 visits to New Deal schemes and related events.

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was paid to carers through benefits and services in each of the last five years. [65138]

  Maria Eagle
  The requested information about benefit expenditure on carers is in the table.

  Carers can also be supported by services provided by local authorities and the NHS. In addition, local authorities in England were given powers to make direct payments to carers and people with parental responsibility for disabled children in April 2001. Information about the amount of money disbursed as direct payments was not collected centrally. Expenditure on such payments made by local authorities in Scotland and Wales are matters for the Scottish Executive and for the National Assembly for Wales, respectively.

  Benefit expenditure in Great Britain on carers—1996–97 to 2001–02

  £ million

  1996–97

  18,300

  1997–98

  16,950

  1998–99

  18,650

  1999–2000

  19,400

  2000–01

  19,400

  Notes:

  Based on estimates from the Family Resources Survey (FRS), 1996–97 to 2000–01, applied to actual benefit expenditure.

  1. Figures are estimates based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS), applied to outturn expenditure on each benefit. 2000–01 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. Carers are those who give help on an informal basis, not as part of a paid job. This includes children who care for others.

  3. On the FRS survey, what should be counted as care is not prescriptively defined. Respondents are asked about care between household members, and about care given to those outside the household.

  4. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.
  112W
  5. Benefit receipt on the FRS is based on self-assessment and therefore may be subject to misreporting.

  6. Figures are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  The carer status is a result of what the respondent says rather than the application on an objective definition.

  Castle Award
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department has applied for a Castle award for equal pay. [65223]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions has not applied for a Castle award for equal pay. The Department is however, fully committed to ensuring that equal pay remains a priority. To achieve this objective, an equal pay review was commissioned in 2001–02, undertaken by independent consultants. The review was completed earlier this year and the findings are currently under consideration.

  Attendance Allowance (Scotland)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions where he allocated the money for attendance allowance in Scotland following the decision of the Scottish Executive to implement free personal care for older people. [67151]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 633W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with reference to the section of his Department's guidance note on replying to written parliamentary questions requiring parliamentary questions to be answered fully, and pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 22 January 2002,Official Report column 808W, for what reason the information requested on 10 June 2002, Official Report, columns 872–73W, was not held in the format requested. [66475]

  Mr. McCartney
  The answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 808W, was in response to his question regarding the cost of administering child benefit and working families tax credit. The estimated cost of administering child benefit was taken from the 1998–99 financial year. The estimated cost of administering working families tax credit was provided by Inland Revenue.

  The answer provided on 10 June was in response to the hon. Member's request for a variety of individual items, including some sub-components of retirement benefit. The estimated cost of administering benefits is not maintained at such a detailed level. Consequently, it was not possible to provide a reply covering every item listed.

  However, in an attempt to be as helpful as possible, the answer given on 10 June 2002, Official Report, columns 872–73W also explained that the Department for Work and Pensions now accounts for its administrative and programme expenditure in accordance with its key objectives, which are published in the Department's
  113W
  Public Service Agreement (PSA), and the individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), which are published in the Department's Main Estimate.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many written parliamentary questions to his Department have been tabled in each month since May 1997. [68481]

  Maria Eagle
  Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Month

  Written questions tabled

  2001

  June

  108

  July

  291

  September

  9

  October

  371

  November

  579

  December

  294

  2002

  January

  432

  February

  337

  March

  453

  April

  249

  May

  239

  June

  240

  Year (ending April)

  Case load as at 30 November (thousand)

  Number of appeals cleared at hearing

  Number of appeals found in favour of the appellant

  Percentage of appeals found in favour of the appellant

  (i)Attendance Allowance

  2000

  1,291.3

  7,640

  3,420

  44.8

  2001

  1,295.4

  10,830

  5,030

  46.4

  (ii)Disablity Living Allowance

  2000

  2,197.7

  62,815

  30,090

  47.9

  2001

  2,298.0

  86,325

  45,150

  52.3

  (iii)Incapacity Benefit

  2000

  2,310.4

  42,285

  16,660

  40.4

  2001

  2,342.9

  33,910

  14,185

  41.8

  Figures are not available prior to 2000, as a change in the method of recording the type of appeal in the Generic Appeals Processing System as part of the introduction of Decision Making and Appeals regulations resulted in certain benefits being mapped incorrectly.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to support and develop the work of Prospects, the employment scheme for people with Asperger's syndrome. [68190]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department has a contract with the National Autistic Society's Prospects service to develop and test ways of helping people with Asperger's syndrome into work.

  This project provides us with a valuable opportunity to support a group of disabled people with entrenched problems resulting from their disabilities, and to learn about the provision of a specialist employment service for people with disabilities by a small voluntary organisation working in partnership with the public services.
  114W

  Parliamentary session

  Written questions tabled

  2000–01

  1,097

  1999–2000

  2,593

  1998–99

  1,980

  1997–98

  3,384

  Appeals
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 26 June 2002,Official Report, columns 941–42W, on appeals, (a) how many appeals were heard, (b) how many appeals were found in favour of the appellant and (c) what percentage of appeals were found in favour of the appellant, in each of the last four years for (i) attendance allowance, (ii) disability living allowance and (iii) incapacity benefit. [66837]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Neil Ward, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Neil Ward to Mr. Paul Holmes, dated 11 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent parliamentary questions on the subject of appeals against attendance allowance, disability living allowance; and, incapacity benefit. The available information is as follows:

  Evaluation of the project will improve our knowledge of how to support people suffering from this condition and will help the National Autistic Society in further developing the service for its clients.

  State Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2002,Official Report, columns 407–08W, why the Government decided that the higher uprating of the basic state pension should apply to basic state pension increments from April 2002. [68607]

  Mr. McCartney
  The decision was taken in order for the increments to maintain their proportionate value.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many self-employed people receive the full basic State Pension; and what percentage of the total this is. [69196]
  115W
  Mr. McCartney
  We do not collect information on the number of formerly self-employed people who have given up work and now receive a State Pension.

  The number of people working in a self-employed capacity and aged above State Pension age (60 for women; 65 for men) is in the table.

  Number

  Females over the State Pension age

  94,000

  Males over the State Pension age

  120,000

  Total

  214,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures in the table are from the Labour Force Survey—Winter 2001.

  2. The latest total number of people in Great Britain in receipt of a State Pension is 10.3 million—September 2001 administrative data.

  The total of 214,000 represents about 2 per cent. of the total number of people receiving a State Pension.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of(a) men and (b) women had contributed to national insurance for under 25 per cent. of the years required to receive the full basic State Pension in the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [69197]

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

  Percentage

  Proportion of single people and couples over State Pension age and receiving a State Retirement Pension 2000–01

  All single pensioners and pensioner couples

  Pensioner couples

  99

  Single male pensioners

  98

  Single female pensioners

  98

  Total

  98

  Recently retired single pensioners and pensioner couples1,2,3,4

  Pensioner couples

  98

  Single male pensioners

  96

  Single female pensioners

  94

  Total

  97

  1 It is possible to defer claiming State Pension for up to five years. Therefore, particularly among the recently retired pensioners, there will be people with entitlement to a State Pension who do not yet receive an income from their pension.

  2 These results are based on Table 8 of the Pensioners' Incomes Series 2000–01.

  3 Figures for Retirement Pension also include the other contributory benefits for the elderly, Widows' Benefits and Incapacity Benefit.

  4 Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single women aged 60–64; single men aged 65–69; and couples in which the man is aged 65–69.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of(a) men and (b) women receive the full basic State Pension. [691981

  Mr. McCartney
  The percentages of males and females who are entitled to a Basic State Pension and who receive the full basic State Pension are as set out in the table.
  116W

  Percentage of males and females who are entitled to a basic State Pension and who receive the full basic State Pension

  Male

  91

  Female

  83

  Notes:

  1. The figures are rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  1. The figures are taken from administrative data on 30 September 2001.

  2. Figures are for Great Britain.

  3. The table includes everyone in receipt of a Category A, AB, ABL, B, BL, or D State Pension.

  4. Full pension refers to people in receipt of the maximum amount of basic State Pension that applies to the category of pension they receive.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times the Child Support Agency has requested information from the Inland Revenue regarding the income of self-employed non-resident parents; and if he will make a statement. [69021]

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

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 15 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply by me.
  You have asked how many times the Child Support Agency has requested information from the Inland Revenue regarding the income of self employed non-resident parents.
  In the year to 31st March 2002 the Child Support Agency issued 19,182 self-employed earnings enquiries to the Inland Revenue's Tax Information Distribution Office. In the immediately preceding year 9,121 enquiries were made.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits (Promotion)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 629W, what the total cost was of advertising and promoting benefits in 2000–01, broken down by each campaign. [70069]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The total cost of advertising social security benefits in 2000–01 was £4.4 million. Production, distribution and other costs totalled a further £3 million.

  The breakdown of spend is shown in the following table:

  £

  Campaign

  Advertising and media

  Other costs

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  3,365,000

  176,000

  Inherited SERPS

  340,000

  345,000

  Winter Fuel Payments

  616,000

  294,000

  Bereavement Benefits

  155,000

  90,000

  Benefits information leaflets for customers and advisers—production and distribution

  1—

  2,132,419.

  1 Promoted through posters, exhibitions, conferences and the Internet. Individual spends could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Taiwan
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support he has provided to the Government of Taiwan in support of Taiwan's application for observer status at the World Health Organisation. [65215]

  Mr. Lammy
  Taiwan's relationship to the World Health Organisation was discussed at the world health assembly general committee in May 2002. There was no consensus in the committee for the matter to be discussed in the main assembly session.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foster carers there are in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) the North-east and (c) England; how many foster carers there were in each year from 1997 to 2001 in (i) Jarrow constituency, (ii) the North-east and (iii) England; and what his Department is doing to address the need for foster carers. [67041]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no central statistical collection in this area. Foster carer data are collected through the training support grant (TSP), and this relates to approved foster carers. Data can be found in the table shown. Figures are available from 1998 only.

  Foster carer recruitment is a very important area, in which a lot of work is being taken forward. The Department is currently undertaking a major review ("Choice Protects") of the commissioning of placements, with a special emphasis on foster care services—so that choice and stability of placements may be improved for children in care. Within this, we will be examining:

  Role and status of foster carers;

  Recruitment and retention;

  What support services are required;

  Best ways to reward foster carers;

  The training needs of foster carers.

  Details of the numbers of approved foster carers taken from the TSP application forms for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Local authority names

  Directly Contracted by local council

  contracted via Independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  1998–99

  LAs covered by Jarrow and Hebburn

  Gateshead

  133

  0

  133

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  North East

  Darlington

  48

  0

  48

  Durham

  237

  1

  238

  Gateshead

  133

  0

  133

  Hartlepool

  72

  1

  73

  Middlesbrough

  110

  0

  110

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  230

  0

  230

  North Tyneside

  140

  0

  140

  Northumberland

  17

  0

  170

  Redcar and Cleveland

  70

  0

  70

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  Sunderland

  218

  0

  218

  England totals

  29,805

  845

  30,650

  118W

  Details of the numbers of approved foster carers taken from the TSP application forms for the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Local authority names

  Directly Contracted by local council

  contracted via Independent agency

  Total number of foster carers

  1999–2000

  LAs covered by Jarrow and Hebburn

  Gateshead

  120

  2

  122

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  North East

  Darlington

  54

  8

  62

  Durham

  256

  1

  257

  Gateshead

  120

  2

  122

  Hartlepool

  69

  3

  72

  Middlesbrough

  70

  2

  72

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  203

  25

  228

  North Tyneside

  185

  2

  187

  Northumberland

  160

  2

  162

  Redcar and Cleveland

  65

  0

  65

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  Sunderland

  218

  0

  218

  England totals

  30,166

  1,085

  31,251

  2000–01

  LAs covered by Jarrow and Hebburn

  Gateshead

  120

  0

  120

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  North East

  Darlington

  59

  7

  66

  Durham

  215

  0

  215

  Gateshead

  120

  0

  120

  Hartlepool

  67

  0

  67

  Middlesbrough

  77

  3

  80

  Newcastle upon tyne

  270

  37

  307

  North Tyneside

  135

  0

  135

  Northumberland

  140

  2

  142

  Redcar and Cleveland

  70

  0

  70

  South Tyneside

  142

  0

  142

  Sunderland

  218

  0

  218

  England totals

  30,645

  1,532

  32,177

  2001–02

  LAs covered by Jarrow and Hebburn

  Gateshead

  130

  0

  130

  South Tyneside

  97

  15

  112

  North East

  Darlington

  49

  12

  61

  Durham

  215

  0

  215

  Gateshead

  130

  0

  130

  Hartlepool

  67

  0

  67

  Middlesbrough

  86

  11

  97

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  321

  19

  340

  North Tyneside

  140

  0

  140

  Northumberland

  172

  2

  174

  Redcar and Cleveland

  70

  0

  70

  South Tyneside

  97

  15

  112

  Sunderland

  238

  0

  238

  England totals

  30,342

  2,023

  32,365

  2002–03

  LAs covered by Jarrow and Hebburn

  Gateshead

  130

  0

  130

  South Tyneside

  61

  0

  61

  North East

  Darlington

  51

  0

  51

  Durham

  225

  0

  225

  Gateshead

  130

  0

  130

  Hartlepool

  54

  1

  55

  Middlesbrough

  99

  9

  108

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  290

  28

  318

  North Tyneside

  155

  0

  155

  Northumberland

  172

  2

  174

  Redcar and Cleveland

  61

  0

  61

  South Tyneside

  61

  0

  61

  Sunderland

  301

  0

  301

  England totals

  30,353

  1,206

  31,559

  Birth Statistics
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to address women's health issues regarding(a) premature birth, (b) still birth and (c) miscarriage. [67064]

  Jacqui Smith
  In order to improve the wellbeing of pregnant women and outcome for babies, the Department has:Commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to issue clinical guidelines on:

  use of electronic fetal monitoring—this helps evaluation of fetal wellbeing in labour with the aim of reducing perinatal mortality and cerebral palsy of the newborn.

  induction of labour—which provides safe clinical practices to reduce perinatal mortality.

  use of Anti D prophylaxis for rhesus negative mothers—which helps prevent Haemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) and still births.

  Further guidelines are awaited on antenatal care and caesarean sections, both of which will further help reduce fetal risks.

  Extended the Sure Start programme which helps families in disadvantaged areas to support to women in the antenatal period as well, since women in these areas are more likely to have still births, pre mature births and miscarriages.

  Invested to increase the number of midwives to provide additional support throughout pregnancy and childbirth.

  Commenced the development of a children's national service framework (NSF) including maternity services. The overarching aim for the NSF is to enable childbearing women, children and young people to develop healthy lifestyles. The NSF will set national standards of care to cover pre conception, antenatal and intra partum services.

  Social Services
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to direct resources towards under-performing social service authorities. [67823]

  Jacqui Smith
  Poor performance will not be rewarded with additional resources. In four of the 10 councils rated as zero where we do not believe they have the capacity to improve by themselves, we are providing external assistance from the performance fund.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to add an ethnicity element to the foster care adjustment in the children's personal social services formula grant. [67821]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Raynsford) launched a consultation on options for the reform of the local government finance system on 8 July. This included options on possible changes to the foster care adjustment in the children's personal social services formula grant. One of the options includes an ethnicity element. No decisions have yet been taken and we would welcome representation from all interested parties.

  Laming Report
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the Laming report has not been published; when and by what mechanism it will be published; and when he will respond to the report. [67779]
  120W
  Jacqui Smith
  Lord Laming continues to receive and to consider evidence, and intends to complete his report later this year. It will be published, following its receipt by the Secretaries of State for Health and the Home Department, and will be made widely available. We will respond to the report once its findings and recommendations has been considered.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the co-ordination of neonatal intensive care with the paediatric surgical sub-specialisation of(a) cleft lip and palate, (b) ophthalmology and (c) otolaryngology; [67662]

  (2) what his policy is on establishing a set of national care standards for neonatal intensive care; [67671]

  (3) what his policy is on the recruitment, retention and career progression of neonatal intensive care nurses; [67672]

  (4) what assessment he makes of the staffing levels for doctors and nurses in neonatal intensive care; and what plans he has to increase these; [67667]

  (5) how the needs of sick or premature new-born infants are categorised in the NHS; and what changes he proposes to make to these; [67668]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the availability of capacity to meet demand in neonatal intensive care; [67675]

  (7) what his policy is on the co-ordination of neonatal intensive care with the paediatric sub-specialisation of (a) cardiology, (b) neurosurgery, (c) neurology, (d) nephrology, (e) radiology, (f) hepatology, (g) gastroenterology, (h) endocrinology and (i) haematology; [67663]

  (8) what arrangements he will make to build networks to facilitate and exchange information on research into neonatal intensive care; [67664]

  (9) what assessment he makes of the impact of restrictions on hours of work for junior doctors on the provision of neonatal intensive care; [67673]

  (10) what action he plans to make available statistics on types of treatment given and outcomes in neonatal intensive care other than mortality; [67674]

  (11) what action he intends to take to improve the co-ordination between neonatal intensive care facilities and general maternity facilities in the NHS; [67669]

  (12) what provisions are made in the NHS for parents of sick or premature new-born infants who require neonatal intensive care; [67670]

  (13) what assessment he has made of the changes needed in the organisation of neonatal intensive care; and if he will make a statement. [67661]

  Jacqui Smith
  A review has been undertaken of provision for neonatal services which addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member. I have received a report following the review. This is currently under active consideration. I expect to determine the next steps in this process shortly.

  Care Home Beds
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of nursing and care home beds in Surrey which have closed since June 2001. [68041]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is not available centrally.

  Prescription Charges
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges; [68071]

  (2) whether the list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges has been reviewed since 1998. [68072]

  Mr. Lammy
  The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption has not been reviewed since 1998 and we have no plans to do so. Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions.

  Young Disabled People
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken since 1997 to help remove barriers to young disabled people achieving an independent social life. [68181]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to maximising support to disabled young people so that they have the same chance to succeed and participate in society as their non-disabled peers. As part of the Government's Quality Protects programme we have set national objectives to improve family support and inclusive sport and leisure services for disabled children and young people. We have earmarked £60 million over three years from the children's special grant—£15 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04. The 2001 national overview report of local authority's Quality Protects Management Action Plans shows that councils are improving services by providing more: family support; accessible after-school activities; supported access to leisure facilities; transport to facilities and specialist support workers. Through the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, we have introduced direct payments for 16 and 17-year-old disabled young people. This will increase choice, flexibility and access to services of their choice.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance he gives to disabled people who are moving into adulthood. [68183]

  Jacqui Smith
  In "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21' Century", issued in 2001, the Government set a national objective to improve transition services for young disabled people as they enter adulthood and in particular to ensure continuity of care and support. We have taken action to improve services in a number of ways:Learning disability partnership boards have been asked to identify a member with lead responsibility for transition issues. Person-centred planning is being introduced for all young people moving from children's to adult's services by 2003.
  122W
  The new Connexions personal advisers will identify disabled young people in their area and will work with the school and other relevant agencies to draw up the transition plans.
  New guidance on improving multi-agency transition support for young disabled people leaving school has been included in the revised SEN Code of Practice.
  For disabled young people leaving care, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 places a duty on councils to provide young people aged 16 and over in and leaving care with support.

  Dermatology
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to fill vacant dermatology positions in the NHS; and what plans he has to increase the trainee posts in dermatology. [69517]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service vacancy survey collects information on the number of posts, which trusts are actively trying to fill which have been vacant for three months or more. As at 31 March 2002 there were 20 posts (6.0 per cent. vacancy rate) that had been vacant for three months or more in dermatology.

  Increased vacancies are to be expected at a time when we are trying to dramatically increase the size of the work force. New investment enables NHS trusts to create new posts however there can be a delay in providing sufficient staff for all the posts. The number of consultants in dermatology increased from 343 in September 1999 to 387 in March 2002. This is an increase of 13 per cent.

  In the short-term we are looking to boost the number of doctors through measures such as increasing progression through training, improved recruitment and retention measures, recruiting internationally and promoting flexible retirement. In the longer term we are substantially increasing the number of doctors in training.

  As at 30 September 2001 there were 265 specialist registrars in dermatology in the NHS in England. These increases, together with existing specialist registrar training places are expected to result in a consultant expansion in dermatology of 47 per cent. by 2010.

  Kosmed System
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the Kosmed system of treatment produced by Eumedic Ltd.; [66795]

  (2) what plans he has to assess the Kosmed system of treatment produced by Eumedic Ltd. [66796]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answers 4 July 2002]: None.

  Child Welfare
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) intends to commission into the cost savings which could be achieved for the NHS relating to effective measures to prevent the physical and emotional abuse of children; [67951]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the mental health consequences and the costs to the NHS associated with mental health problems consequent upon the physical and emotional abuse of children. [67950]
  123W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 8 July 2002]: No such research has been commissioned or is currently planned. Child and adolescent mental health services would be expected to assess the mental health problems of physically or emotionally abused children who are referred to them and to provide an appropriate service response.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement concerning his evaluation of the 24 CAMHS innovation projects. [68163]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: Each child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) innovation project is required to submit an annual report, receive annual monitoring visits and be individually evaluated. These individual evaluations are now approaching completion. The Department is working with YoungMinds on an overall evaluation of the programme and this overview report is due to be published in autumn 2002. This report will be launched at a national conference as part of the overall dissemination plan for the CAMHS innovation programme.

  Looked-after Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2002,Official Report, column 240W, on looked-after children, if he will set out his definition of (a) children in care and (b) children looked-after; and if he will make a statement. [67175]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: Children in care are those who are being looked after by the local authority as the result of a care order made by the court under section 31 of the Children Act 1989.

  Children looked after is a term used to include both those children defined in (a), and those provided with care by a local authority and placed in accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act (voluntarily accommodated).

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have looked-after children status in(a) the Isle of Sheppey, (b) Kent and (c) England. [67703]

  Jacqui Smith
  At 31 March 2001 there were 58,900 looked-after children in England, and 1,770 in Kent. These figures exclude children who were accommodated under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  Figures for the Isle of Sheppey are not available.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2002,Official Report, column 1229W, on examination results (children in care), how many of those children who obtained (a) no GCSEs and (b) fewer than five GCSE passes at grade A to C went on to take resits. [67623]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Department's data on the educational qualifications of looked-after children does not separately identify those children who re-sat GCSE examinations.

  Working Minds
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has evaluated the Working Minds programme. [67954]
  124W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: An evaluation of the 'mind out for mental health' campaign, including the Working Minds programme, has been undertaken by an independent research company. We are currently considering the findings of this evaluation. A summary of the results has been shared with campaign partners and stakeholders.

  High Secure Hospitals
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have moved from high secure hospitals to more appropriate accommodation since 1 April 2001. [68058]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: 238 patients considered to no longer require care and treatment in the high security hospitals have moved to more appropriate settings since 1 April 2001. This includes patients moving to other national health service or private hospital facilities, returning to prison or being discharged into the community.

  Mycobacterium Bovis
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of mycobacterium bovis were found in humans in the United Kingdom in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [68506]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Information provided by the Public Health Laboratory Service show the number of cases of mycobacterium bovis (bovine TB) in humans for 2000 was 28. Data for 2001 are still being collected.

  Acute Capacity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the funding given to the NHS in 2002–03 to expand acute capacity was used to pay for the consequential costs in social care. [68517]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: In 2002–03, health authorities received an average increase of 9.9 per cent. in their unified allocations. From this growth in funding it is for local organisations to decide how much to invest in the consequential costs in social care depending on local circumstances.

  Henoch Schonlein Purpura
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children broken down by age, have been diagnosed with Henoch Schonlein Purpura in each of the last 10 years. [68932]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the questionnaire that is being sent to residents in care homes as part of the annual residents' report by the NCSC; and if he will make a statement on the cost of the questionnaire. [68776]
  125W
  Jacqui
  Smith [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The National Care Standards Commission is consulting service users and representative organisations as part of its inspection process.

  This is a considerable challenge to a new organisation, given the wide range of service users receiving care in care homes.

  Service user feedback is essential to ensure that the Commission's approach is right and a range of survey material will be produced to meet different needs. One of the approaches currently being used is a simple feedback card with six 'tick box' questions. This is based on similar cards used in the past, although it is subject to review and change.

  The pre-paid method of returning these cards is currently being costed.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ring-fenced grants were made available to local authorities in financial year 2001–02. [68291]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The table shows what ring-fenced grants were made available to local authorities by the Department in the financial year 2001–02.

  Grant

  £000

  AIDS Support Grant

  16,500

  Drugs and Alcohol Specific Grant

  8,850

  Mental Health Grant

  149,443

  Training Support Programme

  47,500

  Children's Services Grant

  291,750

  Secure Accommodation Grant

  6,228

  Promoting Independence Grant

  296,000

  Carers' Grant

  70,000

  Care Direct Grant

  2,000

  Deferred Payments Scheme

  15,000

  Improving Information Management Grant

  3,000

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant

  4,500

  Building Care Capacity Grant

  100,000

  Invest to Save Grant

  1,330

  Children's National Service Framework
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the timetable is for the mental health component of the children's national service framework; and if he will make a statement. [68164]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The acute care module of the children's national service framework (NSF) will be published later this year. A timetable has yet to be finalised for publication of the rest of the children's NSF.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further meetings are planned in 2002 of the child and adolescent mental health working group of the children's national service framework. [68105]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The next meeting of the child and adolescent mental health working group of the children's national service framework will be held on 11 and 12 September.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inmates in British prisons were suffering from(a) severe and (b) other mental illness on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many there were in each of the previous six years. [67704]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health crisis resolution teams have all five required characteristics. [68133]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The numbers and configuration of crisis resolution teams are being monitored by the mental health mapping project. Data from autumn 2001 have recently become available. Copies of a mental health mapping atlas, which contains this information, have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health crisis resolution teams provide a 24 hour service; and what proportion they represent of the total number of each team. [68132]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The numbers and configuration of crisis resolution teams are being monitored by the mental health mapping project. Data from autumn 2001 have recently become available. Copies of a mental health mapping atlas, which contains this information, have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) he and (b) his Ministers have met Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions to discuss ways of helping those with mental health problems to find work. [68150]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 February 2002, Official Report, column 941W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money for child and adolescent mental health services is allocated for 2002–03 and each of the next three years. [68162]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: In 2002–03 we are investing a further £20 million in funding to local authorities via the child and adolescent mental health services mental health grant. This represents an increase of £5 million over the funding allocated in 2001–02. No decisions have been made on funding for the next three years.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent reports he has received concerning the involvement of churches in working with health and social services to promote mental health; and if he will make a statement as to his assessment of the effectiveness of such involvement. [68104]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The Department has received no reports recently concerning involvement of churches in working with health and social services to promote mental health.

  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 13 November 2001, Official Report, column 679W, on the role of the church and mental health.
  127W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental health assertive outreach teams have all seven required characteristics. [68131]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The numbers and configuration of assertive outreach teams are being monitored by the mental health mapping project. Data from autumn 2001 have recently become available. Copies of a mental health mapping atlas, which contains this information, have been deposited in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many crisis resolution teams for mental health there are in(a) Worcestershire, (b) County Durham and (c) Darlington. [68134]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: There are currently no crisis resolution teams operating in Worcestershire, County Durham or Darlington.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of assertive outreach teams provide a 24 hour on-call service available to service users known to the team. [68130]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2002]: The numbers and configuration of assertive outreach teams are being monitored by the mental health mapping project. Data from autumn 2001 have recently become available. Copies of a mental health mapping atlas, which contains this information, have been deposited in the Library.

  Hospital Trust Boards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the(a) minimum and (b) maximum age requirement for appointment as members of hospital trust boards; [69354]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the recommended retirement age for members of hospital trusts. [69355]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answers 12 July 2002]: There is no minimum or maximum age for chairs or non-executive members of national health service boards. Candidates are appointed on their merits, and their age is not taken into account.

  Medical/Dental Education
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental education programmes in Scotland include infection control and anti-microbial prescribing. [61318]

  Mrs. McGuire
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  Both the Government and the Scottish Executive want to see good training in this area. On 25 June this year, the Executive made available £100,000 to promote and enhance undergraduate teaching in Scottish Medical Schools of issues relating to anti-microbial resistance.

  Child Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is given to parents to help with child care costs. [68255]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.
  128W
  Working parents, subject to the level of their income, may receive support through the child care tax credit element of the working families tax credit or the disabled person's tax credit for eligible child care costs. This offers help with up to 70 per cent. of costs up to £135 a week for one child or £200 a week for two or more children. Support is also available through various grants and access funds for parents studying further and higher education, for participants on the New Deals and those receiving job seekers allowance.

  Students in higher education in England may be entitled to the HE child care grant, which provides—during term time and short vacations—an 85 per cent. contribution towards the costs of 'approved' care up to a maximum of £135 per week for one child and £200 per week for two or more children. In the long vacation a 70 per cent. rate applies. Students in further education can apply to colleges for funding from a ring fenced national FE child care support fund of £30 million in 2001–02. £25 million was available in 2000–01.

  Lone parents participating in the New Deal for lone parents programme, can receive assistance with the costs of registered child care while attending job interviews, approved training or meetings with their personal adviser.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated for the National Childcare Strategy; and what measures there are to monitor spending. [68253]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1998, £498 million has been allocated to Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) under the NCS. The bulk of the funding is paid quarterly in arrears, based on claims submitted by the relevant local authorities for expenditure in line with their approved plans.

  Payments are offset against the funds allocated to each Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership (EYDCP) and expenditure is monitored against the relevant targets in their agreed plans.

  NCS questions for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should be taken up with the appropriate assembly.

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available to support(a) the National Service Framework for Older People and (b) the provision of chiropody services within the National Service Framework for Older People in the current financial year. [69406]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: By 2003–04, an extra £1.4 billion is being made available for the overall development of health and social services for older people, including resources to support the introduction of the national service framework for older people, which includes actions for the development of chiropody services.

  The Government are making the biggest ever investment in the history of the national health service. There will be an annual average increase of 7.5 per cent. above inflation over the next five years 2003–04 to
  129W
  2007–08. This is now the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding and older people—the biggest users of the NHS, will be among the principal beneficiaries.

  Free Personal Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to evaluate the implementation of free personal care; and whether the views of self-funding residents will be sought. [69553]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2002]: The decision to make personal care free was taken by the Scottish Executive, and the evaluation of that policy will be a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) were waiting for in-patient
  130W
  treatment, (b) had been waiting for over 12 months for in-patient treatment and (c) had been waiting over 15 months for in-patient treatment, in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area in the last two months for which figures are available. [69029]

  Mr. Lammy
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 July 2002, c. 1208W]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:

  The latest available information on in-patients and day cases waiting for treatment at the Mid-Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust are shown in the table:

  End of April 2002

  End of May 2002

  For in-patient treatment and day case treatment

  9,874

  9,986

  Waiting over 12 months

  269

  232

  Waiting over 15 months

  0

  0

  Source:

  DHSC monthly fast track figures

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Child Offenders
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the growing number of crimes committed by children too young to be brought before the courts, they have any plans to reduce the age of criminal responsibility.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is currently 10 and Her Majesty's Government have no plans to reduce it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that age is not necessarily an accurate basis for distinguishing between right and wrong? Is it possible that a spate of youth crime may start at a younger age?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that age is not necessarily the right dividing line for those who can determine between right and wrong, but an age of criminal responsibility is needed. I accept that in certain places there are those, under the age of 10, who commit crimes and anti-social behaviour. I do not believe that the correct way to deal with them is to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. Our age of criminal responsibility is one of the lowest in Europe. I believe that Scotland is the only country that has a lower age and it has been advised by the Law Commission that it should be increased to 12. The right course is to intervene as early as possible to try to prevent people going down the path of crime.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister accepts that our age of criminal responsibility is one of the lowest in Western Europe. Does the Minister also accept that the best way to deal with children is to adopt the practices used in many European countries where children are dealt with in family courts where supervision and care are more of a concern than any criminal process? Would such a process help to reduce crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, when a child under the age of 10 is drawn to the attention of the authorities for committing anti-social behaviour or a crime, he or she is treated as a child in need under the 1988 Act and social services consider the correct course for that child. I wholly agree that in relation to a child under 10 all steps should be taken to consider
954
what is the best way to divert him or her from a life of crime. When a child is 10 or older, difficult decisions have to be made about the extent to which criminal proceedings are appropriate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective 'ways of reducing juvenile crime at whatever age is to ensure extra support early enough for families in the most deprived areas? Does he further agree that nipping the very first signs of truancy in the bud is a necessary part of the equation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I wholly agree that the best possible support should be provided to prevent children turning to crime at any age. I fully accept the basis of the noble Baroness's question. First, I draw her attention to the Sure Start programme, which seeks to achieve that and, secondly, to the Government's focus on seeking to ensure, for example, that children who are excluded from school nevertheless receive full-time education. All of us know the close connection between exclusion from school and the commission of crime.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while accepting the answers given so far by my noble and learned friend, does he agree that there may be some justification for increasing the degree of responsibility and perhaps punishment for adults who may influence young children to commit crimes?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, indeed. All too often one hears of occasions when children and parents are engaged together in shoplifting activities. One should come down as hard as possible on parents who urge their children to commit criminal offences.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the legal position of children who, according to recent truancy reports, are encouraged to stay away from school in order to engage in shoplifting?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the legal position depends on the age of the child, but if a parent incites a child who is over the age of criminal responsibility to commit a criminal offence, that is the crime of incitement. As the noble Viscount will know, the Government have been keen to ensure that the strictest possible measures are taken by courts in dealing with parents who do not ensure that their children attend school when they can.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, does the Minister agree that treating troubled and damaged young children as criminals makes them more troubled and damaged? Section 130 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 has allowed many more children on remand to be locked up in secure places which are overcrowded and an experiment, to be conducted in 10 areas, is to be rolled out in September of this year. In the light of the large numbers of young children who have been locked

955
up under that section, does he agree that the implementation of the section throughout the country should be postponed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not agree with the last proposal. Difficult decisions have to be made about children who are above the age of criminal responsibility in relation to crimes that they commit. Where, for example, crimes such as street robbery are on the increase, it is necessary for judgments to be made as to how best to protect the community. That does not mean that where it is appropriate for an individual child to be given help rather than to undergo criminal proceedings, that that should not be provided, because that would help to reduce reoffending. However, it is not a one-way street. The protection of the community also has to be considered.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thought that we were dealing with children under the age of criminal responsibility. If that is the case, would it be possible to introduce, without criminalisation, a way in which magistrates could make an effective order that social services would have to implement?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the question is indeed about the criminal age of responsibility. As I indicated before in answer to an earlier question, where a child comes to the attention of the authorities because it has committed an act of anti-social behaviour or a crime, that child is treated as a child in need and the social services investigate the correct course to pursue. That is better than bringing the child before the court in every case.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the Minister said that England has the lowest age of criminal responsibility and that Scotland is being advised to raise the age there to 12. Is the Minister considering raising the age of criminal responsibility in England?
Given the success of parenting orders and the need that many of these children have for clear boundaries, does the Minister hope that some of the money that the Chancellor is today investing in schools will go to better parenting education in schools so that students leaving school will be better equipped to manage family life?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thoroughly support the underlying sentiment of the second part of the question; namely, that money spent on parenting orders and on helping people to understand their responsibilities as parents is money well spent. But it is not for me to determine how the education budget should be spent.
As to the first part of the question about whether we are thinking of increasing the age of criminal responsibility, as I made clear in Answer to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, we are not.

Southern Africa
2.44 p.m.
Lord Astor of Heverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What decisions were reached at the G8 Summit in Canada about the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD) and in particular Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, at the G8 summit leaders welcomed the initiative taken by African leaders in adopting the New Partnership for Africa's Development. They agreed to build a new way of working together, focusing especially on those countries that demonstrate commitment to good governance, that invest in their people and that pursue policies that spur economic growth and alleviate poverty. There are no specific references to Zimbabwe in the G8 Action Plan for Africa. But it makes clear commitments to respond to NePAD efforts to improve governance across Africa.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can she assure the House that the Commonwealth initiative at the African Union meeting in Duban last week is not a road to compromise on its previous decision to suspend? Considering that Zimbabwe was suspended because of a fraudulent presidential election, can she assure the House that the Government will not support any move to remove the suspension until a free and fair election is held?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I understand the situation, there are parallel initiatives. Noble Lords will know that the governments of South Africa and Nigeria sought to facilitate dialogue between the two political parties in Zimbabwe. Commonwealth leaders suspended Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth. It is suspended for one year. That remains the position. The UK Government support it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, many international gatherings are considering Zimbabwe, and the situation gets worse. Bearing in mind that Mr Mugabe is a member of the Roman Catholic Church—I am not sure of what standing—does the Minister agree that it may be opportune for Her Majesty's Government and to the world community to ask the Vatican to intercede in this great tragedy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is one suggestion. Noble Lords will know that we have sought to ensure that we pursue all avenues. We are concerned about Zimbabwe, particularly the deteriorating humanitarian situation and the economic mismanagement, which is having an impact on the countries in the region. I shall certainly take back the noble Lord's idea.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, did the G8 summit discuss the problems of Angola? Coming out

957
of the war into peace has proved much more difficult than one imagined, because of both the scale of the poverty and the scale of the hunger caused by the war. What is being done to make sure that food aid especially is made available and to bring about a quick improvement to the situation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there was discussion of Angola. The G8 action plan makes reference to three specific conflicts where the international community, and in particular the G8 countries, feel that there needs to be concerted international action; that is, the Sudan, the D RC and Angola. We remain committed to work with the UN and others not only to get food aid into Angola but also to those from UNITA who are disarming and demobilising. We shall continue to do that, but the situation remains difficult in terms of distribution channels.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that having tried to deal with problems in South Africa over a period of six years, I understand well the frustrating difficulties of trying to grapple with a situation of this kind from thousands of miles away? Does she further agree that if international pressure is to have the effect that we would all wish upon the catastrophic tragedy in Zimbabwe, it needs to be pervasive, comprehensive—not least throughout Africa—and sustained unflinchingly on every possible occasion?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord. In my comments to this House. I have made that absolutely clear. It is particularly important that that pressure comes from governments within Africa and from the neighbouring countries that are being severely affected economically by the mismanagement of the Zimbabwe economy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what immediate steps are being taken by the G8 countries, including the United Kingdom, to deal with the unfolding tragedy in Malawi? It is estimated, as the Minister will know, that something like one-third of children are close to starvation? Can she say what steps are being taken urgently to try to relieve this unfolding catastrophe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the food aid and famine situation not only in Zimbabwe but across the southern African region is deeply distressing and difficult. Malawi is one example. We have been working with the World Food Programme. At a meeting in South Africa it laid out for the international community the situation facing the whole region. We have been working with it and with non-governmental organisations to facilitate the delivery of food aid to Malawi. The pressing and immediate issue is humanitarian, but we will continue to work with the Government of Malawi on a longer-term, bilateral basis to try to ensure that such situations are not repeated.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the reaction of the African states to
958
Mr Mugabe at the African Union meeting presided over by President Gaddafi was not exactly reassuring? Can she tell the House precisely what we are to urge at the General Affairs Council on the 22nd of this month? Will we urge that pressure be brought to bear by all European countries on all their African partners to ensure that maize is planted now for next year? Will the question of HIV also be considered, as most of the HIV clinics, which are partly run by farmers' wives on farms, are closing? Finally, will anything be done to prevent the families of Ministers travelling, not just the Ministers themselves?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the travel ban is a European Union ban. I am sure that it will be considered again at the GAC meeting next Monday. It will be for the EU to decide whether to extend the ban as the noble Baroness suggests. We have been pressing our EU partners and working with them consistently over Zimbabwe, so that is not a new item on the agenda for consideration on Monday. The dialogue will continue.
On HIV/AIDS, the noble Baroness will be aware that that is an area in which we have continued our bilateral assistance to Zimbabwe because of the terrible impact that it is having on ordinary Zimbabweans.

Network Rail
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Goschenasked Her Majesty's Government:
What influence they will have over the management of Network Rail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government will not have new statutory or other powers over the management of Network Rail, but the Strategic Rail Authority will have a non-executive director on the board of the company and will set a framework within which Network Rail must deliver a required output.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, given that Network Rail will be operated in accordance with the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan; that it will be regulated by the SRA; that its accounts will be incorporated in those of the SRA; and that the SRA, a government body, will be providing an equity cushion—a de facto guarantee—how can that company be determined to be a private company?
Secondly, will the Minister now answer the Question that I asked his noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 27th June: how much will that synthetic structure cost the taxpayer in the additional costs of borrowing commercially, rather than on the gilt market?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right to say that the National Audit Office has ruled that Network Rail will be a subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority and that the SRA's accounts will include Network Rail's assets and liabilities. That accords with generally accepted accounting principles. It is also true that the Office for National Statistics, which is of course an independent body, has ruled that Network Rail is not a public sector company. It made that ruling in line with the European standard of accounts 1995. Different rules are produced for different purposes. We as a government intend as far as possible to accord with generally accepted accounting practice and have been outstandingly successful in so doing.
I am not familiar with the exact question that the noble Viscount asked my noble friend Lord Macdonald, so I shall have to write to the noble Viscount about that.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, on the question of accounting practices, can my noble friend confirm that the Government are guaranteeing the overdraft of the new company? Under the new set of accounts that the Government will have to prepare under their latest Bill, will that not appear as a contingent liability of the Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. That will appear as a contingent liability. The credit facilities will be provided by the SRA—they constitute a large sum at present because there has been a substantial lack of investment. Under the 10-year plan, we propose an annual investment in the railways, on top of running costs, of £4.6 billion a year on average, which is three times the figure devoted to the railways during the 10 years before 1997.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, is not the Answer that the Minister should have given to my noble friend Lord Goschen that Network Rail has fallen between two stools? It is not a government organisation, so it does not have the advantage of being able to borrow cheaply on the gilt market, which could save it hundreds of millions of pounds a year; but it is not a private company, so it does not have the advantage of private sector involvement and accounting ability? It is a mess.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as for the advantage of private sector accounting ability, Network Rail will have roughly 100 members, of whom about 40 will be from the rail industry. The rest will represent the public interest and the Strategic Rail Authority.
As for what Network Rail will have to pay for its finance, we shall see. Clearly, bridge finance will need to be provided—the current amount is up to £10 billion. But Railtrack was taking money from the taxpayer on a very large scale after privatisation and before we got a grip of it. Let us see. I think that
960
Network Rail will be able to arrange longer-term credit facilities, in the manner that Eurotunnel did rather successfully.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, one way or another, very large sums are being provided for the new company by the Government. How will the Government explain to ordinary people, whose money in effect it is, how improvements will be obtained in three of the matters that cause the most concern: first, the lack of a proper engineering ethos within the former Railtrack; secondly, provision of safe and reliable services now; and, thirdly, the rapid increase in capacity of our rail services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the formal answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness is the one that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave in his Statement on 27th June: the performance targets will be aligned to the Strategic Rail Authority's long-term plans, as well to Network Rail's obligations to its customers under its network licence. But the noble Baroness is right to say that the public will have to be convinced that that is the case.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister explained that the Government chose to follow European rules to keep Network Rail off the Government's balance sheet. Can he give one good, substantive reason for doing that? Can he explain how the Government differ from Enron, which also chose the accounting that suited it best?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government did not keep Network Rail off the balance sheet, it was the Office for National Statistics, which is independent of government, which decided to act under ESA 1995, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar. That is how we have to account to other European member states, so that serves a useful purpose. It is certainly entirely different from Enron, which concealed the fact that matters were off its accounts. We have been public in every way on the matter; we have declared everything to Parliament; we are in no way worried by such accusations.

Genetically Modified Organisms
3 p.m.
Lord Taverneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the views expressed by the Prince of Wales about genetically modified organisms in a recent speech in Germany.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government recognise that people have concerns about genetically modified crops. We have announced that we will encourage a full and informed public debate on GM issues, including GM crops and food.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, whether one agrees or disagrees with Prince Charles's speech about genetically engineered crops or with his denunciation of cheap food, we must all agree that, in a constitutional monarchy, it is quite wrong for the heir to the throne to make speeches about politically controversial issues. If he wishes do so, should he not renounce his claim to the throne?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, what is quite wrong is for any aspersion or reflection to be cast on the Sovereign or any member of the Royal Family. I would advise your Lordships not to accept such questions.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can I be in order by returning to the subject of GM crops? The Prime Minister said that he would like the science of genetically modified crops to be allowed to progress unhindered. Does the Minister agree with me that, if the Prime Minister intends to facilitate that by silencing the critics of genetic modification, he will do a disservice to informed and honest debate? Does the Minister also agree that Her Majesty's Government should set up a Select Committee on science to monitor developments in this field and advise government and Parliament?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord questions whether the Government support a genuine debate on the issue: we do. We wish to identify the public's questions and provide people with the information that will allow them to formulate their response. We want people to reach their own informed judgment. The independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has provided detailed advice on how the debate might be conducted. We will respond to that advice as soon as possible.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the precautionary principle should apply strongly in the trialling of GM crops" The manipulation of genes needs careful assessment, before any conclusions can be reached. Biodiversity is still of crucial importance.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government fully recognise the concerns. That is why great care has been taken in the establishment of the trials and the farm-scale evaluation. We will consider the results carefully when we know the outcome of those trials.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that Americans have consumed GM produce for years? Is there any evidence that any American has suffered ill effects as a result?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are aware of no evidence that suggests, in any way, that any Americans have been adversely affected by the use of such crops. It is not possible to have a direct read-across because the crops concerned and the
962
circumstances and style of farming in the United States and the United Kingdom are different. We have absolutely no evidence of ill effects.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the intervention by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House indicate that there will be a change in the rules relating to the acceptability of questions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no change in the rules. The Question was in order; the supplementary question was not.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most depressing features of the debate to which she referred is the assumption that an entire technology is either good or bad? Does she agree that it is the application of the technology that is important and needs proper scrutiny? The technology has been shown to be valuable in the genetically modified organisms that produce a range of things, from vegetarian cheddar cheese to life-saving vaccines. Will the Minister ensure that the Government protect research that allows us to have a proper evaluation of crops and, in particular, their potential impact on the developing world?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising that point. She is right. Many people who suffer from diabetes already benefit from insulin produced from the medical application of the GM process. Like the noble Baroness, we believe that the crops are not inherently good or had. However, they must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the sort of concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Food Standards Agency, set up under Sir John Krebs, has stated that it can find no evidence of harm caused by the eating of GM food?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:: My Lords, I was not aware that that statement had been made. However, I can say that the Government are concerned that the debate that will attend the results of the trials, and the public dialogue must as a central feature take account of the concerns of consumers about quality and choice.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the spending review.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 42 [Young asylum-seeker]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 142:
Page 24, line 14, at end insert—
"() Any financial support made available as a result of subsection (1) above shall be paid in advance and such support for children over 16 shall be set at the same level as for children under 16."
The noble Earl said: I would have said, "I rise", except for the fact that I have not yet had time to sit down. Anyway, I am deemed to have risen to move the amendment.
There is no youth training programme for asylum seekers. There is no New Deal for asylum seekers. So the reasons commonly advanced for paying a different rate for those over 16 and those under 16 do not apply. An asylum seeker over 16 who is not yet allowed to work and has not yet been here for six months is in the same position of financial dependence as his juniors. There is therefore a good argument for taking both cases together.
In the amendment, the use of the phrase "in advance" is also of considerable importance. The moment at which a claim for asylum is granted ought to be a moment of celebration for a refugee. All too often, it is one of the gravest spells of anxiety that they face. As they come off support under NASS they become eligible for benefits and that interval often can be extremely prolonged. Communication between NASS and the Benefits Agency has been very far from the best. Indeed, often the first that a refugee hears of his claim being accepted is a note from NASS saying, "Since your claim has been successful, your support has been terminated". The claimant takes the note to the Benefits Agency, which responds by saying, "We know nothing about this".
Considerable problems appear to surround the issue of form NASS 35, the signing-off form to be handed over to the Benefits Agency. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. They have been extremely helpful, but it is too soon to know whether, as a result, things will get any better. In any case, it is clear that having one's claim as a refugee recognised ought not to be a reason for immediate destitution.
If provision is made for payment in advance, one will cut off two weeks from any period of destitution, even if nothing else is done to improve the situation.
964
Taking two weeks off a period of destitution is by no means an insignificant advance. That alone would be a justification for the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 142 to which I have added my name and which I see as a probing amendment. Two weeks ago I met representatives of the Refugee Children's Consortium. They believe that all unaccompanied children should receive the level of care and protection to which they are entitled, which can only be right. The consortium points out that the policy of different funding, and thus levels of support, on the basis of age is out of line with statutory guidance on the assessment and support of children under the national assessment framework. The guidance requires local authorities to undertake a full needs-based rather than age-based assessment of all children in need and provide them with appropriate support. The principle of best interest enshrined in the Children Act 1989 must also be applied.
The consortium rightly says that it is for the Government to justify the fact that the grant available to local authorities for the support of unaccompanied minors should be determined by the age of the child. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a powerful point when he referred to the fact that the usual arguments against a uniform rate do not apply in exactly the same way in this case.
I am aware that changes have been made to the systems of payment so that, although retrospectively, the grant is now paid quarterly in arrears. That improvement was welcomed by my honourable friend Mr Malins on 14th May, at col. 212 of the Official Report. However, we have to ask why the Government are not prepared to go the further yard or two in order to achieve something closer to a real-time reimbursement of support payments to local authorities.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I recognise the generosity of spirit with which this amendment was moved. However, we do not think that it is necessary; indeed, in some ways it could be unhelpful.
The aim of the clause is to increase the flexibility with which the Home Office can reimburse local authorities. In our view, the amendment would restrict that. It asks for payments in advance to what is generally accepted on all sides to be a volatile, demand-led population that is extremely difficult to forecast. It means that local authorities would have to produce estimates of the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children that they would be supporting in the future, as well as the costs that they were likely to incur. That could result in large balances being held in local authority accounts which could be used elsewhere. We do not regard that as a proper use of government funds.
As acknowledged, the Home Office has already moved to quarterly payments in arrears to local authorities for supporting adults and families. It fully intends to continue doing so for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That will do much to remedy

965
some of the properly identified problems suffered by local authorities without the need for a complex advance payment system that would have to take account of the volatility that I mentioned.
The second part of the amendment seeks to fix grant levels for all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the same amount without taking into account the level of support required. Costs to local authorities are much more dependent on the actual support they provide for children as assessed on a one-to-one basis rather than crudely on age. Last year the grant regime sought to recognise this for the first time by continuing the higher rate of support for older children whose initial assessment had shown that they required support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The higher rate for children supported under that section, as opposed to a rate set on an age basis, reflects the care costs to meet the needs of children as assessed under very strict guidance issued jointly by the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.
We believe that it would be wrong and possibly damaging to children to pre-empt the assessment by prescribing levels of care based on age. That would not ensure that they received appropriate care while, of course, encouraging value for money. We do not think that we could justify paying the higher rate to all regardless of need and without regard to ensuring value for money.
I can advise the House that there is a thorough review of the grant mechanism in plan and that the overwhelming requests received from local authorities are for more flexibility rather than prescription. That may well be where we differ.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about delays in assessing social security benefits. I pay tribute to him for having raised this issue with my noble friend Lord Rooker. As the noble Earl pointed out, his point has had a very sympathetic hearing. We recognise and acknowledge that there have been problems. In fairness, however, officials at the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working to reduce the scale of any difficulties. We are trying to ensure that when an individual leaves his accommodation because he has been granted leave to remain he is provided for as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl referred to the NASS 35 document. This is issued to enable Jobcentre Plus, formerly the Benefits Agency, to calculate any backdated payments of benefits and thus is not strictly required to obtain benefits. Therefore asylum seekers should go without delay to their Jobcentre Plus with the document which granted them leave to enter or to remain, along with any other identification that they may have in order to start the process.
We are working very hard to ensure that any pain resulting from the transitional phase to which the noble Earl referred is minimised and that all necessary support is put in place in the way both the noble Earl and the Government would wish to see.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord is correct to point out that the production of form NASS 35 is not required to receive benefits. Could he manage to make that clear to the Benefits Agency?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister responds to the question put by my noble friend, can he also tell the Committee whether he has estimated the amount of money that will be involved under Clauses 110 and 111, bearing in mind that we are referring to the same level of support as that offered to those aged 16? The Minister should bear in mind the number of young asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their applications. There should be no difficulty in working out the costs involved.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall seek to clarify for his benefit the point put to me by the noble Earl and ensure that he is made aware of the position.
I do not have to hand the figures sought by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Again, however, I am willing to seek to find out what would be the implications because, clearly, costs are important. We need to ensure that the system is cost-effective.
I return to the first and most important point that I made; namely, ensuring that we have in place the requisite flexibility. That is most important in this area.
Earl Russell: The Home Office is always in favour of its own flexibility and everyone else's inflexibility. One person's flexibility necessarily involves inflexibility for another. Where one has a need arising and a procedure for meeting it, which may come sometime after it, clearly there has to be give somewhere in the system. The interim gap must be filled either by the asylum seeker, by the local authority or by the Home Office. If there is any fourth possibility it has not occurred to me. If it occurs to the Minister, I shall be very glad to hear it.
The question is which of the three is best able to show the flexibility needed for carrying a debt—which is what it is—during the period before it is reimbursed. The asylum seeker is in the worst position. I was reading late last night a brief from the BMA about health problems among asylum seekers. Admittedly it dates from the unlamented voucher days but some of it is still applicable, although I would hesitate to say how much. It indicates extremely poor standards of nutrition. It also indicates extreme hardship in regard to transport. In one case, for example, a man had to go and see a psychiatrist to get evidence in support of his claim, but, because he had no money whatever left for fares, he had to walk 35 miles through the night in order to be there in time for the interview. This does not suggest that asylum seekers are best able to show flexibility while waiting for their money to come in.
The Government may be under the illusion that local authorities are rather better off. Most local authorities would not share that opinion. A shortage of money among local authorities is a problem that has

967
got worse every year I have been in the House. The argument about the budget of care homes illustrates that very clearly, although this is not the time to go into that. So if someone is to bear the strain, it would be much better if it was the Home Office.
As to the question of not relating it to age, people of 18 eat as much as people of 17; they wear out their shoes as fast as people of 17; they need overcoats for the winter in Lancashire just as much as people of 17. If there is to be a discrimination, I do not see the rationale. If the Minister could enlighten me, I would be very interested.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl paints a dismal picture. I do not see it the same way. The Government appreciate that there are difficulties, but we have to make difficult choices. In working a system that provides aid and support, we have tried to increase flexibility. I believe that we have done that to a great degree. We have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said. As I said earlier, we are grateful to him for bringing to our attention the cases that he has. If we were to listen to every single case in the same way, we would end up with an infinitely expanding system. I do not believe that that would necessarily be right.
Hard choices have to be made in public expenditure. That is exactly what we have tried to do, but with fairness and balance. We have tried to ensure that local authorities are properly reimbursed and we have tried to speed up the process. In moving away from the voucher scheme—which the noble Earl says is unlamented, and I can understand why he said that— we have tried to focus on a flexible system.
I cannot accept the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it is moved and I accept that there are hard cases. But hard cases do not necessarily make good law, and we have to understand that important point in making hard choices. I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment. The noble Earl brings to this issue his experience of cases in which he is involved and, if any particular difficulties arise, it would be helpful if he would continue to do exactly that. We can then ensure that such cases are looked at closely and consider what further improvements can be made. In the mean time, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is true that I painted a dismal picture. The bulk of the evidence for that comes from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the BMA, which are two reputable organisations. That dismal picture is shared by almost everyone who has made a study of this subject. It is shared by the Christian Churches, by the National Association of Social Workers and by the National Association of Probation Officers. There are many cases in the BMA files of social services turning away asylum seekers because they were simply unable to handle their problems. I cannot think of anyone, other than the Government, who does not share this dismal picture.
968
As the BMA has stressed very strongly, one of the consequences has been the creation of a considerable amount of mental illness among asylum seekers, most of whom are already somewhat traumatised when they arrive here. As the Minister knows, mental illness is an extremely expensive condition for the Government. It may be that the Government, like Charles I, may be in the position of not being rich enough to afford economies. It seems that we are in the usual position where the Government's view is, "They are all out of step but our Johnny". I do not believe that I can shift them from that view. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Best Lord Best moved Amendment No. 142ZA:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
"SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE GRANTED LEAVE TO REMAIN
The following shall be inserted after section 94(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (interpretation of Part VI)—
"(6A) If, on the determination of his claim for asylum, the asylum seeker is granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he is to be treated (for the purposes of the provision of support and accommodation under this Part only) as continuing to be an asylum seeker—

(a) for a period of 60 days; or

(b) until he secures adequate accommodation and support, whichever is the sooner.""

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 142ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146A and 238A. These amendments seek to insert two new clauses into the Bill and to make a consequential amendment to the money clause. The first proposed new clause seeks to address the question of successful asylum seekers who obtain refugee status and are allowed to remain in this country but who receive a 28-day eviction notice to leave the accommodation provided for them by the National Asylum Support Service. The new clause seeks to extend the 28 days to 60 days. I shall explain my reasoning for that shortly.
The second proposed new clause requires local authorities to give guidance and advice, in their own language, to new refugees in accommodation who are looking for an alternative home. The third amendment is a consequential amendment to the money clause. It seeks to ensure that local authorities are reimbursed for the work involved in providing that advice and guidance to new refugees.
The purpose of the two proposed new clauses is to help integrate those people who are going to stay here; to help them settle and remain in the places to which they have been dispersed. This mostly means them remaining in northern conurbations, where there is a relatively good supply of affordable accommodation. It is not intended to help new refugees to return to London and the South East, and other areas which are under great pressure, where they would only add to the problems of

969
homelessness. Local authorities have an obligation to provide accommodation to homeless families in these areas despite all the pressures on them. Local authorities also have a duty to help single refugees, but probably not to provide them with a home. In the overcrowded London market that will inevitably lead to more overcrowding and homelessness.
Previously, the time allowed for people to make their own alternative arrangements and leave their NASS-provided accommodation was 14 days. This was increased to 28 days in April but there were only weak obligations on local authorities to provide any support and assistance to those people in their search for a new home, or with the other requirements upon them if they are to integrate into the local community.
Since the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House I have visited the North East to talk to people engaged in helping refugees. I have spoken to the north of England refugee service, the refugee advisory committee on Tyneside, the regional refugee forum and the North East consortium for asylum seekers' services. I have talked to people in local authorities in Newcastle, north Tyneside, Redcar and Cleveland. I have talked to representatives providing accommodation in the private sector and I have talked to refugee community organisations which look after the needs of Kurdish, Congolese, Somali, Angolan, Iraqi and other groups. I have also had a presentation from the University of Sunderland, which has undertaken a survey of the aspirations of asylum seekers in terms of their future housing needs.
The conclusion that I have drawn from all that is the good news that dispersal is showing some signs of working. Those who have been sent to northern cities are prepared to make a go of it and stay there; 40 per cent said that it would be their preferred choice to stay in the area to which they have been sent; and nearly 40 per cent more say that they would be willing to stay and give it a try. Therefore, 80 per cent of asylum seekers would stay in the area to which they have been dispersed, rather than head back immediately for the overcrowded South.
The bad news is that all those to whom I spoke agreed that it is bound to take more than 28 days for people to get themselves sorted out once the news comes through that they have been given leave to remain in this country. They have to get a national insurance number, which alone can take two to three months. Without that number they cannot legally obtain a job or benefits, nor can they open a bank account. They need to visit the Jobcentre if they want jobseeker's allowance and will have to fill in all the necessary forms. They have to go to the local authority if they require housing benefit which is notorious for its administrative problems.
Having sorted everything out under all those headings, they need to go into the marketplace to look for a private landlord, or possibly persuade a local authority, to find them accommodation. I have a daughter at university in Newcastle, so I have been through the process of finding privately rented accommodation there, and I can tell the Committee
970
that that takes more than 28 days. All the students going back for the next academic year who have any sense have already secured their accommodation. They cannot do it within 28 days, and students do not have to seek housing benefit; they have parents to act as guarantors for private landlords. It is setting people an insuperable task to expect them within that short period to find accommodation and put down roots to remain and settle in the area.
My first proposed new clause would extend that period to 60 days, and the second would put an obligation on local authorities to provide advice and guidance in the language of the refugee household, to assist in the process of becoming assimilated and integrated into the local community.
The Minister has kindly written to me following the Second Reading debate and has made the point that rather than extending the 28-day period, it would be good if the process of issuing the national insurance number were speeded up. I entirely agree that that would be desirable, but even with people receiving their national insurance number faster, and cutting two to three months to something far less, I cannot see that all the processes could be reasonably accomplished before the eviction time arrives and people have to leave. The Minister suggests that the best agencies for advice may be local voluntary and community bodies. I agree, but it seems wise to place the obligation on local authorities and for the Secretary of State to reimburse them for providing that advice and guidance, even though they would discharge their duty often through local agencies.
Far more people are affected by the dispersal policy than are ever likely to be affected by the new accommodation centres. The policy is a critical part of the Government's efforts to handle questions of asylum seekers and refugees. Dispersal policy is showing signs of successfully persuading people that the new places to which they have been sent—away from the pressured South—are suitable for their long-term needs. That good work will be undermined if we are impatient and demand that people leave the accommodation too quickly and we do not give them the support and guidance that I hope those proposed new clauses will provide. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: We support the amendments. In doing so, I was delighted to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose experience of charitable work, especially in housing, is exceptional. His speech should therefore carry considerable weight.
The noble Lord made a good case for his sensible amendments. I would make three points. First, we are talking about asylum seekers who are no longer waiting in the queue but who have been granted leave to remain. Therefore we are not talking about someone whose rights about staying in this country have not been determined. Secondly, I want to explain why our support is so vital. When we consider the history of anyone who has come to this country, the sooner they can be integrated and absorbed into the community, the better not only for the asylum seekers but for the community.

971
I shall make an analogy. It may be rather difficult for the Committee to equate it with asylum seekers, but let us consider the resettlement of offenders who come out of prison and the social exclusion report that was published last week. The Government have conceded that they must help people who desperately need it. If such help is not given serious problems are created. We need to ensure that the people who will settle in this country are given adequate help.
Thirdly, there is the matter of housing and applying for benefit in languages other than English. It is most important that local authorities would be encouraged to assist in this exercise if they knew that funds were ultimately available from the Secretary of State. In other words, the Government should back up this kind of initiative by local authorities to help people who will be part and parcel of the community. We are delighted to support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I, too, welcome the amendment warmly and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, not only on the clarity of his remarks but on his exemplary patience in waiting through hours and hours of our proceedings in the previous sitting of the Committee, only to be denied the chance to move it in the end. He has proved himself a good House of Lords man; I only hope that he does not have to do that too often, but I admire immensely the way in which he has done it.
The amendments meet exactly the difficulties that I outlined a moment ago. The moment of acceptance as a refugee should be one of rejoicing, but it is a moment of coming down with a bump. It reminds me of the sad story of the step-father of one of my undergraduate friends who was parachuted into Arnhem and broke his leg on landing. He succeeded in concealing himself in the bushes while the Germans hunted noisily around him. He got out of the area and into France, leapt out of his hotel bedroom just as the Gestapo came in through the door, got into a pipeline and made his way to the Swiss frontier. Just as the frontier guards were approaching him, he found that the French Resistance had planted spying documents on him which would have led to his being shot. He finally made his way to Switzerland, and then to Lisbon. After a six months' wait he got a flight back to England, bringing with him one bottle of sherry—which the Customs impounded. His words were: "And then I knew I was home"! I suppose that that is tolerable for British subjects with an honourable military record, but for people for whom this is the first experience of accepting life as a British citizen, it really is a bit of a shock.
The proposed 60-day period is exactly what is needed. It reminds me of the extended period of eligibility for housing benefit introduced by Mr Kenneth Clarke in the Budget in 1993. One person to whom I was talking, who was at the time on benefit, said that this one concession was worth all the rest put together.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that if the Government accept these amendments, as I very much hope they will, it is worth keeping an eye on how they
972
are administered. In regard to the Kenneth Clarke concession it was by no means always made clear to applicants that if they did not apply for it within the first eight days, they would not get it at all. There is always a wheeze somewhere in the background—for which I believe Ministers are not to blame. Eternal vigilance will be needed here as elsewhere.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord said about national insurance numbers, but the delay in allocating national insurance numbers has been a standing problem for as long as I have been a spokesman on social security—which is a great deal longer than I care to count. Eight years ago, I became the longest-serving social security spokesman in any party in either House.
I remember when my party began to complain about the delay in allocating national insurance numbers. The Government said that this was grossly exaggerated. They said that we were painting a dismal picture. What they did not know was that our spokesman's researcher had had her national insurance card stolen with her handbag and, six months later, had not succeeded in obtaining a replacement. So we knew perfectly well that it was a real problem. The problem is with the Government's ability to handle software, and that extends a great deal beyond our responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was right to say that, although we must try to do better in regard to national insurance numbers, that is not an adequate answer to the problems that he raises.
The amendment probably will provide an adequate answer. I certainly cannot think of a better one. I welcome it warmly and I hope that the Government accept it.
Lord Hylton: At Second Reading, I advised the Government to listen carefully to what my noble friend Lord Best was saying. Perhaps I may congratulate him on his research in the field and on producing three quite detailed but practical amendments. I just wonder whether 60 days will be long enough in every case, but this is obviously a step in the right direction. I underline strongly the reference in Amendment No. 146A to giving advice in the language appropriate to the new refugee's understanding. Having been deeply involved over many years in housing aid and advice, I am sure that that amendment is absolutely on the right lines.
I hope that the Conservative Front Bench will support the amendment and I trust that the Government will accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Judd: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for having introduced this subject into our deliberations. I ask my noble friend the Minister, when he replies, to take the issue behind the amendments extremely seriously.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the need to celebrate the gaining of the status of acceptance. But there is another, equally important issue. That is: how

973
in those initial days and weeks the foundations can he laid for a successful life in the future. If we are serious about wanting asylum seekers to make a success of their lives in our community and to be able to become fully integrated, we have to have specific and positive policies in place to help them in that transition. To have them totally mesmerised and preoccupied with the anxieties and issues of trying to find even a roof over their heads will not help.
It would he wrong to make an absolute comparison, but there is an approximate comparison with the successfully rehabilitated prisoner leaving prison and coming back to start life as a positive citizen. There is a major issue in our society in that context. So often, it goes wrong because generous, practical support is not there at the critical time. Whether or not these particular amendments are the right ones, the issue is a very important one. I do not merely hope but am sure that, in replying, my noble friend will want to be able to indicate that the Government take these matters seriously and are determined to have practical measures in place to meet the need.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The objectives behind the amendments are wholly laudable. I simply have some difficulty with the detail of the practical application that the proposed new clauses might entail. Therefore, I have one or two questions for the noble Lord. Lord Best. He may be able to address them in his final remarks on the amendment, or he may prefer to write to me on these matters.
Amendment No. 142ZA requires that,
"for a period of 60 days; or…until [a person] secures adequate accommodation and support, whichever is the sooner",
the support should continue. I wonder what the definition of "adequate accommodation" is in these circumstances, and who decides what is "adequate"; and, indeed, whether the term covers the quality, size or location of the accommodation. This could be a sensitive issue.
It may be asked who could possibly object to Amendment No. 146A; namely, to the idea that someone should receive housing information and advice free of charge and in the language suited to that person's needs. One would hope that that is best practice and that all local authorities now follow it. If they do not, they jolly well ought to get on and do it.
I come from a town where the local authority has made its best efforts to provide such information over many years. I know that the advice has not always been perfect, but the authority tries to cover such languages as are commonly used in the area. Twelve per cent of the population in our constituency do not have English as their first language.
I have a couple of questions on Amendment No. 238A. It points out that any increase in spending as a result of these duties ought to be payable by the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Best, has been given by those briefing him an estimate of the annual cost of this proposal in terms of the increase over the next five years, so that one can understand just what kind of costs one is looking at.
974
The question that I have to ask from the LGA's point of view is: would these sums be ring-fenced? The local authorities are keen not to have sums ring-fenced because of their intention to be as much in control of local funding as possible.
As those are detailed questions, I shall be happy if the noble Lord would prefer to write to me rather than attempt to answer them now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I join in the tributes on all sides of the Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for bringing forward these amendments and for the way in which he has addressed the issues. His insights and experience will greatly refresh our debates in such matters and expand our range of experience in dealing with some difficult issues.
Having said that, and underlining that we fully understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord, I have to conclude that we believe them to be unnecessary. As has been acknowledged, we have extended the period from 14 to 28 days so the period of grace is longer. That was in the light of experience which suggested that it was an important point to match.
We are also working closely with all interested parties through the national refugee integration forum to promote the better resettlement and integration into the community of successful asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, properly raised the need to take the issues seriously. The Government do so. For that reason we have this legislation in place. For that reason, we have put in place a battery of measures to ensure that those who seek, quite properly, to stay here as asylum seekers are cared for and are integrated fully into our communities.
The Home Office is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the arrangements for enabling asylum seekers to transfer from central government support to mainstream benefits or to enter the labour market. We acknowledge—the noble Lord, Lord Best, made the point well—that there have been some difficulties with national insurance numbers. We recognise that there have been delays but we are working hard with the DWP to improve performance and ensure that people are properly accorded a national insurance number and can enter the labour market when they wish with all the support and guidance that they require.
Amendment No. 146A seeks to help asylum seekers with leave to remain into accommodation and ensure that they have proper allocation of accommodation. We want to ensure that that is so. In the Homelessness Act 2002 an amendment to Section 166 of the Housing Act 1996 requires the local housing authority to secure that advice and information are available free of charge to persons in its area about the right to make an application for allocation of housing accommodation; and that any necessary assistance in making that application is available free of charge to persons in the area who are likely to have difficulty in doing so without assistance. That measure was aimed at ensuring that people in the circumstances described by

975
the noble Lord are given all the help they require. It seems to me to meet the principal aims of the noble Lord's amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly pointed to good practice in local government. I am certain that most local authorities will do all they can to ensure that advice, assistance and support are given in the most appropriate form. My former local authority did that because we believed it to be extremely important. We recognised the vulnerability of people inexperienced in the ways of the local authority and local authority bureaucracy.
Best practice is to be celebrated and encouraged. As a Government, we shall play our part in doing that. Great progress has been made. Local authorities are to be congratulated, as is the Local Government Association on the important work it has done in that field.
The noble Lord wishes to ensure that Amendment No. 146A is accepted. Local authorities should receive extra funding from central government for advice in respect of housing where it involves people who have been granted leave to remain following an application for asylum. We are not clear how in practice one can identify that expenditure, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; and how one would separate that expenditure from other expenditure on housing advice in order accurately to attribute costs. We also wonder whether it would be appropriate for such a distinction to be made in the first place. The point has been well made that local authorities are nervous about and do not take easily to the exercise of ring fencing. I know that local authorities have lobbied firmly against it in the past. That is not to say that extra help should never be given to local authorities if they are faced with new and unusual pressures.
The Government have responded in the past. We have ensured that those supporting asylum seekers under the interim scheme have been given support. We wish to ensure that that support is there in the future. However, in general the Government would not want to disturb the usual arrangements for providing central government support to local authorities under the revenue support grant.
That said, if a case were made for extra funding, we already have a provision in Section 110 which will allow for the Secretary of State to fund local authorities for expenditure, in connection with,
"persons who are, or have been, asylum-seekers; and … their dependants".
If we thought that it was appropriate, payments could be made using that power. It is there for that express purpose. In all those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment but will withdraw it.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, can he name for me one person knowledgeable in the subject and not on the government payroll who shares his opinion that these amendments are unnecessary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: With the greatest of respect to the noble Earl, it is a somewhat fatuous
976
point. The Government have been putting in place a framework of measures and powers which make the system work to the best interests of those affected. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Best, I pointed out that we have powers and measures in place which enable local authorities to carry out the functions asked of them. I believe that we are providing adequate powers and measures to deal with the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Best, makes quite properly in this Chamber.
Lord Best: I am most grateful to the Committee for the support I felt from many quarters for these amendments and in particular to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked two questions. The first was on the definition of "adequate" regarding accommodation. Guidance from the Government would need to accompany the Bill when enacted. The definition of adequate accommodation may not be a very great hurdle to cross. Properties would need to comply with the fitness standard, not be overcrowded, and meet the environmental health requirements. But one is not suggesting that this is a passport to particularly special housing in any sense. I do not believe that that is likely to be too big an obstacle.
Secondly, if local authorities are required to provide such advice, would the costs reimbursed to local authorities for providing such advice be ring fenced? The Minister said that it may be possible for funds to be paid under Section 110. That may well be a better route. If we foist upon local authorities more duties and responsibilities but without provision for those to be paid for by central government, it may be a deterrent for them to do what is required of them.
The cost of providing advice can be quite high if specialist interpreters have to be drawn in. I suspect that those costs would fall disproportionately on specific authorities where there are clusters and concentrations of refugees. Through amendment already made to the Homelessness Act the local authority has an obligation to provide such advice. For those extra costs to fall entirely on local authorities without recognition that they could be reimbursed might be unfair.
I have a final point to commend the amendment. The process of speeding up decision-making on the granting of refugee status to asylum seekers is entirely admirable but it is likely, in the view of those people with whom I talked in the North East, to mean that the problems with the 28-day rule will become more severe. People will have less time in which to learn English and become familiar with the area to which they have moved before they get their notice, and are allowed to stay if they are successful or have to leave. The view from the North East, at any rate—I am sure that it is typical of other regions to which people have been dispersed—is that the 28-day rule will increasingly cause a crisis for those endeavouring to help refugees and for the refugees themselves, who are likely to turn tail and return to the communities in

977
London and the South East where at least there will he a floor to sleep on and they will be among others of the same culture, language and so on.
This group of amendments requires further serious consideration. We should perhaps return to the matter at the Bill's next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Spending Review
4.2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"The long-term funding we announce today for Britain's public services is possible because the bills of economic failure in unemployment and debt have been radically reduced; the state of our public finances is strong; and, despite uncertainties in the global economy, inflation is under control, interest rates have been low and stable, and employment and growth continue to rise.
"In this period in global financial markets of greater instability, our task and our determination—as always—is to remain vigilant and committed to sustaining monetary and fiscal stability, with the strength to take the right long-term decisions. And I can tell the House that over the economic cycle we will not only meet all our fiscal disciplines and rules but we are on track to meet our fiscal disciplines and rules with a margin for prudence even on the most cautious case and even on the most cautious assumptions.
"Indeed, it is so that we can steer a course of stability across the economic cycle that we have reduced net debt from 44 per cent of British national income in 1997 to 30.4 per cent last year—in contrast to 41 per cent in the US, 53 per cent in the euro area as a whole and 59 per cent in Japan.
"So, as we set out in the Budget, Britain's debt has been reduced to the lowest level of national income in the G7 and the lowest of all our major European competitors.
"Having last year paid off more debt in one year than all of the previous governments in the past 50 years, I can report that this year debt interest payments will be lower as a share of national income than they have been at any time in nearly a century.
"Twenty years ago, debt interest payments consumed 4 per cent of national income. Debt interest is now half that: just 2 per cent—a saving worth £20 billion a year. Those extra resources have
978
made it possible to recruit more nurses, more doctors, more teachers and more police than at any time in the past two decades.
"Twenty years ago—indeed, 10 years ago also—1.6 per cent of national income was spent on the costs of unemployment. I can report today that this year we will spend just 0.4 per cent, savings worth a further £10 billion a year.
"It is through maintaining a steady hand on the public finances at all times that we are able to meet our fiscal rules and match our reforms with new resources so that efficient, strong public services play their part in delivering a modern Britain of greater opportunity and security not just for some but for all.
"I can report to the House that, holding strictly to the total spending envelope I set out in the Budget, we are raising departmental spending from £240 billion this year to £263 billion next year, to £280 billion in 2004–05, and to £301 billion in 2005–06. In total, by 2006, there will be £61 billion a year more for improved public services.
"While 10 years ago only 50p of every pound of additional expenditure went to the public services, the rest having to be spent on debt and social security, in this review almost 80p in every additional pound is going directly to improving public services—and of the remaining 20p most is being spent not on debt interest or unemployment but on improved pensioner and children's benefits.
"In each area of service delivery, from housing to education and from policing to defence, we are tying new resources to new reform and results, developing a modern way for running efficient public services: setting demanding national targets; performance monitored by independent and open audit and inspection; front-line staff given the power and flexibility to deliver; extending choice; rewarding success; and turning round failing services.
"I can also tell the House that, over the next three years as we reverse the backlog in investment, our projections—other than the commitments to health paid for by national insurance—from 2006 are based on real terms increases in spending on public services at 2.5 per cent a year.
"With this review's decisions we not only will continue to address past decades of chronic under-investment in education, health, transport and housing but we will rise to new challenges in a changed global environment—challenges internationally including the essential duty of fighting terrorism, and challenges here at home as global economic competition brings vastly increased opportunities but also increased insecurities: the role for government—by expanding educational, employment and economic opportunity and by encouraging stronger communities—to enable and empower people to make globalisation work for their families and their future.
"First, to respond to global insecurities and the new fight against terrorism, the Secretary of State for Defence is announcing that the budget for our Armed

979
Forces who have served our country overseas with courage and distinction, not only in Afghanistan but recently in Kosovo, Macedonia and Sierra Leone, will rise from £29.3 billion this year to £32.8 billion by 2005–06: £3.5 billion a year higher. That is the largest sustained real terms increase in defence spending in 20 years.
"Since the tragic events of September 11th, international co-operation—and, led by the Prime Minister, Britain's international engagement—has assumed a new importance. So the Foreign Secretary's budget will rise from £1.3 billion this year to £1.5 billion by 2005–06. Within this we will strengthen the work of the British Council, whose budget will rise from £157 million a year to £185 million—and the budget for the BBC World Service, whose 160 million a week audience is now its largest ever, will be £38 million a year higher by 2005–06.
"In meeting the urgent moral challenge of combating international poverty, the question is how a strengthened commitment by our country can inspire a step change in aid from all the richest countries in order to fulfil the millennium development goals: to halve poverty, cut child mortality by two-thirds and deliver primary education for all.
"So the Secretary of State for International Development is announcing a rise in UK aid from the £2 billion it was in 1997, and the £3.3 billion last year, to £4.9 billion by 2006—the biggest ever rise. That is a 35 per cent real terms increase since 2001 and a 93 per cent real terms increase since 1997, from the 0.26 per cent of national income we inherited and 0.32 per cent today to 0.4 per cent by 2006. And by untying aid and targeting aid on the poorest countries, we ensure that more money goes to tackle poverty than at any time in the history of British aid.
"Starting with our dialogue with Churches and non-governmental organisations next week, onwards to September's Johannesburg summit and IMF-World Bank meetings, we want this new finance from our country to be an encouragement and a signal for a new 50 billion dollar international financing facility involving all rich countries: a new alliance against poverty which recognises that by meeting our moral obligations to the poorest of the world we advance opportunity and security for all of the world.
"At the heart of our spending decisions this year is a set of major economic reforms to expand our national wealth so that Britain can be more productive and prosperous and make the most of new opportunities in the global economy. Invention and innovation are the key to long-term national competitiveness, so in partnership with the Wellcome Trust we will create and fund a new national centre for excellence in science teaching and, after rigorous selection of priorities within the industry budget away from the old loss-making subsidies of the past, I can announce a 10 per cent real terms annual rise in the science budget and, by 2005–06, £1.25 billion extra a year for science.
980
"Britain must not make the mistakes in science education in the next generation that we made in the last and so, to fund a new generation of young British scientists, we will implement the Roberts report—on average a £4,000 rise in science post-doctoral research council pay, with the average stipend for research council PhD students rising to over £13,000 by 2005–06—even after inflation, twice what it was in 1997.
"We will encourage a third role for universities beyond teaching and research—the commercialisation of new discoveries—with the Higher Education Innovation Fund rising to £90 million a year by 2005–06 to ensure that more British inventions become British manufactured products, creating British jobs.
"To remove barriers to productivity growth in the north and south of our country, the Deputy Prime Minister will this week announce reforms to our planning system, including new business planning zones to ensure development and create jobs in high unemployment areas. He will also announce new funds and plans for meeting housing needs south and north—throughout the country—ensuring we make good use of the space in our existing towns and cities while protecting valuable countryside around them.
"Because a successful rural economy is vital to both rural areas and our entire economy, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is announcing today she will implement the core recommendations of the Curry report to promote sustainable farming. To make this possible, and to improve Britain's flood defences, her budget will rise from £2.5 billion this year to £2.9 billion in 2005–06—an annual average rise of 2.7 per cent a year after inflation.
"To secure balanced economic development in every region—tackling regional weaknesses, building on regional manufacturing and industrial strengths—we must decentralise decision-making out of Whitehall. I can announce that our nine regional development agencies will now have a strengthened local role in transport, tourism and housing. To pilot further devolution from Whitehall for services to small businesses and adult skills, and to reverse decades of indifference to and neglect of our regions, budgets for RDAs will rise from £1.6 billion this year to—by 2005–06—£2 billion a year, as local people make more of the decisions about meeting local needs.
"Addressing the long-term under-investment and neglect of transport is vital to both economic prosperity and our quality of life. To deliver the 10-year plan, the transport budget will rise from £7.7 billion this year to £11.6 billion in 2005–06—in total, over the next three years, a 12 per cent a year real terms increase. The Transport Secretary will also consult on the long-term need to increase airport capacity.
"To secure a more competitive environment and to root out anti-competitive practices, the budget of the Office of Fair Trading will increase from

981
£34 million this year to £55 million by 2005–06. We are determined that everything is done to ensure the highest corporate standards and next week, in the light of Enron, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will put before the House the interim report on accounting and audit reforms.
"There are now 1.5 million more men and women in work than five years ago and unemployment in Britain is now lower than in Japan, lower than in America, lower than in every other major European country. For the first time for 50 years Britain has the lowest unemployment of any major industrialised nation. But, because we will never be complacent as long as people who can work are out of work, we need further reforms matching rights and responsibilities to help people acquire more flexible skills and new jobs so they can succeed in the changed global economy.
"Having in the last five years ensured that 1,750,000 men and women have benefited from the New Deal, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will roll out nation-wide by 2006 the successful Jobcentre Plus one-stop service, helping young and adult unemployed, lone parents and the disabled seeking work.
"Having already raised further education student numbers to 4 million and raised modern apprenticeships from 75,000 in 1997 to 220,000 today, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will announce new money and tough targets to reform further education, improve workplace skills and expand modern apprenticeships to over 300,000 in 2004.
"To ensure British business has the skills it urgently needs today, the Home Secretary will expand the work permit system for key workers from 50,000 in 1997 to an expected 175,000 next year.
"While overall there are 60,000 more small businesses than there were in 1997, even more British people should have the opportunity to become self-employed or start their own firm. So the corporate tax cuts in the Budget and the stamp duty exemptions for high unemployment areas are matched in this review with new help for start-ups by raising the Small Business Service budget and by extending and increasing the Phoenix Fund from £100,000 to £150,000.
"To meet our long-term aim that in every area of the country every pupil is introduced not just to the world of work but to the world of business, we will fund an expansion of enterprise education from less than 1,000 schools today to all our 3,500 secondary schools.
"One of the greatest challenges to our future is to protect and safeguard our environment through sustainable development and to advance towards our 2010 targets—20 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions, 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources. The spending review will, in addition to financing the £100,000 fund for the development of
982
renewable technologies, provide in 2005–06 an additional £38 million for sustainable energy initiatives.
"Let me now turn to the public service investments this spending review makes to help those who contribute through public service to build stronger, more secure communities.
"We know that an enterprising economy with opportunity for all requires a fair society where there is security for all. But we also know, those of us who believe in the importance of public services, that we have a special duty to make sure public money is spent wisely and efficiently, and we are as determined to secure value for money as we are to secure money for services.
"So, first, the Government are today publishing new public service agreements setting out agreed outcome targets and reforms for each department. Second, with independent audit and statutory inspection, departments and agencies will be fully accountable for performance against targets. So in addition to the new Police Standards Unit we are creating the new health and social care inspectorates, a reformed criminal justice system inspection regime and a single Housing Inspectorate. Third, in each service area the review's decisions promote choice and devolve responsibility, authority and flexibility from the centre out to local and regional decisionmaking—to primary care trusts, head teachers and governors in schools, police commanders, and local service providers.
"One essential feature of this year's spending decisions is that voluntary, charitable and community organisations will also receive significantly increased funding to support their chosen role in delivering local services.
"Just as sustained economic growth demands responsibility in setting private sector pay, so too a sustained commitment to better public services demands responsibility in setting public sector pay.
"When a service is underfunded or when it is under-performing, people are let down. So 'while public service providers who perform well will be given more resources and more authority to innovate, in this review departments have set as a condition for more resources that failing institutions will be dealt with early and decisively.
"Poor-performing schools will be subject to takeover by new leadership or by a neighbouring school, or closed and reopened as a new school. Failing local education authorities will be subject to takeover by high-performing authorities. Poorly performing colleges will be subject to loss of funding from learning and skills councils with provisions for necessary college mergers. Poor-performing social services and housing departments will have new directors and senior managers. Poor-performing local authorities will first be subject to a recovery plan to tackle bad performance and, if this is insufficient, will be subject to new managers or takeover of functions. Just as the Home Secretary is

983
taking power for police reform, prisons that under-perform will need to improve or face new management drafted in. But in every case at the same time we will also incentivise and reward success, with high-performing institutions receiving new resources and greater autonomy, new freedoms and more flexibility.
"So just as in the Budget resources for health were matched by reforms in health, so too behind each decision we are making today—from housing to crime, from urban renewal to education—the Government's standard is clear: for more given in resources, more is required in results. This is our modern vision for public services. I can now announce new investments that will improve our services and strengthen our communities.
"After long decades of persistent neglect that left Britain's housing stock inadequate and substandard, since 1997 we have increased our investment in housing from £2.3 billion to £4.8 billion this year. Now, as the demand for new and better housing grows in a growing economy, it is time for a further step change, with the most sustained rise in housing investment for 25 years.
"On Thursday the Deputy Prime Minister will make a Statement to the House on his reforms: new homes for social tenants and key workers, including low-cost home ownership in London and the South East and plans to tackle homelessness and upgrade old properties in all regions where housing need exists. To pay for this, by 2005–06 we will invest £5.9 billion a year—a 105 per cent real-terms rise in housing budgets since 1997.
"Neighbourhood renewal is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about renewing community life. This depends on more economic activity, more businesses and more jobs. Having raised investment in social and economic regeneration in 88 hard-pressed neighbourhoods to £300 million this year, we will increase the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund again to £525 million a year by 2005–06.
"As we sign public service agreements with our local authorities to match resources to reform, the Deputy Prime Minister will set out details on Thursday of an annual real-terms rise for local government of 4.2 per cent a year over and above inflation—well above the average settlements until 1997.
"The mark of a decent society is the dignity it accords its elderly. So the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is announcing the extra resources necessary to deliver the pension credit to nearly half all pensioner households from October next year—worth up to £14 extra per week for single pensioners. That is a measure for which I hope there will soon be all-party support. Following the Pickering and Sandler reports, a consultative Green Paper will be published in the autumn, while the Secretary of State for Health will announce how the extra 6 per cent real-terms growth in social services budgets will improve community care for the elderly.
984
"Britain's disabled need and deserve a better deal. So I can also announce that, having created the Disability Rights Commission to oversee and enforce the rights of disabled people, we will raise its budget to 2006 by 14 per cent in real terms.
"I have said to this House that our children are 20 per cent of our population but 100 per cent of our future. So to realise our goals of nursery education, better childcare and a sure start for the very young, I am announcing, after a major interdepartmental review, details of a new integrated budget for children—for childcare and early-years learning—worth by 2005–06 a total of £1.5 billion a year. Following the review, there will be new ministerial arrangements for childcare policy.
"By October 2004, every three and four year-old who needs it will have a nursery school place. We are also expanding Sure Start to meet the needs of up to 400,000 children. We will now increase investment in childcare, with funding for an additional 250,000 childcare places.
"Parents have said to us that communities are far stronger and children far more secure where there is a focal point for a wide range of children's services. So I can announce that we will fund the creation of children's centres across the country, providing services for an additional 300,000 children by 2005–06.
"At the heart of the next stage of children's services are voluntary and community partnerships that are increasingly a vital link between the needs children have and the help they receive. In each of our constituencies there are hundreds of voluntary and community organisations. Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of volunteers help millions of people, giving everyone in Britain at different times in our lives the chance to serve, to get the balance right between what we do for our country and what our country does for us.
"So that the vitality and independence of the charity, community and voluntary sector can grow and flourish, the Chief Secretary is today announcing details of a new three-year fund of £125 million that voluntary organisations can draw upon for their public service work. I can also confirm that the budget for the children's fund, helping volunteers and charities assist vulnerable children, will be £200 million a year to 2006. There will be an additional £25 million over three years to support the growth of local parental support. We are also extending the £20 million support to community amateur sports clubs, not just for one year, but for each year to 2006.
"Since museums were opened free to the public there has been a 75 per cent rise in attendances. The Secretary of State is announcing a budget increase for culture, media and sport, including additional funds for tourism, from £1.3 billion this year to £1.6 billion by 2005–06. With this increase, Britain will maintain free access to national museums, invest in regional museums, expand local creative arts partnerships and, to open up sport to all, there will

985
be not only additional support for sports clubs but funds for much needed investment in school sports facilities and new finance for extra sports coaching in the years to 2006—in time for the next World Cup. Similar allocations are necessary and will be made for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
"Stronger communities must be safer communities where rights are matched by responsibilities. So we are committed to getting more police out on to the streets and to making crime fighting more effective. With his new reforms in place, the Home Secretary will announce the details of the rise in the Home Office budget from £10.7 billion this year to £13.5 billion by 2005–06— an increase of nearly £2.9 billion a year by 2005–06. This will ensure that, in addition to police numbers rising next year to 130,000, there can be reforms to speed up the asylum system, to strengthen internal security and to enable the criminal justice system to tackle both crime and the causes of crime.
"The long-term vision for the criminal justice system—and how we match policies for opportunity for all with policies for security for all—will be provided by the Home Secretary when he publishes the criminal justice White Paper.
"Ministers in the devolved administrations will make separate announcements outlining their plans to allocate the additional £4.1 billion a year set aside by 2005–06 for all devolved functions in Scotland, £2.3 billion pounds a year more by 2005–06 for Wales, including continued funding of Objective 1 by 2006, and £1.2 billion a year more by 2005–06 for Northern Ireland, including funding of the European peace initiative.
"I turn to education. What happens in our schools in this decade will shape our society and our economy for much of this century. We cannot equip children for the 21st century in classrooms built in the 19th. So capital investment to modernise our schools, which was raised from £680 million in 1997 to £2.25 billion last year, will be raised again to £4.5 billion a year by 2005–06—a 400 per cent real-terms increase since 1997 in capital investment, hacking up our additional 20,000 teachers.
"The increased funds for investment, improved access and excellence in further and higher education—including our universities, building on the 100,000 additional students since 1997—and the reforms essential to meet our targets will be announced by the Secretary of State for Education and skills. But we will only achieve our goals for further and higher education if we persuade more young people to stay on at school. Thirty years ago, the school leaving age was raised to 16. But Britain cannot reach its full potential as long as nearly a quarter of 16 to 18 year-olds are not in education or training. For decades Britain has suffered the worst drop-out rate from school of any industrialised country.
986
"The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has set out reforms to the curriculum for 14 to 19 year-olds. We must now ensure that no one is prevented from staying on for the qualifications they need through lack of income.
"Already, in one-third of England, income-related education maintenance allowances have substantially raised staying-on rates. So I can announce today that, from September 2004, we shall extend this successful experiment to all the country with, for those who stay on and study, education maintenance allowances worth up to £1,500 a year. We shall fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings that we have made from our success in reducing unemployment and debt. Demanding the highest standards for all is the modern route to realising opportunity for all.
"Those of us seeking improvements in education are determined that the numbers in the education budget are matched by reform to secure better results for pupils in schools all across the country. As we said in detail in our 1997 manifesto, resources and reform are equally important—one cannot be achieved without the other.
"Having helped teachers and children to achieve a step change in standards in primary schools—today 75 per cent achieve the expected literacy standards at the age of 11 compared with just 57 per cent five years previously—the Education Secretary will tomorrow announce her reforms to raise standards, enhance choice and diversity, and tackle poor pupil behaviour in our secondary schools so that schools can develop the talents of all We shall back those reforms with resources.
"In the 2000 Budget, the Government introduced a single payment direct to schools starting at £15,000 for primary schools. I can announce that to help to deliver schools reforms, the details of which will be set out by the Secretary of State for Education, the typical primary school will receive £50,000 next April—£ 10,000 higher than this year—and £50,000 each April for the next two years to 2005–06.
"Head teachers of the typical secondary school, who this April received a payment of £115,000, will receive next April a payment of £165,000 —£50,000 more—rising to £180,000 each April for the next two years. Over three years, for the typical secondary school, a total of £0.5 million in direct payments will be paid to every head teacher to be used for each school's priorities.
"We must also back good leadership, which is raising achievement levels in the most challenging areas, and help schools that are behind to catch up as we set minimum targets for improved standards at 14 and 16. So, for 1,400 secondary schools we shall match demanding new performance targets with an extra annual payment of an additional £125,000 direct to each school and direct to each head teacher. For those 1,400 schools, combining this leadership incentive grant and the direct payments that I have already announced, the budget

987
for head teachers will rise to £300,000 a year. Over three years almost £1 million will allow our schools to replace weak leadership, attract the best teachers and improve their facilities.
"For this Government, reform and resources go together. We know that to demand reform when you would deny resources is a betrayal of our children. So I can now announce the total new resources for education. Compared with growth of lower than 2 per cent a year in the 18 years to 1997, there will be a real terms rise for education in England, even after inflation, of 6 per cent a year for each of the next three years—the biggest sustained rise in a generation.
"The education budget for England, which was £29 billion in 1997 and £45 billion this year, will rise year on year over the next three years to £49 billion, £53 billion and then £58 billion. That is what we mean by "education, education, education". By 2005–06, £15 billion more a year will be available for UK education and £13 billion more in England.
"Spending per pupil, which was just £2,700 a year in 1997 and £3,500 last year, will rise to £4,900 per pupil by 2005–06. After inflation, that is 50 per cent more per pupil than in 1997. I challenge anyone in this House to claim that public services are their priority and then to say that £4,900 per pupil is too much to invest in our children's and this country's future.
"This is a Budget for the health service, a spending review for education, and, as we promised, schools and hospitals first. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on his delivery of the Statement and wish his sore throat better as soon as possible. I also say straight away that there are several aspects of the Minister's Statement that we want to study in more detail and others to which we are happy to give a welcome immediately—in particular, the extra spending on the war on terrorism and defence and also the increased budget for international development.
Of course, as the Minister said, it is also a fine and worthy aim to help students to stay longer in school. Perhaps he will comment later on how that might be paid for and, in particular, whether child benefit will continue as a universal allowance.
Having said that, I wonder whether, after that stirring performance, the Minister would be disappointed to learn that in the latest research in word association tests, in which people are invited to select the word from a list which they most identify with the Government, the word that they now pick is "disappointment". That may be because this is the third time that the Government have announced the results of a major spending review; it is the third time that people have heard how much more money is to be
988
spent department by department; and it is the third time that the Chancellor has made promises about improving our schools, hospitals, transport and so on.
But, after six Budgets, five years in office and three spending reviews, the outline of an unattractive conclusion is beginning to form in people's minds; namely, the Government may not know how to bring about the improvements in public services that they want to see. Therefore, as I believe the Government say, this Statement is a defining moment for them.
It was in this year's Budget that the Government, ever watchful of the public mood, sensing the danger and running out of the clever taxing and accounting devices on which they had relied successfully for many years, hit on a startling new plan. In this Budget, a new concept emerged in the Government's mission statement—a most blasphemous of possibilities that one hardly dares whisper its name. It was "sincerity".
Before this Budget, any impertinent functionary in the Treasury who embarked on the route of openly justifying tax rises, perhaps with a page of prose of engaging frankness, would find that a bolt of lightning struck the pen from his hand. But now, perhaps unable to find more invisible tax rises and nervous that the public might see through them in any case, the Government declared that in order to pay for all the spending about which we have just heard there would be more tax in the form of national insurance contributions which would be spent, in particular, on health. What mean-spirited curmudgeon, they reckoned, could disagree with that?
But the eye of the public, which is always restless in its quest for a true picture of the activities of our Government, sees instead that the money being raised is either not spent on health or, if it is spent, is ineffective. I refer your Lordships to a particularly helpful page in the Government's Budget Red Book which shows the impact of the national insurance contribution increases as raising personal tax by £4.6 billion. But one searches in vain for the equivalent amount being spent on health. Instead, in the same table one finds that the exact same amount—that is, £4.6 billion—is shown to have been spent not on health but on the Government's tax credits. Therefore, all the money ostensibly being raised for health is not being spent on hospitals but on benefits.
The Minister will say shortly that other money is being spent on health. "No", he says, "it's not hypothecated money to health", but "yes", he says, "it will be spent". Therefore, the question remains: why does it seem to have no effect and why are the public disappointed? The answer lies in what I believe to be the most accurate gauge of public sector inflation. For some reason, it is known as the "GDP deflator for government consumption". In the five years to 1998 it rose by 2.2 per cent a year. By the end of 1999 it was running at 4 per cent, rising to 5.75 per cent in 2000. In the last financial year to the end of March the figure was 6.5 per cent. That is three times the economy's overall inflation rate of 1.8 per cent.
Coming up to date, in the first quarter of this year public spending rose at an annual rate of 11 per cent. How can such a large increase have so little effect? It is

989
because 59 per cent of that sum was eaten up by higher wages and prices in the public sector. So the effective rate of increase in spending was only 4.2 per cent year on year.
The Government now find themselves on a ratchet. They spend; they fail; so they spend even more. The public can see that too and that is why the clear message from pre-Budget and post-Budget polls is of scepticism about the direct link between spending and outcome. People have worked out that it is possible to spend more, much more, without success. For example Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have spending levels per head which are much higher than those in England and, indeed, above the European average for health. But waiting lists in Wales and Northern Ireland are much longer than those in England and waiting times in Scotland are actually going up.
So the growing fear with this Government, perhaps reflected in the research I described, is that while they wear their heart on their sleeve about care, they do not seem to know how to make their good intentions come true. Take, for example, what the Chancellor calls,
"The first challenge is to increase our productivity".—[Official Report, 25/11/97; col. 773.]
That was five years ago, and what happened? The latest figures actually show a fall in productivity in the first quarter of the year. The Government see that productivity gap with our competitors as an opportunity. They say it gives us, "increased room for catch-up". To avoid catch-up problems in the public services the Chancellor says that he is going to have new reviews and reports, targets, procedures and checks, and inspectors and audits. But in a striking passage in the Statement on the subject of value for money in the public services, the Minister described a system of rewards and punishment that would follow success and failure in delivery. In saying that he reminded us of what the Chief Secretary said; that is,
"Money will only be released if the Government are satisfied we are getting the returns we want".
That was four years ago.
Do the Government think they will increase the productivity of the public services if they issue a new regulation every 20 minutes, as they do for business? Or will they issue 4,440 pages to hospitals next year—17 pages of rules every day—as they did to schools last year? Or will it be a czar that will make all the difference or a new No. 10 delivery unit? The public can see that the strategy has not worked and they can see why: that is, without real reform spending is not the answer.
Perhaps I can leave to one side the question of why the spending does not seem to have worked and why people may be disappointed with the results and turn to another aspect of the Statement which may be equally of interest. It concerns the effect of the failed spending effort on the economy as a whole. Let us consider the example the Government are setting to households in Britain. They say in the Statement that we can spend more than our income. So with
990
government income (on their own estimates) growing by 2.5 per cent, they will spend 4.3 per cent more a year. The public duly take their cue.
The size of outstanding household debt, including mortgage debt, has soared. As a ratio of annual disposable income it is at an all-time high at more than 100 per cent. Non-mortgage consumer credit is growing at 12.4 per cent a year while mortgage lending is growing at 9 per cent a year. As with the Government, underlying incomes are growing more slowly at only 5 per cent, so household finances are becoming stretched. So are the Government's.
How much more will the Government need to borrow to meet the plans we heard set out in the Statement? The Statement said that the spending plans were possible because of what the Government had achieved in debt reduction. Why then do the Government plan to borrow over the next five years twice as much as they repaid in debt in their first few years? That is according to their own figures. More realistically, according to economists, undershooting tax revenues because of an economic slow-down suggests that we could expect the PSNB to approach £20 billion this year, £30 billion next year and £35 billion in 2004–05.
As we are all aware, independent forecasters have been steadily downgrading predictions for GDP growth this year. Consensus expectations have dropped to 1.7 per cent compared with 1.8 per cent in June. Some forecasts are now as low as 1.2 per cent. Remember, the Chancellor's Budget forecast on which this spending plan is based is for a growth of 2.5 per cent this year and 3 to 3.5 per cent next year.
The spending plans in the Statement threaten all the theoretical economic foundations on which the Chancellor's framework is built. The framework's three main pillars—the independence of the Bank of England, the symmetrical inflation target and the code for fiscal stability—are all much less solid than the Minister might like to think.
Can we be saved by the EU and its growth and stability pact which sets limits on government spending? I doubt that. The pact only applies to small countries. For big countries, as Francis Mer, the new Finance Minister of France, said,
"Le pacte de stabilityé Européen n'est pas inscrit dans le marbre".
So we are not going to endorse the Government's failed approach to public services today. Our Benches will not support their policy of spending without change. That does not mean that we are against spending more on education and the other services the Minister described. But we are against his plans to spend more without real reform because, as the record seems to show, it does not work.
If this gathering gloom were not enough, the Chancellor will soon face a stark reminder of the dark days of industrial strife. On 17th July 1.3 million public sector workers, supposed to be the beneficiaries of the Statement, are planning a one-day pay strike—the biggest industrial action for more than 20 years. The Government must be disappointed. If they would tax more, spend more and achieve something, that would

991
be fine. If they would tax less, spend less and leave things alone, that would be finer still for some. But to tax more, spend more and make things worse is not going to be acceptable for long. O si sic omnes: if only everyone were sick of it.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches in general welcome the principles which underlie the Comprehensive Spending Review; namely, the need for greater levels of expenditure on our main public services and, secondly, the need to raise levels of general taxation which provide for that. That was the basis on which we fought the election (incidentally, it was not the basis on which the Government fought the election) because we believed that the key concerns of all sectors of British society—prosperous Britain, middle Britain and poorer Britain—had to do with the quality of public services which they were receiving. The quality of private goods and services they bought were often much higher than the public goods and services from which they benefited and, as with consumer goods, they wanted better quality services and were prepared to pay for them.
As consumers of public services we all want to know two principal things. First, how well will our taxes be spent; secondly, how fairly will our taxes be raised?
Today is not primarily about raising taxes, although the level of planned increase in expenditure raises important issues about what happens if the Government's growth targets are not met and also what happens at the end of the period. Have we reached nirvana at the end of the CSR period or are further expenditure and tax increases planned?
Today's key questions relate to how effectively the increased expenditure is distributed. In my view it is hardly surprising that up to now we have not had much to see for the increased spending under this Government, at least in some services. In 1999 many institutions were in debt, and in the case of schools, many of them illegally so. Many staff, particularly at the lower end of the scale, were extremely badly paid. I cannot disagree too strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said on Friday in criticising the Government for allowing public sector pay to increase compared with private sector comparators. The Tories, as an act of policy, held down public sector pay disgracefully, and a correction was sorely needed. So much of the increased expenditure of the past three years has been making up the ravages of what went before.
For the period of the CSR, very large additional amounts will be spent and we must see results. The Government seek to improve their effectiveness by organisational change and, even more importantly, by targets. Why should we believe that the targets will be more effective in the future than in the past? A large proportion of the targets set under the Government's public service agreement have simply not been met. The 1945 Labour government believed that the gentlemen in Whitehall knew best; this Government
992
tend to believe that only the gentlemen—it is still nearly always gentlemen—in the Treasury know best and they are setting down ever more targets for hard-pressed public sector workers to follow.
How do the Government believe that the changes that they seek can be met by micro-management from Whitehall? What kind of sense provides for no political accountability, for example, in the health service between the lowest organisational level and the Secretary of State? Why, for example, did the Government in the recent White Paper on regional government envisage that in health and in education, to name but two, there would be virtually no role for regional assemblies? When the Statement says that they seek to reverse decades of indifference and neglect of our regions by modest increases in the budgets of RDAs, who are they kidding? People across the regions need to be engaged; it cannot be done simply by giving a little more money to unelected RDAs.
On the subject of local democracy, is it a coincidence that the only time the phrase "local authority" appears in the Statement is when the Government explain what they will do with local authorities that they appear to have failed? On the general matter of delivery and the allocation of resources, why does the review contain no review of the Barnett formula? Why is there no attempt to match grants for the English regions to their specific needs?
On education I have two questions. First, when the Government talk about 1,400 secondary schools receiving an additional payment of £125,000 direct to each school, they refer to schools that will,
"match demanding new performance targets".
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that those schools are failing schools which they want to improve? Does it mean that they are specialist schools that they want to become beacons? Does it mean that they are educational priority schools? The paragraph is typical government speak which, frankly, is completely incomprehensible at first sight.
Secondly, where does the CSR leave the Government's plans for 50 per cent of school leavers to attend university? Why will the Government not admit that the negligible increase in numbers applying to universities in England last year—less than 1 per cent—was because many potential students from poorer families feared that a debt of £12,000 to £15,000 at the end of their studies was insupportable?
In the absence of a greater willingness on the part of government to devolve decision making in public services, to set professionals free to manage without constant interference from Whitehall and to give local communities greater say, our fear is that the justifiable increases in expenditure in this review will not be most effectively spent and that the case for well-funded, universally available public services will be seriously damaged. The challenge for the Government is to prove that fear unfounded.
4.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on Friday when we had a rather short, ill attended, but high-quality debate on the Finance Bill. I was impressed by how little either opposition party had learned about the way in which Finance Bills are constructed or the way in which the 2002 Budget was constructed. Today I am reassured in the sense that both the noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Newby, in their speeches, appear to have taken account of what I said on Friday. But, so far as I can see, they have not taken any account of what the Chancellor said today. Perhaps we need another debate so that they can catch up.
In what appeared to me—I know that I am prejudiced, but you will allow that—to be an outstanding description, not only of plans for the future, of resources, and of targets, but also of achievement over the past five years, the Chancellor, every time he addressed an issue of public policy or an issue of public service, was saying not only what we shall do over the next three years, but also what we have done over the past five years.
What did noble Lords opposite believe that the Chancellor was saying about primary schools? Do they not believe that increases in literacy targets are important? What did they believe was being said about the growth in employment, the closing of the employment trap, the way in which we have, over the past five years, attained a figure of a million and a half more people in work? That could be done with a favourable economy inherited from a benign previous government: it could all be to the credit of Mr Kenneth Clarke. But that excuse has now worn thin. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, knows that that is not true, as does the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
They know that what is true is that there has been an increase in employment and that we have the lowest unemployment in the developed world because of the policies of this Government. The Government have made that possible through economic stability, through the minimum wage, through making work pay, through employment credits and through the encouragement of business and manufacturing industry. The Government have achieved those extraordinarily—I use the word advisedly—successful results. I heard in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, no recognition, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, little recognition of that catalogue of success that the Chancellor was able to give to the House of Commons this afternoon.
Every time the Chancellor talked about increased spending, he talked about improved performance. I take the example of health, although that was dealt with in more detail at the time of the Budget rather than in the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, says that increased expenditure on health is accounted for by higher wages. The increase has not resulted in higher wages per doctor, but there is a higher wages bill because we have more doctors, more nurses and more people working in our hospitals and because more operations are being carried out and more patients arc being treated. That is the reason for higher expenditure in our National Health Service.
994
I wrote down in capital letters what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said as it struck me as a real give-away: "Without real reform spending is not the answer". Later he said, "We will not support spending without change". What on earth did he believe the Chancellor was saying? What was the 30-minute Statement about except to say that without real reform spending is not the answer and the corollary that without a commitment to the resources necessary all talk of reform is a sham. Frankly, unless the Conservative Party makes up its mind whether it supports the expenditure that we believe necessary for our public services and unless it either supports or says what it will do if it does not support us on the spending plans, no one will listen to what it says about reform.
Dr Liam Fox has wandered around Europe. He has come to a stop in Germany. Apparently he thinks that the peculiar blend of social insurance which Germany has—and which has been working rather badly since the incorporation of East Germany—is the solution. He will come forward to us with that solution in due course.
We know—because we know the truth and it became apparent—that Dr Fox's idea was first to convince people that the health service was not working in order to convince them that there was some magical solution other than public expenditure on health.
I do not think that much has been learned by the party opposite in the past five years. The same old charges come up. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, talked about 11 per cent public sector inflation. Public spending has risen overall by only 2.1 per cent in real terms each year over the past five years. Higher expenditure on services is due to the low growth in social security and the huge fall each year in debt interest payments. Public sector pay, which the noble Lord believes is where all the money will go, is projected to rise by just 1.6 per cent in real terms each year. So public expenditure is not being swallowed up by pay.
The accusation, which is never quite openly made, is that somehow we are working towards a crisis in our public finances and that it will all end in grief. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, did not quite come out in the open with that. He knows as well as I—and as the House knows perfectly well—that our projections for the period up to 2006 show us with a credit balance. At every stage in the past five years we have said that we would have one. We have proved that to be right.
In the Red Books of the last couple of Conservative Chancellors—I shall say only the last couple in order to be kind to some of the earlier ones—the public finances projections made have proved every time to be not just over-optimistic but wildly over-optimistic. They were never achieved year on year. Ours have always been achieved.
Fundamentally, our targets are about setting clear goals for services. There is not a multiplicity of targets. Public spending agreements have gone down from 200 to 130. They let devolved management get on with the

995
job. I believe that that is the right way. I do not believe that the comments of noble Lords opposite have even started to dent the Chancellor's determination.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I welcome this remarkable Statement. Does my noble friend the Minister discern the determination by Her Majesty's Government to promote, assist and defend Britain's manufacturing base? I remind my noble friend of the difficulties of the steel industry in Britain, and not least of the many jobs lost in Wales. Does my noble friend agree that Britain's premier exporting industry— aerospace—is worthy of a larger grant for research and development? A Britain shorn of her manufacturing will lose her greatness. But I end as I begin—overall, it is a remarkable and welcome Statement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jones for what he says about the Statement in general. I acknowledge the difficulty through which manufacturing industry has been going, and in particular the industries to which he refers. He will have been as encouraged as I was to learn that after a difficult period we are returning to growth in manufacturing industry. After a period of virtually no growth since the year 2000 there are signs of an upturn in the manufacturing industry.
My noble friend will also appreciate—he will have a chance to read this in more detail—that the spending review encourages the manufacturing industry at its base rather than at the front line. It is the increase in the science budget, the reforms in science teaching and the credits for research and development which are surely the way that a manufacturing industry in the future—which may not be the same as a manufacturing industry in the past—will flourish. That is what the Chancellor is determined to achieve.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the Chancellor in his speech claimed credit for his prudence and good management in reducing the public debt to a level below that achieved by many governments in the past? What he failed to do was to explain on any of these occasions how he managed to do it. Of course the reduction in public debt was largely due to the,
"unanticipated Spectrum receipts",
to which he did not refer, which as one can glean from the Red Book with care, amounted to a reduction of £22 billion—422,000 million. The Government achieved that windfall by the sale of licences for the use of telephones. The Chancellor has never given any credit to that sum in his financial statements, which he frequently makes about the reduction of government debt.
Does the Minister feel that if the Chancellor were more frank about that windfall profit—and came clean instead of claiming prudence and good management—there would be more belief and more trust in the figures that he has quoted today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by expressing surprise that such a distinguished capitalist as the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who ran a major bank with great distinction for a number years, should object to the Government getting £22 billion by selling Spectrum. I should have thought that he would be rather pleased about it.
The Government have always recognised that a significant part of the improvement in the public finances came from the sale of Spectrum. But by no means mostly, as the noble Lord would have us believe. It was a one off. If it can be achieved again for a fourth generation, I hope that we shall have his support.
The improvement in the public finances is much greater than the result of Spectrum's sales. The improvement in them by the reduction in payments for unemployment is much greater. The social as well as the financial effects are of enormous importance.
Lord Walker of Worcester: My Lords, in his Statement the Chancellor stressed the importance of encouraging voluntary movements. There is perhaps no greater example of voluntary effort in this country than the hospice movement. Is the Minister aware that when the Government came to power 40 per cent of capital and current expenditure of the hospice movement was funded from public expenditure? It has been reduced every year and is now down to below 28 per cent. Is there any chance that as a result of this Statement the hospice movement will start to receive the assistance that it used to receive?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am as strong a supporter of the hospice movement as is the noble Lord, Lord Walker. I think that the noble Lord may be a patron of the North London Hospice, as I am and as is the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I cannot remember: it is a long list. I agree with the noble Lord that public expenditure is of enormous importance. It is difficult for the hospice movement because so much of it is labour-intensive. Clearly, it is as important for the hospice movement as it is for home care for the elderly and the disabled.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walker, will have noticed that in the spending review Statement reference was made to the £125 million extra which is to be made available to the voluntary and charitable sector for the public services it performs. I can assure him that hospices come under the definition of public services performed by the voluntary and charitable sector.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may say how unequivocally pleased we are that extra money is going to education. That is long overdue and the extra £15 billion is vital if we are to maintain our competitiveness worldwide. How much of that money will go directly to schools and how much will go through local education authorities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Chancellor gave the

997
detailed figures for how much will go to each school. I suppose that I could add them all up and multiply by 3,500 secondary schools to give the noble Baroness a figure, but that would be unfair. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make a Statement tomorrow and it is better if that comes authoritatively from her rather than from me.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. It was a broad Statement which by any objective assessment could have been made only by a Chancellor who was successful in his position, as the present Chancellor surely is and has been in running the economy since 1997.
My noble friend said that schools and hospitals come first, as they surely must. I certainly welcome that, but I also welcome the fact that the third leg of the stool, as it were, in the Statement was housing. Without decent housing, the first two services are difficult to deliver for children. As chairman of the Housing Corporation, I welcome the confidence that the Statement gives us about delivery in the difficult circumstances of increased housing needs and deprivation. I look forward to the Statement promised on Thursday by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on planning and the whole area of housing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my turn, I think. I am of course grateful to my noble friend, who has been a distinguished chairman of the Housing Corporation for several years. With his characteristic modesty, my right honourable friend the Chancellor did not spell out what the increased housing expenditure will actually mean. I understand that it will mean virtually a doubling of the Housing Corporation's budget by 2005–06, which is an extraordinary change in the level of support for public housing.
I am sure that my noble friend and the corporation will use that money wisely to deal with the long overdue problems of repair to existing housing and to secure affordable housing for people, especially in the South East of the country, for whom it is short. The lack of such housing is affecting our productivity. That is now up to the Housing Corporation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am an innocent in these matters and I listened to the Statement with wonderment. I wondered whether the heading at its top was not, "All this and heaven too". It seems important to an ordinary person such as me to know what the Government will have borrowed by 2006.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness does herself an injustice, but the answer is that borrowing will still be in within the limits that we have always set. We have always said that there will be no net borrowing for revenue purposes over the course of the economic cycle. At the same time, we have said
998
that borrowing for investment—in other words, for capital—which is now properly distinguished from revenue under the resource accounting being introduced this year, will be increased. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that that is necessary.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, did the Minister detect the Chancellor's characteristic modesty when he did not allow himself to spell out whether the extra money that he will provide for policing takes account of the deepening crisis in police pensions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, once again, the extra money being provided for policing will be much better dealt with in detail in the Home Secretary's Statement on Wednesday, but it provides for an increase in live policing, so to speak, rather than pensions funding, up to 130,000 police. Clearly, the proportion of money going to policing that goes on police pensions is a matter of continuing concern.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, first, I apologise to my noble friend because I have been upstairs in a Select Committee and was unable to be present earlier. Given that, as I understand it, there is to be major reform along with the welcome increase in expenditure, does that reform include the abolition of the Barnett formula?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, there is no suggestion of the abolition of the Barnett formula. If there were to be such a change, it would not take place in the context of a spending review.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about the inspection arrangements, which I believe are to be introduced in health and education to ensure that the Government's targets are met? Will those inspectorates be statutory bodies or will they be related to the auditing services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope for the sake of all of us in the House that most of the things to be done will not involve primary legislation. We are sometimes too ready to embark on new primary legislation instead of making better use of the tools that we have. No, the real thrust will be in improved use of existing audit and accountancy bodies—the National Audit Office, which, of course, is not under government control, the Audit Commission and so on.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I declare an interest as the deputy chairman of the council of the University of London. This country has historically had world-class Armed Forces, financial services and universities, but the world-class position of the universities has been under greater threat than has been the case for the other two services. Can the Minister be more expansive and specific than the

999
Statement allowed him to be about what the Government will do about the universities during the next three years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, not really. That matter will become more apparent in the Statement to be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Chancellor allowed himself—and I do not blame him, because it is a matter of enormous importance—to be a little more expansive about resources for science, research and the budgets of the research councils. Of course, that forms a significant part of expenditure on higher education. My right honourable friend went into some detail about that in the Statement, but for the sort of more detailed analysis for which the noble Lord asks, it is better to await the Statement from the relevant Secretary of State.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5.19 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 44 [Conditions of support]:
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Choice of form of support]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Greaves: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 45 stand part of the Bill. The clause is headed "Choice of form of support". It should be headed, "No choice of form of support, except for the Home Secretary and his departmental organisations". Although it refers to about five different forms of support, the clause is really about the choice between NASS accommodation in what is now the traditional dispersed form and accommodation centres. There are echoes of the question of whether cash-only support should he abolished. We discussed that issue on the previous clause, and the cash-only option stands as a matter of difference between parts of the Committee. No doubt we shall return to it.
The clause is about whether someone who comes to this country and applies for asylum should be sent to dispersed NASS accommodation; a block of flats in Glasgow; a terraced house in Leeds or whatever, or whether he should go to a new accommodation centre. The difference between us is that the Government are proposing not only that the asylum seeker will not make the decision and will not have a free choice in the matter—which is reasonable—but also that the asylum seeker's circumstances and wishes are not to be taken into account.
Of course, that is already the case with some people who are sent straight to Oakington, but they are special cases that the Government believe to have no merit whatever—although they are not always right—
1000
and that can be dealt with quickly. However, we are talking here not about people who are locked in a detention centre while their cases are dealt with quickly, but about people who may be here for two to six months—or perhaps longer—even under the new super efficient system that we are promised, before their initial decision is reached.
The assumption behind what the Government are saying is that no one applying for asylum in this country will ever want to live in one of the new trial accommodation centres. In another place on 14th May the Minister—who was Angela Eagle before the Home Office had one of its frequent throwing-balls-in-the-air-and-seeing-who-comes-down—said:
"The Committee will agree that it would be nonsense for accommodation centres to run at half capacity because people have chosen dispersal".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 14/5/02: col. 220.]
I would not disagree. If accommodation centres are to be provided, it is sensible that they should be run as close to capacity as possible. No one disagrees.
The disagreement is over the suggestion that the new accommodation centres, with what we are promised will be excellent facilities on site, able to deal and cope with the needs of asylum seekers in a secure and safe environment, will be unpopular with those seeking asylum. I do not believe that they will. Some of those coming from the other side of the world to a country about which they know nothing, having never heard of Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds, or even Nelson, given the choice of a safe, secure environment with facilities on site, will say, "We'd prefer that to being sent somewhere we have never heard of. We don't know who else is going to be there; we don't know where it is; it is more of the unknown".
As noble Lords have said, many people who come have suffered a great deal of trauma. The fact that a high proportion of asylum seekers are now young men leads people to believe that they do not necessarily suffer the same traumas as older people and families with children. My experience is that that is not the case. They are often frightened of the future: they do not know what is going to happen. They are often worried sick about the rest of their family and relatives, perhaps even wives and children back home. Some are suffering from mental illnesses and most have had great shocks to their system. The process of arriving here is extremely traumatic for many of them.
Under those circumstances, I believe that at least some of them would prefer the safety and security of accommodation centres. We have discussed accommodation centres at great length. Some of us do not share the utter aversion to them that exists in other quarters. Given the Government's propensity to turn a good idea into a mess, I am not sure that we will hold that view once the accommodation centres have been operating for a while. We will have to see. We will assess them in a fair and honest way. But we do not oppose the principle of accommodation centres. We support their proposed trials, but not necessarily all the details.

1001
However, other people will be coming in for whom dispersal is the most sensible option because they have family, friends or community in this country. Therefore, where subsection (3)(a) suggests that the Secretary of State may,
"have regard to administrative or other matters which do not concern the person's personal circumstances",
the wording rings alarm bells. The absence from subsection (3) of any reference to the asylum seeker's personal circumstances being one of the issues taken into account is worrying.
In another place, the same Minister said that not to include this clause would cause "administrative havoc". That is surely putting the point too strongly. By choosing the best option for individual asylum seekers one may avoid administrative problems and create a situation in which people will be the least unhappy with their circumstances. That must be conducive to quick and sensible decision making.
The whole clause is misconceived in the way it is set out. We are not suggesting that asylum seekers should have an absolute right to choose, but they should be told what the options are and have the opportunity to put forward a preference that can be taken into account when the decision is made. The decision may not be the one they want, but their circumstances and preferences should be taken into account. The clause as it stands seems to preclude that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to spell out what we understand Clause 45 to mean in the circumstances raised by the noble Lord. I want to place clear lines on the public record so that there can be no misunderstanding in future.
Clause 45 deals with the choice of forms of support offered to destitute asylum seekers. It gives effect to our policy that support is provided on a no-choice basis. We have been clear about that from the outset. The Secretary of State will make the decision about where to provide support.
Given some of the concerns expressed in another place and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, it may be helpful if I emphasise that Clause 45(3) is not intended to list in order of priority the issues to which the Secretary of State should have regard when determining which provision to offer support under. It is intended to make it clear that the Secretary of State may lawfully have regard to several matters that are unrelated to personal circumstances for administrative reasons, such as running an effective asylum support system or for the purposes of the trial. That does not absolve the Secretary of State from his obligation to act reasonably in the circumstances. We have every intention of taking account of personal circumstances.
It may help the Committee if I try to provide some idea of how we envisage using Clause 45(3). We will allocate places in accommodation centres to people according to their personal circumstances, the language that they speak and the size of their family group. However, during the trial period, we will have only a limited number of places, and we are likely to need to take into account additional factors that are
1002
unrelated to personal circumstances. That is why we have included the express power to allow us to take non-personal circumstances into account and to regard such matters as conclusive.
The White Paper said that we might want to limit the allocation of accommodation centre places to those arriving at particular ports of entry or induction centres. That may assist in the early days of the trial, as capacity is built up, and may also foster links between, on the one hand, ports and induction centres and, on the other, particular accommodation centres. That would ease the process for all concerned. Clearly, the port of arrival is not linked to someone's personal circumstances, which is why we need subsection (3)(b). If we say that speakers of a particular language can be accommodated at the centres, one way of deciding which people should go to an accommodation centre would be to link the decision to the port of entry.
I need hardly remind the Committee that, at the outset, we will have only 3,000 places at accommodation centres. It may be that we allocate person A to an accommodation centre and person B, who came through a different port but whose case is similar in other respects, to dispersal accommodation. Under Clause 45(3), that would be entirely right and proper. There might be nothing in the personal circumstances of those two people to distinguish them from each other, but paragraph (b) allows us to treat the port of entry as a conclusive factor in determining whether someone goes to a centre or to dispersal accommodation.
Subsection (3)(c) allows us to,
"apply different criteria to different persons for administrative reasons".
It assists us to trial the new system by permitting us to allocate one person support in an accommodation centre and another person with the same or similar needs support in dispersal accommodation.
Inevitably, some asylum seekers will express a preference as to whether they wish to be supported in an accommodation centre because that would suit their needs exactly or in dispersed accommodation. They may express a preference to live in a particular part of the country. As the Minister in another place said, it is the case that personal preference would be taken into account, although it might not be the primary consideration.
I shall make the position clear. We will, of course, listen to any comments made, but asylum seekers will not be able to decide the method of support that will be used or the location in which they will be supported. We could not run an efficient system on that basis. However, a preference may be based on someone's personal circumstances. For example, a person might say that he wished to be supported where he could attend hospital regularly, as part of continuing treatment. It would be right for us to take that into account when deciding where to offer support—an accommodation centre or in a dispersal area.
I shall make the distinction clear: personal circumstances will be taken into account, in so far as they have an impact on support-related issues, but

1003
pure personal preference as to the type of support will not be taken into account. We will, of course, be sensitive to the needs of individuals, but we must retain the flexibility to allocate in such a way as to make the system efficient and to ensure that we make the best use of it. That is the intention of the clause. It is best left as it is and best left in the Bill to do that job.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: The Minister has explained carefully and clearly that, although their preferences may be taken into account, asylum seekers will not be allowed to make a personal choice about where they live. Can the Minister explain why it is right to do that for asylum seekers but not for British subjects?
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation of the clause. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that it is a pity that there is no reference in the clause to personal circumstances. Will the Government reflect on whether they might be able to incorporate such a reference by a future amendment? Will the Minister write to me to tell me whether there is any good precedent in legislation elsewhere for subsection (3)(c), which refers to the application of different criteria for different persons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has made an interesting point, but I am not sure how he envisages that the system would work, were we to go along with his general drift. I will read carefully what the noble Lord said and consider the point that he is trying to make, but I cannot undertake to satisfy him on that point. I will, of course, write to the noble Lord.
The answer to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we seek to make it crystal clear that our policy for support for asylum seekers will operate on a no-choice basis. I must also make it clear that refugees have the same rights, once granted status, as those who are settled here. In operating an asylum system—whether it be for asylum seekers who end up in accommodation centres or dispersal areas—we must, in the circumstances, be the judge of how to make the best use of a generous but finite resource. The Bill will allow for that, and that is right. It would be a negligent government that did not seek to make good and efficient use of the resources at their disposal.
Lord Greaves: I thank the Minister for a useful, helpful and clear statement of the extent to which personal circumstances will be taken into account. It will be helpful to have that on the record. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in suggesting that the Government might consider putting a reference into the clause. In the light of what the Minister said, such a reference would probably make no difference to what will happen, but it would, at least, be in the Bill, and we would not have to rely on what the Minister said today.
Clause 45 agreed to.
1004
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Asylum-seeker: appeal against refusal to support]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 26, line 20, at end insert—
"(9) The Secretary of State may make a grant to a voluntary organisation which provides—

(a) advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal under this Part;

(b) other services for the welfare of those persons.

(10) A grant under subsection (9) may be subject to terms or conditions (which may include conditions as to repayment)."
The noble Earl said: There is a good deal of work to be done in giving advice to asylum seekers. Many of them are badly in need of it, partly because of ignorance, partly because of the effects of trauma and partly because of the difficulty of coming to terms with things that have happened to them and which may cost a great effort of will to remember. I know one or two people who are in that position and who still have difficulty in allowing themselves to remember what happened to them three or more years after the event.
All this could prove a severe burden on the facilities of an accommodation centre, which will be otherwise occupied. Granting the amendment might save the Government a good deal of trouble. In their own interests as well as those of asylum seekers, they would be well advised to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support all that has been said by the noble Earl. It is very important to ensure that, where appropriate, the asylum seeker should be able to see his or her lawyer. The present regulations that obtain, contrary to assurances given elsewhere, make no proper provision for people to obtain reimbursement for their travel costs.
It is equally important for witnesses to be able to go to a lawyer in order to make statements. No provision is made for that when it comes to an asylum seeker's appeal.
Earl Russell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will forgive me. He is speaking in support of my next amendment, Amendment No. 143A. I shall warmly welcome his support for that amendment when we reach it.
Lord Renton: Would the noble Earl, Lord Russell, clarify a point for me? In the amendment he refers to "a voluntary organisation", which is a very wide expression. The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should,
"make a grant available to a voluntary organisation which provides … advice or assistance to persons who have a right of appeal".
Obviously that means legal advice or assistance. Does the noble Earl include firms of solicitors under the expression "voluntary organisation"?
Earl Russell: The amendment is not concerned specifically with legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will remember our debate on the first day in

1005
Committee when we discussed separately the provision of legal advice, to which he made a helpful contribution. This amendment refers more to questions involving the welfare of asylum seekers.
I should have declared an interest in this matter since I am the patron of the Association of Visitors of Immigration Detainees. It is an extremely valuable body undertaking the same kind of visiting as that carried out in prisons, only one hopes in slightly better conditions. The association has done a great deal to mediate in matters of misunderstanding between asylum seekers and governors at the centres or, in some cases where they have been involved, the governors of prisons.
I refer here also to organisations concerned with refugee health such as the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and organisations of more general concern such as the Refugee Council. Above all, I refer to the Christian Churches whose contribution in this area I honour and respect deeply. A wide range of organisations is involved, quite apart from lawyers.
One thing that has most impressed me and which has helped me to keep up my pride in my own country through a series of blows to it is the immensely high standard of those voluntary organisations that do involve themselves with refugees, providing them with a welcome, advice and support, but often simply listening to them, which sometimes is most important of all.
I hope that I have clarified the point for the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I am very much concerned with legal advice, but I believe that we have already dealt with it. Furthermore, I do not think that I would have chosen to describe solicitors under the heading, "voluntary organisation". They might be involuntary, but let us not split hairs on the point.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister replies—
Lord Judd: The noble Earl has raised an important point. Unless I am mistaken, I noticed that the Statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated in this House this afternoon stated:
"So that the vitality and independence of the charity, community and voluntary sector can grow and flourish, the Chief Secretary is today announcing details of a new three-year fund of £125 million that voluntary organisations can draw upon for their public service work".
In replying to the noble Earl, can my noble friend on the Front Bench comment on the applicability of that fund to the kind of work to which the noble Earl referred?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I had forgotten that our side had already had a shot.
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is anything that would prevent the Secretary of State making a grant to a voluntary organisation without
1006
the need for new legislation? Can he also say whether there are any other examples of voluntary organisations being asked to return money they have not spent? I do not know the answer to that question at all.
Lord Dubs: I am slightly puzzled by the amendment. The noble Earl mentioned the Refugee Council. However, the council—for which I worked for some years until 1994—has been receiving money from the Home Office precisely for welfare and advice services. Unless something has changed recently, I should have thought that the amendment describes the present position.
Earl Russell: That is correct. The amendment describes the position as I hope it will remain.
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I may make a brief point in relation to a number of organisations which have been advantageous to the Home Office in regard to their representations on behalf of those least able to make representations themselves.
I do not know whether the Minister heard the Radio 4 programme broadcast yesterday on NASS. The organisation was described as one of the most bureaucratic government bodies in the country. I believe that even the former Minister at the Home Office, named as Angela Eagle on the programme, expressed her serious concerns in regard to the way that NASS was operating.
However, what greatly concerns me is that many organisations are living from hand to mouth and are in desperate need of funds to provide advice and to make representations. It is in the Government's interest to ensure that funds are made available in order to make the work of such organisations that much easier.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall resist the temptation to respond to all the points that are somewhat adjacent to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, except to pick up on the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on grant aid and new legislation. Much legislation on the statute book enables Secretaries of State across government departments to provide grant aid in different forms. I am sure that new legislation is not always required to open up yet another pot of funding. A great deal of flexibility is built into the workings of such schemes. Furthermore, I am sure that noble Lords will join my noble friend Lord Judd in welcoming the additional sums announced today by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may well be that new and additional services are required as a result of this and other legislation in a similar field. Some of those voluntary organisations may wish to apply for assistance funding.
I return to the main point of the amendment. We certainly understand the concerns expressed by the noble Earl. Putting it frankly, I am aware that asylum support adjudicators have called for legal advice to be

1007
made available. It is believed that they are particularly concerned with regard to cases involving the early termination of support.
Generally speaking, the reason for early termination of support is based on fact. The asylum seeker will have left his accommodation or would have breached a condition on which such support was predicated. All asylum seekers are informed of the conditions on which support is offered. Additional briefing provided during the induction centre process reinforces that message. If asylum seekers choose to ignore this information, they must be prepared to shoulder responsibility and accept the consequences.
It would be a nonsense for the Home Office to grant fund the provision of welfare services to asylum seekers who are appealing against a decision to terminate their support early because they failed to abide by the terms under which the support was offered. Had they abided by the terms, they would have continued to be supported. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
It should be understood that the Government support a number of organisations which offer different and varied advice to asylum seekers and those seeking asylum in this country. We have been praised widely for doing so. However, a line has to be drawn. We believe that we are right in drawing that line in this case. I am unable to accept the noble Earl's amendment, although I understand the spirit in which it was moved.
Earl Russell: Is there any discretion at all in the enforcement of the rules of support? I understand the Minister's position. But let us suppose that a man's cousin and only surviving relative has had a heart attack, his life is in immediate danger and the asylum seeker ignores the curfew in order to go out to visit his cousin because it may be the last time that he will ever see any living relation. When you have seen most of your relations killed, your attachment to those that survive can become very intense because it is an attachment to the whole of your past and your sense of place. One would have thought that representations for mercy might be made in that kind of case. Is that question being considered? If not, there is a strong case for asking the Government to think very seriously about whether it should be considered in the future.
I was told at Yale that all Yale rules should be construed to contain the word "normally". When the Minister enunciates rules of support, one wonders whether he may perhaps consider them to contain the word "normally". The kind of situation I have envisaged will not happen often but it is almost certain that it will happen at least once that an asylum seeker in accommodation will go off and try to visit the dying person—or possibly recovering person—while he has the chance to do so because he knows that he will never have the chance to do so again. I am not asking for a very big thing but it is an area where the action of an intermediary could be extremely important. While the matter is under urgent consideration, I hope that the
1008
Minister will at least say that he understands why I am making this request of him. I do not think that it is altogether unreasonable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: When the noble Earl made his first comments on this issue my mind went back some 20 or so years to a time when I was a legal adviser in a law centre where there were a number of Chilean refugees. The noble Earl referred to the effect of trauma, torture and mistreatment on people. From talking to people who came here as refugees fleeing the Chilean regime and who have now lived in this country for 20 years and more, I know that they greatly welcomed the support and aid that they received. They still find it very hard to talk in detail about the trauma they experienced and the impact it had upon them.
Where a person can provide a reasonable excuse for a breach of regulations—perhaps in the circumstances enunciated by the noble Earl—termination of support would not be thought right. In the circumstances described by the noble Earl, and taking into account some of the points he made about the impact that traumatic flight may have on people, there would be an element of flexibility. For that reason—this underpins the point I made earlier—the amendment is not necessary. It does not add anything to the way in which we expect the law to operate.
Earl Russell: For once in a blue moon I am relieved to be told that my amendment is not necessary. I thank the Minister warmly for what he said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 143A:
Page 26, line 29, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Earl said: The amendment concerns attendance at appeals. As it stands at present, the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State may pay reasonable travelling expenses incurred by an appellant in connection with attendance for the purposes of an appeal".
The amendment seeks to change the word "may" to "shall" and allows for the attendance of witnesses.
In the case I have just described, it is perfectly possible that an intensive care nurse from the hospital may be asked to attend as a witness and incur considerable travelling expenses. Nurses pay is not so generous that they can afford large train fares at the drop of a hat. I hope the Minister will find the amendment worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I apologise for anticipating rather too early in the debate inspired by the noble Earl. I do not imagine that my noble friend will be able to make the concession in the terms asked for by the noble Earl. However, the amendment gives him an opportunity to state the policy that will be followed by the Secretary of State. I hope that asylum seekers and their witnesses will have the opportunity to see the lawyers of their choice. That being so, it may, in a

1009
minority of cases, mean help being given with expenses. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something comforting in that regard.
Lord Renton: I shall be very surprised if the Minister can accept the first amendment in this group and I am doubtful about the other two. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, realises that the Secretary of State may at an early stage have information which enables him to realise that the person seeking asylum is bogus. In those circumstances, stating that the Secretary of State "shall" pay travel expenses and other matters would be utterly wrong. We must leave the discretion with the Secretary of State.
Lord Hylton: I do not have with me Section 103 of the 1999 Act but I strongly suspect that this refers, as does the remainder of the clause, to asylum support appeals only. If that is the case, an amendment of this kind should go much wider. That is why I moved and withdrew an amendment which was designed to be much wider. It referred not only to benefit support appeals but to other kinds of asylum and immigration appeals in the interests of getting the best possible quality of decisions, thereby avoiding subsequent appeals and cases for judicial review. Will the Government attempt to widen this principle to affect more of the Bill?
6 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The intervention of my noble friend Lord Renton has made it possible for me to be succinct. I simply wanted to ask on what basis the Secretary of State would refuse to pay travelling expenses. My noble friend put the question in the proper context.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It might he helpful if I were to spell out the circumstances surrounding the provision of and access to legal advice that we envisage. It is worth putting on the record that we are committed to providing access to legal advice at all stages of the asylum process. We have made that clear before. Advice will be provided in accommodation centres either by lawyers or advisers based on site or by co-ordinated local advice services. Advice will be provided by the Legal Services Commission which will let specific contracts for the purpose. In general, asylum seekers will not need to travel from an accommodation centre to receive legal advice. If they or others who are not in an accommodation centre need to do so, travel costs may be refunded by the existing legal aid system.
We have also ensured that adequate powers are there to enable the funding and grant-aiding of legal support and advice. Section 111 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 currently enables the Secretary of State to make grants to voluntary organisations, as is well known. Clause 97 of the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to grant-fund voluntary organisations that provide advice and assistance. Broad-ranging provision has been made and more than adequate powers have been put in place to ensure that that will continue. We are committed to that.
1010
I shall discuss the amendments in reverse order. The case against Amendment No. 145 is clear. As we do not believe that legal representation at an appeal is necessary, it would be nonsense for the Home Office to pay the travel expenses of an asylum seeker seeking legal advice in connection with an appeal against the withdrawal of support.
Earl Russell: Will the Minister say why he thinks that legal representation in an appeal is not necessary?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am talking about the specific circumstances relating to withdrawal of support. I am happy to tell the Committee why Amendment No. 144 is unnecessary. Section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 may allow us to meet the expenses of witnesses who attend an asylum appeal in respect of a supported asylum seeker. Section 103(9) of the same Act, which is reproduced in the new Section 103B inserted by Clause 41 of the Bill, may allow the expenses of a witness attending an asylum support hearing to be paid, and Section 96(2) allows for forms of support other than those specified by Section 96(1) to he provided in exceptional circumstances.
Amendment No. 144 is an attempt to require travel expenses of witnesses to be paid in every case. Current legislation is permissive, but it is normal policy to meet the travel expenses of witnesses, so I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that making payment mandatory is not necessary. There may be circumstances in which it would be ridiculous to pay travelling expenses—for example when a witness is more than able to afford the costs of travel. NASS currently operates under instructions to that effect.
Amendment No. 143A would affect the current legislation that the Secretary of State may pay any reasonable travelling expenses to enable an appellant to attend an appeal hearing in connection with a decision to refuse or terminate support. I am happy to reassure the Committee that, as a general rule, reasonable travel expenses of appellants will he met from public funds. But again it would be nonsensical to insist on that in every case. Support may be terminated early because the person has failed to abide by the terms in which that support was offered. The person may have been working without telling the authorities and claiming support at the same time. We have to be able to take account of those circumstances. People have undoubtedly defrauded the public purse and many will be well able to meet the costs of their own travel.
We must ensure that public money used for supporting asylum seekers is spent to best effect. Paying travel expenses in every case, even for those who can afford the costs of their own travel, would not represent best value for money. It would be entirely inappropriate to meet the costs of travel in such cases. For that reason the amendment should be withdrawn as the points that it covers have already been met by and large.
Lord Hylton: The Minister cited Clause 97 of the Bill which does indeed deal with grants. However, they are

1011
limited to persons who have a right of appeal. Therefore, the clause does not go wide enough to cover legal advice before a first decision has been made. Will the Minister consider having a dialogue with the Legal Services Commission so that legal advice will be readily available to those who need it at the earliest possible stage? That would lead to much better quality first decisions.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to consider that point. The noble Lord is right about what Clause 96 covers. The Secretary of State can make grants to voluntary organisations that provide advice or assistance to people with a right of appeal under Part 5 of the Bill. The circumstances to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred are limited to that element of the legislation. I shall consider that point, but we are probably right in constraining the area which it covers.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his reply. He has convinced me that he may do what I ask, and I very much hope that he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Withholding and withdrawal of support]:
On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Greaves: This is an extremely important clause, although it is short. It refers to Schedule 3 which is a long, complex and important schedule setting out entirely new legislation for the withholding and withdrawal of support. It refers to four categories of people: failed asylum seekers; people living here illegally; European Union and EEA citizens; and those who have been granted refugee status in another EU state.
These new proposals were introduced at the last minute in another place. They received what can only be described as a cursory discussion on Report, together with a large number of other amendments. They certainly did not receive proper scrutiny. If they are to receive proper scrutiny, this is the only time and place that it will happen. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will bear with me.
The Government's reason for bringing forward the amendment was clearly to deal with what is commonly called "benefit shopping". People in various categories, particularly refugees and former refugees who have gained citizenship in another part of Europe, come to this country and are not economically active; not having lived here for any length of time, they are unable to claim habitual residence. Because they are not able to claim national benefits, they fall back on claiming what might be termed local benefits: essentially benefits from social services departments as set out in paragraph 1 of the schedule. So there is clearly a problem in some places. It was reported to me that in Birmingham, for example, this has cost the
1012
social services department £3 million—a not inconsiderable sum. It is a problem that must he examined and sorted out.
The difficulty is this. By bringing forward this legislation at the last minute in the other place, in what seems to be a fairly rushed and not very considered way, the Government are not merely tackling the problem of a relatively small number of people—for some reason most appear to be Somalis, but the provision no doubt applies to others—they are introducing legislation which appears to have a far more wide-ranging effect and which applies to all citizens of the EU and the EEA.
I do not understand European law in this area, or indeed in any other area, and I doubt whether many other people do. It is extremely complex. The amendment itself is a complex attempt to amend an extremely complex area of law on a one-off basis, in a Bill which otherwise has nothing to do with European legislation and rules, and which may well extend into areas beyond the competence—I use the word in a colloquial way—of those who are dealing with these matters.
It is suggested by some that this proposed piece of legislation may well break European rules—that it may be contrary to European law. I do not know whether that is the case, but there are enough people who appear to know what they are talking about who are putting that forward to cause concern.
It seems to us that any solution to the problem requires a European-wide agreement. Not to seek such agreement risks breaking a fundamental principle of equality of treatment for all EEA citizens. EEA citizens who come to this country and are able to work are all right. If they live here long enough, they may well meet the habitual residence test if in the future they are in need of assistance, for example, in regard to a disability or whatever it may be. But those who are not able to work here are being potentially discriminated against.
The proposal is to remove a raft of possible benefits from four different categories. It seems to me that no one can argue against the removal of benefits from failed asylum seekers. If their claim had failed, they are not entitled to support beyond that which may be necessary on humanitarian grounds and perhaps to look after any children.
However, the proposal gives rise to various concerns. There are at present an unknown number of people in this country who are in receipt of welfare support, housing support, and social services support of other kinds from local authorities. I do not know whether the Minister can give the government estimate of the numbers involved. I have not seen the figure, but it is clearly a reasonably large minority in a few places, and not many in the rest of the country.
These are potentially families who rely on the benefits that they receive. It may involve older people and children. One of the concerns is: what happens to these people? If the legislation is passed, will their benefit simply be cut off; and what would the consequences be? If the Government intend in the

1013
future to provide support only for children, does that mean that those children will be taken into care and that families will be split up? What are the alternatives?
A further concern is that this provision could prevent families being reunited if there are family members with refugee status in different countries. If a husband has refugee status in France, for example, and the wife and children have refugee status here, on the face of it this schedule would prevent the husband coming to this country and being reunited with his children. Is that sensible? Should not this issue be dealt with at European level, so that refugee status can be transferred by agreement from one country to another?
Paragraph 14 of the schedule places on local authorities a duty to provide information if they come across people whom they believe to be failed asylum seekers or who are otherwise not entitled to be living here—who are settled here unlawfully. It places on the local authority a duty to notify the central authorities of that fact.
The wording of paragraph 14 is rather strange and the provision is unclear. It does not state quite so boldly that there is a general duty on local authorities. It suggests that the duty is in relation to their other duties as regards people's eligibility for social services support. The question arises: is this to be regarded in future as a general duty on local authorities? If they come across someone who is not entitled to be living here, is it their duty in all cases to notify the Government, or only where an application is being made for support and the applicants are found to be ineligible under the terms of the schedule?
If it is a general duty, it will place many local authorities in great difficulty. Anyone involved with refugees and asylum seekers hears many stories. Sometimes you deliberately close your ears to them. You get to know that such and such a person has failed in his or her asylum claim after going through all the appeal processes, and is said to be living in such and such a place with such and such a person. You close your eyes to that. If you are working with asylum and refugee groups and you go around "shopping" people, you immediately lose credibility. You cannot do that. That is the case with some local authority employees who are employed specifically to work with such groups. If it is to be their duty to "shop" people whenever they come across rumours or even strong evidence that people are living in this country when they should not be, it will make their job impossible. It will cut local authorities off from the very useful contacts that they have with local asylum and refugee groups. The point needs clarification.
Amendment No. 158A in this group refers to paragraph 15 of Schedule 3, which allows the Secretary of State to invent a new class of person for this purpose. As I understand it, this is over and above the four existing classes—failed asylum seekers, EEA citizens and so on. A new class of person can be invented and can simply be added to the list by order. This seems an extraordinary provision—the ability to
1014
remove people's rights and to create new "non-persons" simply by order. I wonder whether the Minister can justify this provision.
Will the Minister define a failed asylum seeker? Is it someone who has been turned down at the first stage; or has someone to go through the whole process before the provisions can be brought in? Will the Minister tell us what reliance on a right under or by virtue of Community treaties means? I do not understand it. I can find no one who can explain it to me in words of one syllable. Perhaps the Minister can do so. Such a provision could drive a coach and horses through the schedule; or it may clarify it.
How many people are getting this support from local authorities at present? By what process will they lose support? In other words, what transitional period will there be for people in that position at present or will they simply be thrown out on the street without further ado? What is the relationship of the habitual residence test to the proposed new legislation? It was discussed, although not clarified, in another place.
It is an extremely important schedule which deserves considerable discussion and understanding before the Committee allows it to go through.
Lord Renton: Schedule 3 is four-and-a-half pages long. It is rather complicated and its legal effect is, in several places, somewhat obscure. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—he has taken a lot of trouble in putting forward his views on the schedule—that we can do without it.
Perhaps I may run quickly through some of the provisions. Paragraph 1 relates to ineligibility for support. That merely ensures that existing law of various kinds must not be ignored. We could not do without that. I have slight doubts about the exceptions which are put forward but they do not go too far and I think that that provision is all right.
The four classes of ineligible persons are set out in paragraphs 4 to 7. I think that those are wise provisions which we must have. Paragraph 8 provides that,
"The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made enabling a person to whom paragraph I applies … to leave the United Kingdom".
That is necessary and fair. I agree with the power given to the Secretary of State under paragraph 10 to make regulations providing for accommodation. That is fair enough. The same applies to paragraph 11; that is fair enough.
The offences follow naturally if there are breaches. It is only right that the schedule should be supported by the power to prosecute if necessary although, frankly, the circumstances in which prosecutions are likely to take place would, I think, turn out to be rather narrow. Paragraph 14 relates to information and is fair enough.
I now invite the Committee's attention to paragraph 15 which relates to power to amend the schedule. That is what we call a Henry VIII clause giving the Secretary of State power to amend primary legislation made by Parliament. We should try to avoid that wherever

1015
possible. Bearing in mind the trouble which has been taken with regard to the other parts of Schedule 3, I doubt whether that Henry VIII clause is necessary or desirable. Paragraph 16 relates to the making of regulations. We then have a paragraph relating to interpretation which is clear enough.
Although I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and his noble friends that Schedule 3 should be struck from the Bill, the Government should consider the making of the Henry VIII clause. I support the Government on the remainder of the schedule.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, probably rightly says that the House of Commons did not look hard at the schedule; it came in at the last moment. I accept that. He asked what a failed asylum seeker is. I should have thought we knew that by now: an asylum seeker who has failed the test and failed on appeal. I may be wrong, but the noble Lord asked the question and that seemed to be the answer. The Government will or will not confirm my opinion.
The noble Lord also asked what happens if someone has to leave. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the schedule provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations to enable that person to leave. That is clearly important. Although we want asylum seekers who deserve to stay to do so, we want the whole matter dealt with quickly. We do not want people staying after they have been refused, so the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for them to go. If a person has a dependent child, under paragraph 9 he can obtain accommodation before that arrangement is made.
I considered the schedule and the Explanatory Notes with some care. I thought that I understood the schedule and that it was fairly satisfactory. I listened carefully to the noble Lord. He may have unearthed something that will worry me although I am not sure that he did. I do not know whether it is my job to encourage the Government in this way, but on those questions I had thought that I understood the schedule.
I am not sure whether the measure to which my noble friend Lord Renton objects is a Henry VIII clause. It enables the Secretary of State to alter the list of people to whom the provision applies and the list of legislation that does not apply. I thought that that was a safety net. Again, I should like to hear what the Government have to say.
Lord Dholakia: I support the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Apart from the serious implication about the Henry VIII clause in relation to power to amend the schedule, what new powers will define the type of person to be included? Will such regulations be brought before the House by statutory instrument? That will give the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to consider them. Alternatively, is it simply
1016
within the power of the Home Secretary to determine the category of people who fall within Schedule 3, as he does with the "white list", and so on?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, Clause 48 and Schedule 3 remove all powers for local authorities to provide support or assistance to four categories of ineligible person. Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 allows a very wide discretion for local authorities to act as they see fit to promote well-being in their particular areas.
I—and, I suspect, many other Members of the Committee—have received a substantial note from the Local Government Association strongly opposing this clause. The note seems to contain three central objections. First, the association objects, in principle, to what it sees as an unnecessary fettering of local authority powers under Section 2 of the Local Government Act. Secondly, it appears to believe that local authorities should retain the right, at their discretion, in relation to those categories of ineligible person, to provide support. Thirdly, the LGA strongly objects to a lack of consultation with local authorities before the provisions were included in the Bill.
On that last point, I understand that the clause was introduced during the proceedings in another place and that, contrary to the traditions that are enshrined in the system of protocols which lay down the relationship between central and local government, no prior consultation was undertaken. That is what I glean from the LGA's note. I, like other Members of the Committee, am anxious to hear from the Minister; in particular, I look forward to his reaction to the point on consultation.
Lord Renton: I was most impressed by my noble friend's remarks. He raised a matter to which I had not attributed much importance. Clearly, paragraph 14 on page 87 is the provision that mainly concerns local authorities. Some of the minor provisions in that regard could also affect local authorities. Will the Minister explain what other provisions in the schedule, apart from paragraph 14, would worry local authorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office(Lord Filkin): This is my first time at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to make a short statement relating to our debates on Tuesday, 9th July. When I have done that, I shall turn to Clause 48.
On Tuesday, 9th July at col. 602 I gave figures from memory concerning the success rate of asylum applicants. The figures that I gave related to initial decisions only; that was the issue in contention. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the Committee.
For the record, I point out that for 2001, 9 per cent of applicants were granted asylum and 17 per cent were granted exceptional leave to remain at the initial decision stage. We will shortly be publishing an

1017
estimated figure for 2001, including the figures for appeals in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin on asylum statistics for 2001. That will contain the latest figures. We have, however, considered the applications made in 2000 under normal procedures and have examined the outcomes. At the initial decision stage, 11 per cent were recognised as refugees, 12 per cent were granted ELR and the remainder were refused. Of all those who were refused at the initial stage, we estimated that a further 8 per cent were successful after appeal to an adjudicator as either refugees or in being granted ELR; we do not currently have the split between the two. We also do not have comparable figures for those who are—or were—successful after appeal to the IAT or higher courts, but a very small proportion is involved. Our overall best estimate for 2000 is that 31 per cent of those who applied for asylum in that year were successful in being recognised as refugees or in being granted ELR. That figure of 31 per cent does not represent the number of those who were recognised as refugees; the two figures would he added together. I hope that before long we will be able to disaggregate the two figures, which will give us a better picture of the situation.
I hope that that is helpful. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to place a short explanatory paper in the Library before the Bill's Report stage.
I turn to Clause 48. The provision restricts the type of support that is available to those who have citizenship or refugee status in other EU/EEA states who are coming to the UK and claiming benefits. At the same time, it restricts support that is available to other categories of individuals; that is, failed asylum seekers who can leave the UK but do not co-operate with removal directions, and individuals who reside in the UK illegally but who have not applied for asylum. That has been introduced at least in part to help local authorities by providing legal clarity when dealing with applications for support from those categories of individuals.
At the moment, different local authorities are adopting different approaches to claims for support from those individuals. Local authorities are being approached for social services support, normally under the National Assistance Act 1948 or, in the case of those with children, the Children Act 1989, as individuals fail the income-related benefits test.
There certainly are increasing numbers of individuals arriving in the UK and seeking social services assistance in those respects. That is placing a considerable demand on local authorities' resources and causes considerable problems for some of them. We do not know—the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about this—the precise numbers with which we are faced. That indicates the problem being faced by the statutory agencies that are trying to cope with that influx. I shall give examples later of areas in which we know that there is a problem. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that in Leicester alone between 2,000 and 10,000 people of Somali origin have migrated over the past 18 months or so. Although Dutch nationals of Somali origin highlight the problem, there are also reports of growing communities from other areas,
1018
such as Portugal and Montserrat. We are therefore introducing these measures to help to ease the pressures that are being brought to bear on local authorities and at the same time to provide those individuals and their families with the means to return to their home country.
Two recent cases in the courts have assisted in that area. The case of G v Barnet involved a Dutch national of Somali origin who asked for local authority accommodation to be provided for her to live with her child. Following a needs assessment, the local authority offered the means for them both to return home to Holland, where support was available to them, alongside an offer to take the child into care. The Court of Appeal held that that was a reasonable offer on the part of the local authority and that the authority was not obliged to house the family if they rejected the offer, although it would be obliged to accommodate the child, and was quite willing to do so.
This year, the cases of Ali and Mohammed v Birmingham involved similar circumstances. Following the Barnet judgment, the council exercised its new policy and carried out needs assessments in each case, which resulted in its offering transport to the families to return to the Netherlands, where they had welfare rights, with an offer to accommodate the children if the travel were declined. In those cases, the offers were not accepted and the case went to judicial review. The court held that, once again, that approach was lawful.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked for further evidence about whether there is a problem. I shall illustrate that briefly. Birmingham City Council brought to our attention the situation that it faced in 2000, when it received applications for support from more than 265 families. In July 2000, the council was supporting more than 200 families. As a consequence, in the financial year 2000–01, supporting those families cost £2.8 million in social services provision. In the following year, after it had tightened its policy, the cost to Birmingham City Council was £1.7 million. I recollect, as will other Members of the Committee, that Birmingham City Council approached the Department of Health towards the end of last year because of the extreme overspend on its social services budget in that year and was desperately seeking additional financial support. Clearly, those additional burdens cannot have helped it in any respect.
We have also been told that, in the last 18 months to July 2002, some 1,100 Somali children have arrived in Leicester, to be educated in Leicester schools, mostly at primary level. We have also had representations from the city of Sheffield as to the extent of their exposure to this problem, and seeking Government support to rectify it.
In some cases local authorities have essentially sought government support to put beyond doubt or risk the legal position, so that they are not constantly at the risk of challenge. In other cases, perhaps more like Leicester or Sheffield, they have asked whether central government would bail them out in relation to the costs to which they are exposed by exercising the

1019
discretion to pay out to families in this way. There is undoubtedly a problem, certainly in the local authorities I have mentioned—Barnet, Birmingham, Leicester and Sheffield—but there is anecdotal evidence that it goes wider than that, although the department has not undertaken a systematic trawl of it.
I should also mention that Leicester's chief executive has indicated to officials in the department that, to cover the £3 million additional costs they have incurred through the exercise of their discretion in this matter, it would require a council tax increase of over 5 per cent in the current year 2002–03 if they have to fund it locally—as they will clearly have to.
There is a problem, therefore, and it is quite a substantial and serious one for a number of local authorities. It is why, in part, the Government have responded to these representations and sought to clarify the position for the local authorities concerned.
Turning back to some of the specifics of the schedule, for those who have citizenship or refugee status in another EU or EEA state short-term accommodation may be provided to families with children, as well as a one-way journey to their home country. If the family do not take up the offer of travel or fail to travel, all support will be cut off, other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989. For asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected and who could leave the UK but who fail to comply with the removal directions, all support will also come to an end. Local authorities will only be able to provide an offer of support to children under the Children Act 1989. Also, for those who are in the UK unlawfully and who apply to the local authority for support, including failed asylum seekers, the local authorities would be required to inform the Home Office so that removal can be arranged.
The local authority may provide short-term accommodation to families with children until the date of removal. Should the family fail to travel, all support will be terminated other than an offer of support for the children under the Children Act 1989.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the Minister can help me? I have a case at the moment which has not come before the authorities, where a family was resident in France. The refugee status of the head of household was withdrawn and so he came to Great Britain and is now living here. Would he have support withdrawn, when there is evidence from the French authorities that they no longer recognise him as a refugee in their country?
Lord Filkin: Given my recent experiences, I am slightly hesitant to give off-the-cuff judgments on the law on eligibility. I will consider that, however, and if by the time I come to the end of my wind-up speech I am able to give a better answer, I will do so. Otherwise, I will write to the noble Lord.
1020
We will ensure that children and other vulnerable persons continue to receive appropriate care, while at the same time enabling families to stay together by accepting the offer of a journey home. In particular, those with special care needs will continue to have them met until the date of travel. If they do not travel and they have not provided an acceptable excuse—for example, that they were too ill to travel, with a supporting medical certificate—then care will be reduced to the minimum level in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
We will also need to guard against those who may seek to abuse the support and facilities offered to them. Local authority resources need to be preserved for those who are in genuine need. For example, I well recollect Birmingham City Council pointing out the serious knock-on effect of their exposure to costs in this respect on caring for the elderly and children in need in their area. For that reason we are introducing two new offences as part of this measure. First, it will be an offence for a person to accept the offer of short-term accommodation and/or a journey home and then to return to the UK and claim these benefits again. The Committee will see why.
Secondly, to help ensure that local authorities have the best information before them when considering a request for support under these provisions, it will be an offence for a person to fail to mention any previous request for support under these measures.
As has been mentioned, we are also placing an obligation upon local authorities to report to the Secretary of State if the prohibition on granting types of support listed in this amendment apply to failed asylum seekers or to persons unlawfully in the UK in the authority's area. This will facilitate the Home Office instigating removal action against appropriate individuals.
Lord Dholakia: I apologise for disturbing the flow of the Minister's speech, but what sanctions are available to the Government if the local authority do not co-operate in terms of informing either the failed asylum seekers, or for that matter a person illegally settled in this country?
Lord Filkin: Let me add that to the list of issues to which I will seek to respond when I conclude. I will touch more specifically on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the duty to report to the Home Office.
If a local authority has reasonable suspicion that a person is here unlawfully or a failed asylum seeker is in their area, they will be required to report it to IND, and I think that that is right. If people have no right of residence here, local authorities, as responsible public bodies, should co-operate with central government on their removal.
The exact nature of this provision and how it will operate will be laid out in regulations, drawn up in full consultation with the LGA. I will return to the LGA later.

1021
Officials in the department, in consultation with colleagues from other government departments, will provide practical guidance and assistance to local authorities to assist them in undertaking this duty. Again, that guidance will be the subject of very full consultation and discussion with the LGA and any particular local authorities that wish to become actively involved in it.
The question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of the definition of a failed asylum seeker. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, gave the correct answer. A failed asylum seeker is somebody who has been through the appeal process, not someone with a first refusal. It is somebody who has either appealed and the appeal has been heard, or who has not chosen to exercise their appeal and is time-expired.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also asked if this could breach legal Community treaties. That is not so. Paragraph 3(b) of the schedule provides that a person's Community rights cannot be affected. Community law rights will take primacy. Any right to support under Community law will be respected.
The noble Lords, Lord Greaves and Lord Dholakia, asked about paragraph 15 applying by order to a new class of person, which touches the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to whether paragraph 15 was a Henry VIII clause.
Lord Renton: I must apologise. When I said that paragraph 15 was a Henry VIII clause I had overlooked the fact that in paragraph 16 any order that the Secretary of State makes must be made by statutory instrument, so Parliament will have the opportunity.
Lord Filkin: As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has pre-empted me. It will be subject to affirmative resolution and it is intended to give maximum flexibility in the future application of this provision. That is therefore why it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is in recognition of the likely complexities of the provision which operates in practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has signalled, it is an extremely complicated area of law and it may well be that there is a need to look at how it is fine-tuned in the future—but by affirmative resolution.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about the relationship to habitual residence tests. If, for example, a local authority chose to support a family for six months under the National Assistance Act provisions, at the end of that time they would have met the habitual residence period and the burden for welfare support would fall to national government. While we recognise that, in an ideal world, we would not wish to fetter a local authority's discretion, we firmly believe that it is right to do so because the consequences bear on health authorities and central government.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised some significant questions about the unnecessary fettering of local authority discretion. That was the first
1022
question raised by the LGA. I have made it clear that a number of local authorities considered that the Government needed to act on this. The largest local authority in the land and a number of others with considerable experience have said that this needs to be addressed as a serious issue. We have sought to respond to that.
Our concern is that if we just extinguished the right under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act, a local authority that was keen on pursuing such a policy might be able to say that Section 2 of the Local Government Act gave it the power. Therefore, with reluctance, we have had to make it explicit that that is not an option; otherwise we would not have closed the loophole. We think that it is necessary to put the issue beyond doubt and to limit the discretion of local authorities in this way.
On the LGA's third point, the best I can say is that I do not think that we are particularly proud of the attempts that have been made at consultation on the principle of this so far. I hope that noble Lords will not press me further than that. There have been busy telephone conversations recently and discussions with the chairman of the LGA, who recognises that it is important that discussions between officials continue on the principle as well on as the implementation detail.
There are already dates for meetings to discuss the implementation detail, but despite there having been an attempt—albeit a rather weak one—to have consultation about the principle, it is fair and true to say that the LGA has not been invited to a discussion about the principle. We are not eager to have our minds easily changed on the subject, but it is part of the proper process that the LGA should be given an opportunity to do so and that we should consider its representations. I told officials last Thursday or Friday that if the LGA can show that it is not necessary to act against the Local Government Act in the way we suggest, our minds will he open to consider the argument, but I find it difficult to see how the LGA's power runs to give an assurance that a local authority might not use that if we did not extinguish it.
I hope that that mea culpa, in a sense, signals that we are intent on engaging the LGA in the implementation detail and on the principle, even at this stage of the process.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his frank description of what happened with respect to consultation. The obvious concern, not just from these Benches, but from around your Lordships' House, is: what price constitutional devolution, which depends so much on the concordat and protocol system? Because the Minister has been so frank, I am not accusing him of being engaged in something wrongful. I am simply hoping that, in future, greater respect will be paid to the concordat system. It is fundamental to the Government's constitutional philosophy, as I understand it, that decisions should be taken at the lowest level possible and that the process should he controlled not by law,

1023
but by a system of conventional agreements between local authorities and central government. I hope that the breach on this occasion will prove a rare one.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On the same point, I notice that most of the Acts that local government will not be able to operate under if the provision becomes law relate to functions that are devolved to the Scots Parliament. Has the Scots Parliament agreed? Was it not consulted as well as local authorities? It astonishes me that the Government could go far on this without consulting local government. I had not heard from the local authorities, which is why I did not mention those points; but now that the situation has become clear to me, I am surprised. What about the Scots Parliament?
Lord Filkin: There is not much else that I should add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said, apart from recognising that the Government value their relationship with local government. We believe in subsidiarity as far as is reasonably practicable in terms of national objectives. Anything that fundamentally might be seen to affect the powers and responsibilities of local government should be discussed and consulted on at the earliest appropriate stage. I do not wish to dig my hole any deeper at this point.
I am pleased to report that officials visited Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to discuss these issues, recognising, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, that, while immigration is a national matter, the application of this clearly affects the role of local government in those areas. I am informed that they have been appropriately consulted.
There are a few remaining points to which I have not responded. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a very challenging question about whether the schedule applies to a French family that does not have a record of refugee status in France. It does not, although we cannot comment on particular cases. Paragraph 4 will apply only to persons with refugee status in another EU state, such as France. On these facts, we do not believe that the paragraph would apply, because the person concerned does not have refugee status in France.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked what sanctions were available. Guidance will be statutory under paragraph 14 and local authorities must follow it. If they do not, they are in breach of their statutory obligation to follow the guidance. It is clearly a fundamental obligation on them.
I do not want to detain the Committee further. Officials will provide practical guidance and assistance to local authorities on the implementation. We are satisfied that the measures comply with ECHR requirements and other international obligations. Those with refugee status in an EU state or nationals of such a state have entitlement to support elsewhere, so claiming support here is not an acceptable use of public money and presents a considerable burden on local authorities and their social services budgets, as well as on the national state. We have to make it clear that local authorities will not be empowered to provide
1024
such support. We believe that this clarification will be helpful to local authorities, many of which have been uncertain whether and to what extent they should provide support. All that is notwithstanding the commitment I gave to further discussions with the LGA.
7 p.m.
Lord Greaves: The more I listened to the Minister, particularly once he got beyond repeating word for word what had been said in the Commons, the more interesting it got. His comments have confirmed that this is an extremely complex area, some of which does not belong in the Bill, and that he does not know the answers to some of the complexities that have been raised. I do not blame him for that. I am now even more convinced that the combination of the content of the schedule and the way in which it was introduced so late in another place make it another example of rushed, knee-jerk legislation, brought forward because the Bill presented an opportunity to deal with people taking advantage of local authority powers, which none of us denies is clearly a problem in a small number of places.
I am still extremely unhappy about two broad areas. There may be more, but I am unhappy in particular about two. The first is the question of the relationship between this schedule and European law. So far as concerns failed asylum seekers and refugees in other European countries, I do not have a fundamental issue of principle. But the schedule would remove some of the rights and entitlements of citizens of EU and EEA countries who are in this country. I believe that this complex area is likely to lead to judicial challenge and judicial review and that it will end up in the European Court of Justice. The issue should be thought through far more carefully and discussed with our partners in Europe. If legislation is required, it should be the subject of separate legislation.
The Minister said that rights under the Community treaties will be respected. That is all well and good, but he has not been able to tell me what those rights are and how they interact with what is being proposed in the schedule. I consider that to be extremely unsatisfactory.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for giving way. I believed that I had covered most of the issues. I tried to give the clearest example why this is an urgent and important issue which has been brought to our attention by a number of local authorities. If any matters remain unaddressed, I shall write to the noble Lord before Report stage.
Lord Greaves: I understand the wish of the Minister and of the Government to react quickly to this matter. However, reacting quickly is no substitute for reacting in a way that will produce sensible legislation that will stick.
The second area about which I am utterly alarmed by what the Minister said is the requirement for local authorities to report people if it appears to a local authority that paragraph 1 applies or may apply. The

1025
Minister referred to "reasonable suspicion". That could be disastrous for local community relations, particularly where people are working hard to receive and look after asylum seekers who have been dispersed to their areas.
It is a simple fact that those who report on people who remain after their asylum claims have failed will immediately lose any confidence that exists among the communities of asylum seekers and among those who work with them locally. That is a fact of life. Perhaps the Minister will find out what happens in practice.
It is not only people such as myself who sometimes turn a deaf ear and a blind eye in the interests of developing good relationships in working with asylum seekers; the same applies to employees of local authorities, central government and local police forces. Police officers involved with asylum seekers in two different regions have told me that the one thing with which they do not wish to become involved under any circumstances is removals. If that were to happen, the confidence built up and the contacts established with asylum seeker communities would be lost. They would be shunned and kept out. That is true of everyone who deals with asylum seekers.
Agencies, such as the Immigration Service, have responsibility for removals. But placing a duty on local authorities—the provision will relate not only to social services but to district and parish councils—to report people about whom they have "reasonable suspicion" is a recipe for disaster. I am not talking here about principles and what should happen in an ideal world; I am talking about what happens on the ground. I believe that the Government should think again.
Having said that, I believe that over the next few weeks many of us will try to get our minds around this schedule even further. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the Question that the clause stand part.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 146:
After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—
"ADVICE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(1) The Social Security Advisory Committee shall—

(a) give advice and assistance to the Secretary of State in connection with the discharge of his functions under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and Parts 2 and 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, and

(b) to perform such other duties as may be assigned to the Committee under any enactment.

(2) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Committee for consideration and advice any questions relating to the operation of the said enactments as are causing public concern."

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I appreciate that the Minister may say that it is technically defective. I know that, but I dare say that his briefing notes tell him to say it.
However, there is a point of principle at issue. It is surely desirable that independent scrutiny of the effects on asylum seekers of present levels of support
1026
should take place, even if it is intended that those levels of support should be only short term. That is the proposition. Whether it should be carried out by the Social Security Advisory Committee or by some other body similarly charged is not important for the purposes of exploring the principle of this matter.
Why is the issue important? I believe that many Members of the Committee will have received from Oxfam and the Refugee Council a report entitled, Poverty and Asylum in the UK. It is based on a study, carried out on behalf of those bodies, of 40 organisations working with asylum seekers in England and Scotland. The findings suggest that 85 per cent of the organisations reported that their clients experience hunger; 95 per cent reported that their clients cannot afford to buy clothes or shoes; and 80 per cent reported that their clients are not able to maintain good health. Of course, that does not mean that all their clients are in that position. But it suggests that there is at least some cause for concern, even if the figures give a somewhat high level of response to certain questions.
Perhaps I may be specific. First, under the intended procedures, asylum seekers cannot benefit from any uprating that might apply to other social security benefits. Secondly, their entitlements do not give them a passport to other benefits. For example, it has been estimated that asylum seeker families may receive a 24 per cent lower level of support than other families on income support and associated benefits. Of course, in the case of disability, there is also no passported entitlement to this benefit.
With regard to single asylum seekers, the general proposition is that they receive only 70 per cent of the IS rates. I accept that NASS will also provide electricity and heating, and therefore there is some compensating benefit for the difference between the 70 and 100 per cent rates. Nevertheless, I believe that sufficient reason exists to be concerned about the position of asylum seekers. Even if they are here for only a short period of time and will not achieve refugee status or ELR, surely they are entitled to maintain their standard of living at a tolerable level. No one says that they should be given luxury and no one suggests that the benefits should be lavish. They would not be, even if they were receiving IS. However, the proposition is simply that there should be an independent scrutiny and assessment of the levels of support which asylum seekers receive—no more and no less. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support Amendment No. 146, to which I have added my name. I certainly would not dream of trying to repeat the arguments put so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He made his case very forcefully. This is a matter of principle. It is a probing amendment. The noble Lord offered a very practical solution to the issue.
I declare a past and unpaid interest as a member of the SSAC over several years prior to becoming a Member of this House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is right to point out the advantages to the Secretary of State, to Parliament and to those who seek

1027
asylum of bringing into the loop on these matters SSAC, or, indeed, another organisation such as SSAC which could provide the type of scrutiny required.
The SSAC has the expertise required to give good advice to the Secretary of State. Indeed, only last week in your Lordships' House we were able to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, paying tribute to the SSAC and its work, saying that it performed a valuable scrutiny role. So I am aware that Ministers see it as valuable.
I hope that the Minister is able to give careful consideration to the principle behind the amendment. And while I am on my feet perhaps I can refer back briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said. I am grateful to him for putting on record tonight the figures with regard to determination of other matters, trying to put more clearly the answers he tried to give on Tuesday, 9th July at col. 602 of Hansard when we were debating Amendment No. 98, which I moved. I am grateful to him for putting those matters on record as soon as was reasonably practicable.
Lord Greaves: I apologise to the Minister for not thanking him when I was last on my feet for the revised figures he has now produced. We are grateful for that. Issues still arise which we will want to discuss, but at least now we have the figures.
We on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. As I spoke earlier and do not want to repeat what the noble Lord said, I shall say no more.
Lord Judd: I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association. In congratulating and thanking my noble friend Lord Dubs for focusing attention on this matter, I hope he will forgive me for re-emphasising one basic point; that is, in our own social security provision we have an underlying principle that no people should be allowed to fall below certain standards. That is because they are people. Whatever the situation of asylum seekers, they are people. Therefore we need an independent assessment to ensure that whatever arrangements may have been made in good faith by the Government, they do not result in people falling below the standard which, in other respects, we say is the absolute minimum.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs, with his wealth of experience in this field, for bringing forward this amendment. It stimulated an interesting and useful debate. However, I must say at the outset that the Government cannot accept the amendment, not only because it is technically deficient in one way or another, but also because of the way the NASS dispersal scheme has been set up.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the scheme was designed to be separate from the main benefits system and it is important that that distinction is maintained. Support provided to those with asylum seeker status is
1028
different and separate from that provided to other residents, notwithstanding the points made by Members of the Committee, most passionately by my noble friend Lord Judd. It is not intended to replicate the social security system but to provide a means of short-term support aimed at providing, as necessary, a roof over the head of destitute asylum seekers and the wherewithal to meet their essential living needs.
The SSAC does valuable work and may have an interest in the level of cash support that NASS provides to destitute asylum seekers. But that does not provide grounds for bringing the whole of NASS's work under its remit, which my noble friend seeks to do. Moreover, since under the present system the aim is to maintain NASS support rates at a particular level in relation to income support—75 per cent of the adult rate and 100 per cent for children under 16—it is not clear what role there would be for the SSAC in that area.
As to NASS's role in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, that seems to be outside the normal scope of the SSAC's current activities and it is difficult to see that it would be appropriate to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to involve the SSAC in such matters, which certainly can give rise to public concern.
It is of course arguable that the SSAC would provide a useful consultative point for NASS, but NASS already has regular meetings with voluntary organisations who are well placed to provide specialised advice on support for asylum seekers—organisations such as the Refugee Council and Migrant Helpline—to discuss operational and other matters at both chief executive and working levels. In addition, regional consortia have been set up to discuss regional issues raised by the dispersal scheme and work is progressing towards the setting up of a national consultation forum to discuss national asylum support issues. Therefore we would be fearful that there would be replication.
Moreover the amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to refer for consideration and advice any issue which was causing public concern. That would be extremely broad. Though we do not accept the need for the SSAC to have an asylum support remit, the committee is currently able to give advice on social security issues as it sees fit. I understand that the committee has frequent meetings with outside organisations and it maintains a close interest within its remit so such a duty would not be necessary.
I believe I inadvertently said earlier "75 per cent" level of support; I have been advised that it is 70 per cent. I want to clarify that error at the outset.
The SSAC already has a busy work programme to complete. It will not add significantly to the range of advice available to NASS. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend Lord Dubs, inspired as he was in tabling this interesting amendment, will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Dubs: My noble friend has not filled me with great enthusiasm in his reply. But I was not surprised.

1029
I fully accept that the system for asylum seekers is separate from that of IS. I fully accept that it is short-term; indeed I said so when I moved the amendment. I also accept the Minister's point on the 70 per cent level. But the issue is really this. The 70 per cent figure is somewhat arbitrary. The Government have no objective evidence as to what the position is for people who are 30 per cent below that deemed the minimum for people on IS.
I had always assumed that income support was the lowest level at which people could maintain a tolerably decent living standard, albeit a low one. All we are saying is that asylum seekers should not be significantly below that. The only evidence that I have seen as to the effect of that is the study jointly sponsored by Oxfam and the Refugee Council, to which I referred.
My only plea in the amendment was that there should be an independent body, possibly the SSAC or possibly another body, which could look at this matter and report to government on it. I am sorry my noble friend feels unable to accept it. I shall read his speech with interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. I46A and 146B not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Withholding and Withdrawal of Support]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 147:
Page 84, line 34, after "Article" insert "7 or"
The noble Lord said: These amendments may appear complex, but they are designed to ensure that this measure works correctly from the outset and that it is consistently applied. They have a variety of effects that I shall now set out.
To be most effective, the measures need regulation-making powers so that the Government can react quickly. There is a regulation-making power allowing the prohibition on providing support to be disapplied in certain cases and circumstances. That is now subject to affirmative resolution. The application of those measures also needs to be consistent. For that reason, any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to a local authority in relation to checking eligibility for support, and in relation to the duty to report those who fall within paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 3—failed asylum seekers or persons in the UK unlawfully, and their dependants—will have the effect of being statutory guidance. In other words, it must be followed by local authorities.
Where, despite careful and meticulous application of guidance, an ineligible person still receives support or assistance of the various types listed in paragraph 1 of the schedule, there should be protection for local authorities from being found to have acted outside their powers.
Failed asylum seekers who have failed to comply with removal directions are excluded from support and assistance under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. We are extending that provision to their dependants. That
1030
is consistent with the approach being taken under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 3— persons with refugee status abroad and citizens of other EEA states.
We have also sought this opportunity to provide that a person with dual nationality, who is a British citizen, should continue to be able to be offered support and assistance in the current way. We are also ensuring that support may continue to be provided for persons who are asylum seekers until their claim for asylum is determined—where their claim has been refused and their rights of appeal are exhausted. Finally, these amendments also add the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions into the various types of support in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As I have received advice from the Local Government Association, it is right that I should refer to that and ask the Minister a question based on it. The Minister will be aware that the LGA does not believe that these amendments represent an acceptable amelioration of the provisions. Its argument is that in principle it does not support the idea of binding guidance whereby Ministers can attempt to fine-tune their fettering of local authority discretion. The Minister will also be aware that the LGA has urged noble Lords to reject these amendments. Can the Minister tell the Committee what consultation the Government have had with the LGA in regard to these amendments?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have the benefit of having read closely the LGA submission. However, we have to listen carefully to points that it makes. I had assumed that these minor and technical amendments would be acceptable. I believe that they are useful in their extent, but clearly we are reminded of the importance and value of consultation. We would accept that the consultation on these points could have been better. It is perhaps the case that some of the minor and technical issues with which the amendments deal could have been better perfected. While consultation on the detail and on the implementation of the detail needs to be ongoing, we believe that the amendments are valuable. We shall continue our dialogue with the LGA so that we understand better the situation, and so that we are not at odds with the LGA on the way that the scheme will work.
Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 158 refers to any guidance in relation to the authority concerned,
"issued by the Secretary of State".
Will the guidance notes be available to Parliament so that noble Lords can see precisely what the Government are recommending or advising local authorities?
Lord Avebury: I have a supplementary question. In view of what has been said about earlier failures, does the Minister have any plans for consultation with local authorities in connection with the relevant guidance that is set out in Amendment No. 158? Will the guidance be available for noble Lords to see before Report stage? What arrangements has the Minister

1031
already made for ensuring that local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the form of guidance before it appears in its final version?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: At all times our objective is to ensure that we confer properly with the Local Government Association. For someone like myself who once worked for it, I suppose it is extremely important that I make that plain. I have an inherent belief that at all times we should seek to consult local government in trying to get matters right. My noble friend Lord Filkin and myself have made it plain that it was felt that consultation on this and the earlier example was not of the best. We shall endeavour to put that right.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the point about the guidance being available to Parliament. I do not believe that we shall be able to make the draft guidance available in advance. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to be apprised of those and to have a full, proper and open debate. We shall ensure that the LGA is fully consulted on its representations and on the guidance itself.
I make a strong and important commitment to the Committee that, while accepting in this instance that some of' the earlier consultation was not of the quality to which we would aspire in the future, I believe that these amendments are useful and valuable. Essentially, they are minor and technical. I hope that the Committee will endorse the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 158:
Page 84, line 35, after "Order" insert "1972"
Page 84, line 35, leave out "(general social welfare)" and insert "(prevention of illness, social welfare, &c.)"
Page 84, line 39, at end insert—
"() Article 18, 35 or 36 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) (welfare and other powers which can be exercised in relation to adults),"
Page 85, line 9, at end insert"—
() to a British citizen, or"
Page 85, line 14, at end insert ", or
(d) in circumstances in respect of which, and to the extent to which, regulations made by the Secretary of State disapply paragraph 1."
Page 85, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(d) may, in particular, disapply paragraph 1 to the provision of support or assistance by a local authority to a person where the authority—

(a) has taken steps in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State to determine whether paragraph 1 would (but for the regulations) apply to the person, and

(b) has concluded on the basis of those steps that there is no reason to believe that paragraph 1 would apply.

(2B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(c) or (d) may confer a discretion on an authority.
(2C) A local authority which is considering whether to give support or assistance to a person under a provision listed in paragraph 1(1) shall act in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (2A)(a)."
1032
Page 85, line 19, at end insert "or (d)"
Page 85, line 37, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
"5 Paragraph I applies to a person if he—

(a) has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom, or

(b) is the dependant of a person who has the nationality of an EEA State other than the United Kingdom."

Page 86, line 4, at end insert—
"(2) Paragraph 1 also applies to a dependant of a person to whom that paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)."
Page 87, line 13, leave out "excuse" and insert "reason"
Page 87, line 30, at end insert—
"() A local authority shall act in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of determining whether paragraph 1 applies or may apply to a person in the authority's area by virtue of paragraph 6 or 7."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 158A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 162:
Page 88, line 5, leave out "or" and insert "regulations under paragraph 2(1)(c) or (d) or other"
Page 88, line 17, leave out ", but not determined, by the Secretary of State," and insert "by the Secretary of State but not determined,"
Page 88, line 33, leave out "109(4)(c)," and insert "116(4)(c) and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (for which purpose a reference to the authority's area shall be taken as a reference to Northern Ireland)."
Page 88, line 40, at end insert—
"(2) For the purpose of the definition of "asylum-seeker" in sub-paragraph (I) a claim is determined if—

(a) the Secretary of State has notified the claimant of his decision,

(b) no appeal against the decision can be brought (disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and

(c) any appeal which has already been brought has been disposed of.

(3) For the purpose of sub-paragraph (2)(c) an appeal is disposed of when it is no longer pending for the purpose of—

(a) Part 5 of this Act, or

(b) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (c. 68).

(4) The giving of directions in respect of a person under a provision of the Immigration Acts is not the provision of assistance to him for the purposes of this Schedule."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee consideration of the Bill recommence not before 8.28 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Craft Skills
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do about the shortages in the number of people being trained in craft skills such as plumbing, electrical and gas fitting, despite the efforts of the Learning and Skills Council.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, a number of my colleagues have asked whether a bad plumbing experience stimulated me to ask for this debate. The answer is no. The debate was stimulated by a discussion with my very reliable plumber. He is approaching 60 and considering retirement but does not know who will take over his business. His son, who followed him into the profession, has set up his own business and has no reason to carry on his father's business. Over the past 15 years he has not taken on any apprentices. He had done so previously but had given up because it cost too much money and involved far too much paperwork. He said:
"Everybody I know is in the same boat. We are all of us between 55 and 65. We are all looking to retire. I don't know who's going to take over".
I considered this an interesting issue. I have raised it with a number of other people, including the Worshipful Company of Plumbers, which provided me with a good deal of' information. I have talked about the matter with further education college people.
I was interested because, in my studies as an economist, I have constantly been worried about the British economy's low level of productivity. Over the years I have associated that very much with Britain's education system and, in particular, with the lack of qualifications. At one point I was concerned about the low number of people undertaking degrees. I felt that Britain lagged behind other countries. Of course we have caught up rapidly.
It emerged strongly from the National Skills Taskforce work led by Chris Humphries, now director of City and Guilds Institute, that the major skill shortages in Britain are not at degree level, but at NVQ levels III and IV, which is the apprenticeship level. What is now called the advanced modern apprenticeship is a level II qualification, and HND and HNC are level IV qualifications, or foundation degree, which leads on to a degree level qualification. But the shortages are in those specific craft skills. The problem has, if anything, been exacerbated. In 1979 we trained in the region of 374,000 apprentices; we now train only about 200,000.
Two recent publications from Her Majesty's Government have helped me in my research, a publication entitled Government Supported Work Based Learning for Young People in England issued on 20th June and Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18 year olds, which appeared on 27th June.
Of approximately 2 million young people in the 16 to 18 year-old cohort, 75 per cent, or 1.5 million, are in education and training of some kind or another; 55 per
1034
cent are in full-time education; 8 per cent are in government-supported training; and only 5 per cent are in employer-supported training, described by Sir John Cassels, in his modern apprenticeship report, as the ideal form. Seven per cent are in other forms of education and training. That leaves roughly 25 per cent of the age group participating in no education or training at all. Interestingly enough, the statistic has not changed since 1991.
Of those 2 million young people, approximately 250,000 are in work-based education or training. Less than half—only 119,000—are pursuing the advanced modern apprenticeships, the level III qualification; 85,000 are pursuing the level II, which is the foundation modern apprenticeship; and 44,000 are engaged in other work-based training.
Therefore, it looks as though we are a considerable way off Cassels's target. In total, we have about 12 per cent—250,000—actually in work-based education and training. Cassels's target was that 25 per cent of the age cohort should be in work-based apprenticeships of one kind or another. We have only 12 per cent—6 per cent of whom are in the advanced modern apprenticeships. Even if one includes the foundation modern apprenticeships, the figure is only 9 per cent. So we are a long way off the target.
If one delves further into the figures, of the 119,000 pursuing the level III qualifications only half—49 per cent—achieve the qualification. Approximately 30,000 young people complete the apprenticeships each year at level III. One must remember that this 119,000 is spread over the three years. That is 5 per cent of the age cohort. We double that if we include the level II qualification.
In the construction industry and some other areas the shortage problem is particularly great. The Employers Skill Survey, which backed up the National Skills Taskforce, reported:
"Skill shortage vacancies for craft, sales and operatives are most likely to have serious impact on current performance [in the construction industry]. In particular, respondents indicated that around 53 per cent of skill-shortage vacancies for craft workers led to a loss of business.
"The construction sector was most likely to respond that it anticipated future recruitment problems … Around 50 per cent of establishments in the construction sector reported that they anticipated recruitment problems".
So the construction industry is perhaps a particularly bad example.
I turn to the plumbing, electrical and gas-fitting industries. Roughly 15,500 young people are pursuing level II qualifications, but only 3,500 are pursuing level III qualifications. If one remembers that only 50 per cent achieve those qualifications and that the 3,500 is spread over three years, one is looking in the region of 600 a year achieving level III qualifications in these three broad areas. That is pitiful.
I have a number of questions. First, why are the Government putting so much emphasis on the 50 per cent participation rate in universities when it is clear that there are real and urgent skills gaps in the craft and skills area?

1035
Secondly, what impact do the Government see the new educational maintenance allowances having? Are they not likely to encourage more young people to stay on at school in full-time education being pushed towards A-levels, the academic qualifications, rather than vocational qualifications? Is there not a danger that we shall still miss the buck on these academic qualifications?
Thirdly, where is the incentive to undertake work-based learning? If one takes the engineering and manufacturing sector, the average cost of training an apprentice—leaving aside the employer cost—is between £13,000 and £16,000 a year. Yet the LSC is only paying £6,000 to £7,000 a year. The total cost of training an apprentice in this sector is almost £50,000 a year. Therefore, what is the incentive to the employer? One must add to that the bureaucracy, the sheer amount of paper to which my plumber referred.
Lastly, when will the Government recognise that there must be an incentive to pursue qualifications? There must be some mechanism to stop cowboys entering the industry. Although only 50 per cent achieve the advanced modern apprenticeships, there is a 100 per cent take-up in terms of employment. In other words, one can get employment whether or not one has the qualification.
Those in the industry are constantly undercut by cowboy operators. It costs a good deal to obtain high-level qualifications. It costs roughly £50,000 to train an apprentice. One then has ongoing costs in order to maintain that level of qualifications. I have a letter from a plumber in Norfolk who reckons that it costs him £3,500 every year just to maintain his qualifications. He cannot charge more than £15 an hour for his services because the cowboys come in and undercut him. Should we not be thinking in terms of operating not only on the supply side, in terms of training people, but also on the demand side, in terms of some form of registration? I put it to the Government that the minimum might be to ask trading standards officers to keep a register of those local traders—plumbers, carpenters and so on—who have the requisite qualifications.
The Consumers' Association and the CAB, receive the largest number of complaints about the cowboys, about the rogue traders. I, as a consumer, would really like to be able to telephone someone to ask if they could give me the name of someone with the requisite qualifications.
These are important issues. I hope that the Minister will have some answers to my questions.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers. I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this debate and on concentrating on apprenticeships. I looked at the book of Lamentations on the state of Israel in my Bible; it contains seven pages. I can trace the lamentations on the state of technical and vocational education in this country back at least to the Paris exhibition of 1867, at
1036
which we won only 10 per cent of the prizes. In 1924, Ramsay MacDonald said that development of technical education was the greatest need of this country. As the noble Baroness said, it still is.
About 20 reports on the subject were produced in the century up to 1969, and others subsequently, but apprenticeships, which were the core of technical skills training, reached their nadir during the 1970s and 1980s, when they practically disappeared. Despite their growth during the past four years, to which the Chancellor referred in his Statement this afternoon, the Cassels report says of apprenticeships that they are,
"marginal to national life".
Why? Because they have been "inconsistently delivered", "poorly managed" and,
"poorly known about and understood".
As the noble Baroness said, half of those who start out on the track do not finish it.
I congratulate the Government on having the wisdom to appoint John Cassels to chair the committee to make recommendations, which it did last September. He has much experience and good sense. As I understand it, the Government have had the equal sense to accept the substance of his recommendations. But I should like to offer a few thoughts on the matter.
The Cassels recommendations are based on three elements in the kit of a successful apprenticeship: first, the "can-do" skills in the national vocational qualification; secondly, what NVQs were long criticised for lacking, promoting the understanding of those skills through a technical certificate; and the key skills of English—or communications, as the report calls it—and of numeracy, so that apprentices can continue to update their skills.
That is excellent, but it is getting a touch complex. I urge the Government to ensure that those three important principles are articulated so that they cohere rather than are disjointed. In particular, I suggest that to motivate young people to master standards of literacy and numeracy, they should be integrated into the technical certificate, so that young people can see them in context as relevant to what they are doing, rather than being a boring, irrelevant add-on. So my first piece of advice is to articulate apprenticeships: simplify them and run two schemes into one.
My second piece of advice to government is: stay with it. The whole history of education is one of well-intentioned initiatives, followed by government saying, "Oh dear, we had better start again". In my experience of the field, it takes at least 10 years for employers to cotton on to the latest initiative. I repeat: stay with the Cassels initiative. I noticed that the Chancellor commits himself in his Statement only to the next couple of years and the expansion to 300,000. There is nothing about the vision as far as 2010 as in the Cassels report. We have a vision for higher education for 2010. What about skills education? Why not a commitment to that too?

1037
My third piece of advice is: bear in mind that the learning and skills councils have only just been set up. The national training organisations are in the process of being replaced by new bodies—sector skills associations. They are finding their way forward. With those two organisations finding their way forward, we need to involve employers. Unless the Government consider matters carefully with those new bodies, they will come a cropper and the intention to have a powerful launch will be met with loud and continuing complaints that we have muffed it.
My fourth point is: do not be too proud to pilot new ideas before launching them. Again, history shows that we need enthusiasm, commitment, resolution and action. A bit of piloting when what is being done is new, rather than a continuation, will pay dividends.
My next point is: we need strong promotion. One complaint of Cassels is that apprenticeships are poorly understood. As the noble Baroness said, only 5 or 6 per cent of apprenticeships take place on employers' premises. That shows how little they are known. We really must put money behind promotion and stay with it.
If I may say so, the stock in trade of this House is having been around a while and having a bit of experience. Perhaps officials would be well advised to spend half an hour reading the relevant chapter of Professor Alison Woolf's recent book, published last month, entitled, "Does Education Matter?"—the chapter on vocational education. She makes it clear that if initiatives are government-led—institution-led—rather than employer-led, they will fail. We must ensure that line employers, rather than personnel departments, are in the lead. I remember the cost of employers not being in the lead with regard to NVQs.
It is said that any fool can learn from his own mistakes. Let us hope that the Government have the wisdom to learn from mine.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising this critical issue today. It is an area about which I know that she feels passionately and she made many interesting points. Doubtless the Minister has made a careful note of each and every one of them, and we shall hear his answers shortly. I shall not ask quite so many questions, but I, too, hope for an answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred most interestingly to the need for simple and basic qualifications. The first qualification is so often important. I think that I have previously told the story of when I was in a factory in Plymouth presenting NVQs to the workforce. Towards the end of the ceremony, a level 1 NVQ in warehouse keeping, I think it was, was announced. An old lady came forward—I was told that she was 64. It was the first qualification that she had received in her life. She had tears streaming down her face as she stood in front of me. I must confess that I had tears too.
I shall make only a short intervention. As your Lordships may know, I am chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, which
1038
was until recently the national training organisation for the engineering manufacture sector. The Government are now replacing NTOs with sector skills councils and we hope that our bid to be the sector skills council for the technology, engineering and science sectors will soon be approved.
On previous occasions, I have ventured to bring to your Lordships' attention some of the difficulties that industry in general faces in addressing skills shortages. The responsibility for bridging the skills gap lies with both employers and government and they must work in partnership in addressing the need to raise skills levels in industry. Where employers devote resources to enhancing the skills base of their employees, in general, they are doing a good job. Small firms, in particular, have come to understand that their workforce is their most important resource and that investment in people is the key to their future business success.
For a sector such as engineering, which is already one of the most highly trained, it is still essential, especially in difficult times, that training is encouraged so that staff are prepared fully to exploit the future. But we need to do more to encourage employers, especially smaller firms, to engage in training staff. Initiatives such as "learndirect" go some way to address the problem faced especially by small and medium-sized enterprises in releasing key staff from the workforce, but there is also a need—and here the onus is on the providers—to deliver training in a manner that is more appropriate to employers.
I have previously drawn your Lordships' attention to the value of the modern apprenticeship framework and the significant impact that it has had on the number of people entering industry. Looking specifically at the engineering sector, the recruitment needs of the engineering industry require about 33,000 modern apprentices to be in training at any one time. In 1994, the number in training was about 8,000. Today it is 22,000, of whom 18,000 are in England, 1,500 in Wales and perhaps 2,000 in Scotland. So while we have not reached the required number, we are moving in the right direction.
In making that point, I have referred to the variations in the funding of modern apprenticeship programmes recently been put into place by the Learning and Skills Council. A young person aged 16 to 18 attracts the full national rate for a modern apprenticeship. But for those employers who train people over the age of 19 years, the funding available is only 56 per cent of the national rate. It is not available at all for 25-plus year-olds, except in Wales; and it is people aged 19 and above who the industry is particularly keen to attract.
Of course, the engineering industry continues to take its concerns about these arrangements directly to the Learning and Skills Council, but I would urge the Government to press on the LSC the need for a rethink of this policy. Other very serious developments include the future funding arrangements for higher national diplomas, higher national certificates and NVQ level 4 qualifications. It is my understanding that financial

1039
support from the Learning and Skills Council for those qualifications has been dropped. That will have serious consequences for attracting technicians into the industry, where there is a strong need to do so. I also believe that it will have an impact on increasing entry into higher education from modern apprenticeship programmes because the vast majority of higher education applications that come from technicians are from those with HNC, HND or NVQ level 4 qualifications.
I know that the Minister will realise that this need for progression from apprenticeship into higher education was a strong recommendation of last year's report by Sir John Cassels on the future of modern apprenticeships, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred. I urge the Government to press the LSC to reconsider this decision.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Layard: My Lords, the debate could not be more timely. A shortage of non-graduate skills is staring us in the face. What is good is that we also have a Chancellor who, as he showed this afternoon, is willing to do something about it. The question is, what? What is the system we are trying to build? At present we have a system—if it is a system at all—that no one understands, bequeathed by the previous Conservative government. If one thinks of the people who really matter, none of them understands it. Children, parents, schoolteachers, careers teachers, careers officers and employers all do not understand it.
One has to think afresh about how we create out of this situation, through building on it, a coherent strategy for producing the non-graduate skills we seriously lack. There is always the danger that we will look in all directions and continue to do this, that and the other. That will not work; it failed over the past 10 years. We saw that so far as there was a concentration on building up full-time vocational education, it did not produce a major increase in skills. The time has come to recognise that the central part of the strategy must be apprenticeship.
I give three reasons: first, young people like apprenticeship best. A survey showed that students taking modern apprenticeship liked the experience more than students studying full-time for vocational qualifications. That is not surprising; they are being paid and can see the relevance of what they are learning. If we want to engage the one third—at least—of young people who currently stop learning at 16, it is inconceivable that we could do so on a large scale except by that method.
That sounds like dumbing down, but I now want to make the opposite point. Until the big expansion of higher education and sixth forms in the 1960s and 1970s, most children from poor homes who got to the top rose by the apprenticeship route. They often then went on to degree level work. It was madness to close down that route in the belief that somehow the expansion of full-time education had replaced it. Sometimes the astonishment expressed that the social
1040
class mix in higher education has not changed shows the naivety of people who believed that that would be the only central instrument for expansion of opportunities. As we know, social mobility has fallen in recent decades. That is not unconnected with the closing down of that route.
Secondly, employers like apprenticeship. It is often said that British employers will not support apprenticeship—that was said in the earlier debates on this topic. But interesting research carried out for the Cassels committee shows that they were not asked. It turned out that even among large employers, only one third had ever been asked to take on a modern apprenticeship.
Thirdly, apprenticeship in those countries that rely mainly on it for non-graduate skills works extremely well. I am talking not only of Germany but also of Denmark and the Netherlands. Those countries have been more successful in controlling youth unemployment than countries such as France or the United States which have relied more on the full-time route.
It is not simply a matter of full-time versus part-time, because in the countries that use apprenticeship the age of entry has been going up. It is typically now 17 or 18. The issue is not one of premature selection but of how we can get people effectively into work with a relevant skill. If one asks how we are doing, modern apprenticeship was re-established under the previous government; an excellent step, but as we know, the quality is often poor and the quantity too small. To deal with both quality and quantity will require a major leadership effort from the top, as with the New Deal, but that is even more difficult.
The particular issue at present, which will focus efforts, is the question of the target for opportunities. It has been discussed before by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. We must have a target for those not going to higher education and it must make sense, be easily understood and pictured, and offer a route into work earning; all the things those young people want. It must be the kind of target that can be set before someone of 13 or 14 as attainable if they work reasonably hard, and that will motivate and satisfy them. It must be the chance of an apprenticeship.
The present figure according to the Government for entry of a cohort into modern apprenticeship at one or other level is 22 per cent. The spending review states it should be 28 per cent by 2004, and for 2010—as has been said—the Cassels committee, of which I was a member, has proposed 35 per cent; perhaps we may call it a third. If the Prime Minister is looking for a target that will fire up young people, it cannot be, as it says in the spending review, a wider vocational target. It has to be something concrete; a target for apprenticeship.
We can have other wider vocational targets, but for heaven's sake let us have the apprenticeship target proposed by the Cassels report; a target that is exciting, simple, concrete, that can fire our youth and be talked about in the pub.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure we have all had had plumbing experiences, even if it was not that that prompted my noble friend. Craftsmen and builders seem to need no tuition in the art of teeth-sucking and acerbic comments on the work of their predecessors. I realise also that they probably need some training in the art, or science, of meteorology, because there always seems to be a problem with the weather, fine or wet, hot or cold.
More seriously, they need training in management skills, in addition to the skills that have been mentioned in the debate. We need more than just a reduction in red tape. By temperament, those who follow such careers are unlikely to want to deal with paperwork—such is my experience. If people are to operate small or medium-sized businesses—even tiny businesses—they must be able to do the paperwork. On a broader level, they need project management skills. The skills needed to run substantial projects seem to be almost wholly lacking in this country.
I recognise that, tonight, I am among an illustrious group of educationists. The question that occurred to me when my noble friend said that she would ask her Unstarred Question was whether the construction industry could cope with the infrastructure that the country needs. I speak from a London perspective, and my figures show that London needs almost 32,000 more homes every year, in order to meet existing need and the forecast extra demand, which is thought to involve expansion equivalent to the size of the city of Leeds over the next 15 years. London is a stark example, but the problem applies elsewhere, if to a lesser extent. In London and elsewhere, we need an improved transport infrastructure. As well as major provision, such as CrossRail in London, we need less headline-grabbing projects. Housing and transport must be developed in tandem in order for our economy to work.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on the "Today" programme this morning. He spoke, from an Essex perspective, about the Chancellor's expected announcement about spending on housing. What he said amounted to something like, "Not in Essex, without the transport". I have a more positive view, but the point that he made was important.
There are—properly—ambitious targets for development on brownfield land. The remediation of contaminated land or more small-scale rehabilitation of second-hand buildings seems likely to require greater skills than are required for work on a nice, unsullied site. If we are to accommodate sustainable growth, that is hugely important.
As we have heard, the future is not bright. Recent figures show that the average age of people working in the industry is getting higher. Had she had time, my noble friend would have asked why the Learning and Skills Council appears to discriminate against the over-19s. The industry wants to encourage 19 to 24 year-olds into apprenticeship, but funding for that group is 56 per cent of that for those aged from 16 to 18. For those over 26, there is no funding.
1042
My noble friend mentioned the cost of maintaining qualifications. I was struck by the huge annual cost of maintaining qualifications, which enables people to charge £15 an hour. My professional background is as a solicitor, and I recognise the cost of maintaining qualifications. My profession can charge a great deal more than that to cope with such costs. Over the past five years, the numbers in university courses in building, construction and civil engineering are clown by about 50 per cent. We are all aware of the stories of recruitment from overseas and the twice-yearly salary increases, measures designed to keep the industry going.
My noble friend also raised the issue of status and the ideal of a work-based apprenticeship. In Germany, those who teach apprentices are called Meister, and a similar qualification here would do much to indicate the value placed on skills-based qualifications. It is telling that average earnings in the construction industry grew faster than in the economy as a whole. That was not because of the price of materials.
Time is against me. I should like to mention some of the initiatives that are taking place. I assume that my noble friend is not asking what the Government will impose—neither of us wants the Government to impose anything—but what they intend. I hope that we will hear some good news from the Minister.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, not just for bringing the issue before the House but for the passion with which she has spoken on the matter every time that she has had the opportunity. As always with such debates, time is a problem. Therefore, we can scratch only the surface of a debate that deserves a great deal more time.
Our concern about the shortage of people trained in craft skills—especially plumbing and electrical and gas fitting—will strike a chord with many people in the country. Skills shortages extend throughout industry. For example, the construction industry, which has just been referred to, estimates that the sector requires at least another 74,000 people each year up to 2005, simply to fill the gap. Last October, in collaboration with the construction industry, the Department for Work and Pensions launched an initiative with the aim of training and placing 1,000 New Deal workers as electricians, plumbers and bricklayers. However, that scratches only the surface of what is needed. To fill that gap of 74,000, the New Deal attracts only 2,500 people each year into the construction sector. There was yet another initiative, designed to turn single parents into gas fitters, with the intention of creating 4,500 jobs in the energy sector. Will the Minister tell us the extent to which that scheme has been successful? What percentage of the target has been achieved?
The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Trade and Industry also published details of a joint venture to encourage,
"more than a quarter of young people to enter modern apprenticeships before they are 22 years old by 2004".

1043
That quotation came from a press release issued by the Department for Education and Skills on 29th November last year. Last November, 213,000 16 to 19 year-olds were undertaking modern apprenticeships. Since that was announced, the Learning and Skills Development Agency has published a study saying that the quality of training has fallen, particularly since April 2001. I support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in congratulating the Engineering and Marine Training Authority on the work that it does to further the skills and training agenda. I also encourage the Minister to respond positively to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the funding of modern apprenticeships, which appears to discriminate against those aged over 19.
Interestingly, the voluntary sector has had some success with many young people who have found difficult the traditional route through education to training, particularly those who have been disaffected and have shown great reluctance to become involved. For example, UK Skills, based at the offices of the Prince's Trust, presides over many shows and competitions designed to encourage the taking up of skills training. Other examples include Quaker Social Action and the Look Ahead Housing and Care Association, which have trained unemployed and formerly homeless people in basic skills such as plumbing, carpentry and painting. Yet, despite all that is going on, statistics from the Department for Education and Skills show that overall participation in training and employment by young people has declined and that any improvements have been slight.
Although the proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in full-time education has increased marginally since 1997—by 0.4 per cent—the number of people in government-supported training and employment-funded training has decreased. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of young people starting work-based learning programmes also decreased by 11,000.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, who called for greater consultation with employers on skills training and greater promotion of such training. That is needed. I know that there is concern about the level of consultation on such matters.
If we look ahead to the outcome of the consultation paper on provision for 14 to 19 year-olds, we can see that work-related training will be costly. The Association of Colleges, the Secondary Heads Association and the National Association of Head Teachers all estimate that a further £372 million will be required. Not only will additional funds be needed for equipment and teaching resources, for example, but also we need a sea change in the staffing situation within our schools and colleges. We know that there are problems of recruitment and retention with regard to science teachers. Furthermore, the underpinning subjects that support the practical and vocational subjects will require more teachers and lecturers of science, maths and technology.
1044
Perhaps I may say en passant that, with hindsight, one of the greatest errors was not to have developed technical education post war. We can all look back and regret that. It has been partly rectified by the introduction of the national curriculum, assessment and testing, the introduction of science and technology into the primary curriculum, the development of vocational qualifications and the introduction of city technology colleges and specialist schools. But we know that there is more to do. Here I echo a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The gap lies in the underpinning knowledge that supports vocational training. If that were to be rectified, then a great deal of progress could be made.
Increased opportunities for more effective and high quality vocational education has widespread support. The benefits of a better respected vocational stream in our education system would be welcome. It would make for a more competitive workforce and would emphasise that there is more than simply an academic route to personal success and fulfilment. It would encourage many young people who currently feel disaffected to take a greater interest in school. Furthermore, it would go a long way towards increasing respect both for academic and vocational qualifications.
To achieve all this we need less gimmickry, far less complexity—another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—greater focus and adequate support for the institutions; that is, the schools, training providers and colleges of further education to enable them to deliver the necessary programmes. Above all, we need world-class vocational institutions as much as we need world-class universities. That would go a long way towards producing first-class craft skills such as those asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—plumbers, electricians and gas fitters—in the numbers that the country requires.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for launching the debate in such a perceptive and effective way. The debate has given us the occasion to discuss an important aspect of the national economy and the welfare of our people. I should emphasise that if in my responses to the numerous questions put to me by the noble Baroness I fail to answer some of them I shall certainly write to her. However, in the limited time we have available I shall do my best to address them all.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we must recognise that we still have real skills shortages. An underlying theme of the debate has been that too few of our young people engage in further education and training. The figure of 25 per cent of all young people not taking on further training is ridiculously high for an advanced society such as ours. We need to address ourselves specifically to skills training. I recognise that that has been identified by speakers on all sides of the House, in particular with regard to the craft skills that are so well known to homeowners. I shall draw a veil

1045
over my own experience. The builders are still in at my home and I have no wish to complicate an already difficult negotiating position.
However, we are discussing here the wider skills base rather than only those so essential to the home, a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. We must address the skills requirements that underpin our industrial society and economy. Of course the Government recognise that skills shortages present an important challenge. The gap in productivity—lagging 30 per cent behind Germany and 55 per cent behind the United States—demonstrates that we cannot be complacent about our performance. We still have a long way to go. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, clearly emphasised the main point of the debate; that is, that we need to concentrate on skill levels below graduate provision, in which we are making great strides.
The challenge of maintaining our skills base in an ever-changing world is real, but we should not overstate the present position. Even given the well-recognised gaps with regard to the provision of training, it is still the case that employment levels are high, our economic performance has been good, we have a buoyant labour market, wage inflation remains reasonably stable—well within the range viewed by the Bank of England as consistent with its inflation target—and the Industrial Trends survey from the CBI suggests that employers' concerns about skills shortages are well below recent peaks. That is not to suggest any complacency and in a moment I shall move on to detail how we intend to meet the challenges. However, we ought not to exaggerate the problems or to underestimate the progress which has been made over recent years.
The establishment of the Learning and Skills Council, which several noble Lords have been considerate enough to recognise will need time to bed down and reach its maximum effectiveness, is a sound concept. Its objectives are directed exactly towards ensuring that we have in place a sound strategy for dealing with skills shortages in our society, identifying and then meeting them.
Within that framework, it is important to recognise the crucial role played by employers. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, began his remarks by commending the insights of a former Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, into our industrial skills problems. The noble Lord will forgive me for observing that only a Cross-Bencher would commend to a Labour spokesman former Prime Minister MacDonald. Nevertheless, I recognise that he demonstrated considerable insight into the matter. It is a problem that society has had to face for a very long time.
I wish to emphasise the development of the sector skills councils. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has been far too modest about his own important role in the development of the technology, engineering and science sector council, which we anticipate will be one of the first to move fully into operation. For the councils to be successful it is important that employers take the lead. The weakness of the former national
1046
training organisations lay, I believe, in the fact that they were constantly making demands on employers without actually meeting their needs. The sector skills councils are designed not only to reflect accurately employers' needs, but to be directed by them in order to discover how any shortages can best be met.
Progress is being made in the area, although I recognise the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that care must be taken over the establishment of the sector skills councils. We cannot afford a failed experiment as a result of which confidence collapses. Thus we are taking the greatest care to involve employers and all other relevant parties in the development of the sector skills councils. However, as I have said, we have already seen conspicuous success in one sector, in which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has a particular interest.
The sector skills councils have been designed to address some of the points that were made so forcefully in the course of our debate. My noble friend Lord Layard raised the question of modern apprenticeships and the targets that we should set. I agree that it is important to establish clear and realisable targets, which are sufficiently ambitious to force the pace. However, I am not sure that it is sensible to set targets for the proportion of entry into apprenticeships. It is probably better to target the outcomes; that is, the proportion of young people across the hoard who manage to achieve levels 2, 3 and 4 skills. That is exactly the strategy that the Learning and Skills Council is pursuing, and the Government today announced new targets to improve Figures and to encourage the council's ambitions and plans for this work.
The question of support for apprenticeships was raised. Apprenticeships are supported to the extent of £14,000 for an engineering AMA, which exceeds the public funding for a university undergraduate, including loans. So students are not necessarily sold short. I agree with my noble friend Lord Layard that there is a problem in regard to marketing and ma king attractive the whole area of vocational education and the opportunities it offers. That is a challenge that we need to meet, and this debate has gone some way towards meeting that challenge.
A great deal of the debate focused on the issue of the reforms necessary to modern apprenticeships. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, generously identified that the numbers of modern apprenticeships in engineering have been increasing, but not at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of the economy and to reflect the opportunities that we wish to provide for our young people.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to the Cassels report, to which many Members of the House contributed. It is an important document and points the way forward. We are committed to investing an initial £180 million over the financial years 2001–04 to provide the necessary muscle behind the concepts of that excellent report. We have in place an action plan with the Learning and Skills Council to implement its recommendations, to ensure that all

1047
modern apprenticeships meet the highest standards and to encourage take-up by both employers and young people.
My noble friend Lord Layard emphasised that we are in danger of neglecting an important sector of society—that is, those people who have the ability to proceed along vocational routes but who are not sufficiently encouraged or motivated to pursue the strategies which are now in place to ensure successful development. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, emphasised that we should have the necessary strategy in place for progression so that people who begin at one stage on the ladder do not feel that there are any barriers to prevent them achieving their full potential.
People should be able to advance according to their abilities and reach the highest level possible. We will enhance vocational education in this country once people can see a progression route and an attraction which matches the well-known chartered route through academic qualifications and higher education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to further education and the role it can play. The whole House will rejoice at the 1 per cent real increase in support for further education for those colleges whose performances match up to the demanding standards of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education. So real resources are being committed to a sector which has been starved of investment in the past and which needs enhancement. Again that is proof of the importance that we place on vocational development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about energy aspects. We are attempting to place 4,500 people in jobs in the next three years across occupations in gas and engineering construction. Further research is under way to determine whether there are other occupations within the energy sector which should be included in the strategy. Ambition Energy was officially launched on 10th June. So far, 41 people have progressed to training in energy jobs. During the remainder of this year it is planned that a further 200 places will be available for people undertaking gas network operative training and 400 places in central heating installation. That brings us closer to some of the aspects introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in regard to the needs of home owners.
In conclusion, the Government are seeking to overhaul the skills supply system in this country. We have established the LSC, which will play an important role, and in Wales the National Assembly has gone further by integrating post-16 education and skills with higher education. Business-led regional development agencies have a prime responsibility to bring about the climate in which skills and productivity become the engine of regional and local economic growth. We are introducing sector skills councils and backing them with resources.
In his Statement today the Chancellor has addressed the question of enhancing the skill levels of this country but a great deal of work has still to be done.
1048
Mention was made that in some cases we have only a three-year strategy. Once we hit the targets of the three-year strategy we can then plan for the momentum necessary to develop skill levels so that by 2010 we will be in a position to meet many of the targets essential to our nation.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.28 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 50 [International projects]:
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 27. line 33, at end insert—
"() arrange or assist the settlement of refugees, including the disabled and vulnerable"
The noble Earl said: This amendment follows the short debate that we had with the Minister on 18th June when I asked, among other things, whether the Government intended to encourage new gateways for asylum seekers and, in particular, attract recognised refugees to the UK under the managed migration policy. I asked again during the Second Reading debate and I received a sympathetic letter from the Minister, dated 27th June. I am aware that the clause refers to refugees, albeit cursorily, in subsection (3)(a). However, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees believes, and I agree, that there needs to be a much clearer statement in the Bill.
I do not have the impression that the Government are really committed to the resettlement of refugees as an alternative, even though half the work has already been done for them by the United Nations. Refugees often include among them a high level of skills, and in many instances there are doctors, lawyers and those who have been targeted by a regime precisely because of their professional and sometimes political skills.
I am reassured by the Minister that such people can apply to embassies via the entry clearance officers as long as they meet the United Kingdom criteria—and I would emphasise, as long as there is personal security for them. They may now wish to apply under the skilled migrants' scheme. As the Minister states in his letter,
"increasing the number of avenues for legal migration to the UK may help to reduce the number of asylum applications".
That would surely have some effect on the illegal trafficking of asylum seekers through places like Sangatte. That point was well understood during the Committee stage in another place. It may be of interest to the Committee that in 2001 Australia received more than 6,000 refugees under UNHCR resettlements, Canada received 10.000, Norway received 1,200 and Sweden received more than 1,000 from countries such as Kenya, Turkey and Pakistan. We are proposing to accept only a few hundred, and not for some time.
I shall try not to take up much more of the Committee's time, but I was disappointed to hear that the UN scheme may take another three to five years to get off the ground. What is the justification for such a delay? What lessons do we still need to learn? We

1049
remember from many years ago the resettlement of refugees under various programmes such as those in Indo-China.
I understand the Minister's arguments about the EU scheme and it is essential to encourage those larger countries that do not implement it already—notably France and Germany. At the same time, surely we could go ahead on our own.
As a second part to the amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to an under-used project of UNHCR known as the "10 or more plan". The aim of the scheme is to enable a minimum number of refugees who are physically disabled or who belong to a vulnerable group to be included in a special quota. The UNNCR's view is that 10 is a disappointingly low number, which should be expanded to offer a realistic prospect of protection for the large number of refugees who potentially could fall within that category.
Many of the refugees in that category may have been victims of torture or violence in addition to persecution, and again they will be among the most skilled professionals who have been targeted. They are excluded or made to suffer through no fault of their own even from those societies that claim to receive them as refugees.
Will the Minister consider the matter and give us some assurance that the scheme can be better utilised by the United Kingdom now or in the future? I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I recall that during the hostilities and endless fighting that followed the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, a significant number of people were admitted to this country precisely because they were disabled and/or vulnerable, as referred to in the amendment. I believe that the scheme worked extremely well, and it could well be the precedent for future schemes. In that connection there may be scope both for temporary admission—for hospital treatment or specialist rehabilitation, for example—and for permanent admission for resettlement here. The Explanatory Notes to the clause state:
"Pilot projects have already been undertaken".
That is nice to know, but will the Minister tell us about those pilot projects? What kind were they and what result was achieved? Can useful lessons be learnt from them?
My noble friend the Lord of Sandwich mentioned the vexed question of Sangatte in France. I have raised the matter in correspondence and in Questions in your Lordships' House. It is most unsatisfactory, if only because it has led to a considerable number of deaths of people in transit through the Tunnel. It has also severely disrupted freight services, causing loss of employment in this country. I hope that the recent conversations between the Home Secretary and his counterpart in France will lead to significant improvements in the situation in the short term—not next year, or in five years time.
The amendment would open the way for future collaboration between this country and the UNHCR, which might, for example, be asked to identify in
1050
France people who are genuine refugees in its opinion. Having carried out that exercise, the UNHCR could then find out who among them had close connections with the United Kingdom, whether those were personal connections through family and friends, or the community connection of belonging to a minority that is already well established in this country, and which is therefore capable of giving support and assistance. Genuine refugees with a good knowledge of English could be identified. Even among those who are not recognised by the UNHCR as genuine bona fide refugees, it might be possible to acknowledge those who are worthwhile migrants and whose work skills might find an outlet by meeting employment needs in this country. On all those grounds, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I should like the Minister to clarify the clause. Subsection (1) clearly sets out the range of projects in which the Government may participate. The Explanatory Notes state:
"Such projects may have as their aim, amongst others, the return of migrants both inside and outside of the United Kingdom to their country of origin by voluntary or compulsory means".
However, Clause 50(4) states:
"Subsection (1) does not … confer a power to remove a person from the United Kingdom".
What is the purpose of that subsection in relation to removing people to their country of origin?
Lord Filkin: I shall reply first to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about this clause, which in some ways went usefully over the ground of our short debate at Second Reading, which I thought was excellent.
We have set out our commitment to resettlement. In essence, it recognises that there is a certain happenstance at present as to who can make a case for asylum in Britain. It is driven more by geography—whether people can physically get here to make a claim; or—using words carefully—whether in some cases people have the financial means to pay a trafficker to help them to get here. Therefore, one is aware of the injustice for people, for example, in Central Africa whose need could arguably be significantly greater but there is presently no international process for recognising that need on any scale. All we did in the debate was to recognise that that is a serious issue. Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, also marked that in his speech at Lisbon. We reflected that we should be happier in a world, different from how it is now, which allowed more managed processes. All one is saying at this stage is that this is a small but important start to recognise that there ought to be alternative routes to recognise the need to resettle people who are in the greatest need. Whether that would reduce illegal migration, I am less certain. But even if it would not, that is not necessarily a reason for not doing it.

1051
I was asked why such a provision is not on the face of the Bill. As I understand it, it is on the face of the Bill. Clause 50(1)(e) provides wide scope to participate in resettlement, including the provision of financial support to international organisations and financial or other assistance to individual beneficiaries of the resettlement scheme, which is why the provision is so placed.
I was asked why this particular time period was indicated. The UNHCR advised on a time-scale to ensure that the programme was properly set up of between three and five years. We do not have to keep to that time-scale if we feel that we can move more rapidly. Consultation is presently taking place on the setting up of the scheme. The aim would be for the scheme to be be in operation possibly towards the end of 2003—resources permitting, as ever.
We had tended to infer that the amendment focused more on the issue of disability and vulnerability, because the first part of the clause effectively already contains the power to do what the amendment seeks. Clause 50 contains the legal basis for the funding of participation in the quota scheme—the details of which we are developing. It is not designed to set out the details of eligibility, but its wording is deliberately broad, referring to "migrants" rather than to "refugees", to enable us to assist the dependent family of a refugee if the members of that family are not refugees themselves.
I can also assure the Committee that the resettlement gateway will be humanitarian in its nature and will offer asylum in the UK to selected refugees whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental human rights cannot be protected in his or her country of asylum.
It is inevitable that some of the refugees may be disabled or may have been seriously traumatised by their experiences. I hope that most will be able to use the"10 or more plan" scheme which already provides resettlement for disabled refugees with medical needs. I note the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the extent to which this has been used. I do not have the answer at my fingertips but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter and any lessons that we have had from its operation to date that might inform the future development of that or similar schemes.
In operating the new quota scheme, it is likely that the UNHCR will first carry out a selection exercise and then pass on to the UK applications that are thought likely to meet our criteria. We have not yet determined what those criteria will be, but we shall not be discriminating against those with disabilities.
I hope that my response at least gives some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall reflect further on any other points that he or other Members of the Committee raised. In the meantime, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: Will the Minister say something about the existing pilot projects, and about the relevance of this amendment to the Sangatte situation?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: In regard to the Sangatte situation, I have been advised informally that the meeting on Friday with Mr Sarkozy went well. I have seen some press briefing on the matter, courtesy of the Opposition Benches, but I do not have any greater detail as to what happened—apart from saying that we are pretty optimistic that there is an agreement to close the centre and for there to be a timetable for doing so.
There will clearly need to be some process whereby the current inhabitants of Sangatte are appropriately dealt with. I do not intend to venture further into exactly what that process is until I have seen the nature of what was agreed on Friday. It would not help the noble Lord if I did so. No doubt we can give him further details when those details are clear. I shall write to him on the subject. As to the results of the pilot projects, I have no information at present, so I shall similarly send the noble Lord a note on that point.
The Earl of Sandwich: I thank my noble friend for his support, and I am encouraged by what the Minister has said about the timetable. I am less certain as to the nature of the scheme. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will look forward to hearing more about it in the future. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Detention by Secretary of State]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 163A:
Page 28, line 18, after "detained" insert "for a reasonable and limited period"
The noble Lord said: As we begin to debate Part 4 of the Bill, I cannot refrain from registering a protest at the way in which this Bill is being handled, and particularly at the necessity to begin this important debate on detention at 14 minutes before nine o'clock, knowing that we have another two hours in front of us to deal with some of the most important provisions in the Bill.
I resent the way in which the Government are bulldozing this legislation through this place. It would have been much better had adequate time been allowed in the fullness of the day, instead of making us sit night after night, as we have done so far at Committee stage.
Lord Filkin: I do not in the slightest want to indulge in an argument with the noble Lord. I thought that we had had some understanding that there would be six days in Committee. Clearly, there have been some tensions at times when we have had Statements. But to the best of my knowledge the liaison between the Front Benches has been most helpful and courteous and I have been appreciative of that.
Lord Avebury: When those agreements were made, we did not anticipate having Statements day after day, taking up a considerable amount of the afternoon; nor

1053
did we think that, as happened on the previous Committee day, discussion of orders in the dinner hour would take up far more than the hour allotted to them.
I wanted to make that protest because, while matters are agreed between the usual channels and I perfectly well appreciate that my noble friends have been involved in those discussions, there are other Members of this place who need the time to prepare amendments, to table them and to get their heads round what is an extremely complicated piece of legislation. I have made my point and I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration in looking at the timetable for the remainder of this Bill.
In moving Amendment No. 163A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 164A and 164B. The first of these amendments is about ensuring that the tests imposed by Article 5.1.f of the European Convention on Human Rights is satisfied by the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under Clause 52(1) to detain a person pending that person's removal. Those words should also have been inserted after the word "detained" in line 27 because the same conditions apply. If the principle were accepted, they should also be inserted in paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act which gives immigration officers similar powers. I realise that the amendment does not completely satisfy the purpose we intended. We should have to tidy it up if the principle were accepted.
In the case of Saadi the Court of Appeal looked at the legitimacy of detention at Oakington where the court was told that in the absence of special circumstances the Secretary of State has determined that it is not reasonable to detain an asylum seeker for longer than about a week. The court found that the manner in which the power of detention was being exercised was within the provision of Article 5.1.f and we entirely agree with that. However, we want to be sure that existing practice is treated as the bench mark and should any future Secretary of State lengthen the period of detention he would come up against the legal barrier that the amendment seeks to impose.
I turn to Amendment No. 164A on written reasons for detention and challenge of the accuracy of those reasons. In the White Paper the Government said that initial reasons for detention would be given by way of a check list similar to that used for bail in a magistrates' court. However, that implies that further and more detailed reasons will be given at some other stage. We discussed this matter about two years ago in a debate on detention in general. The Government then gave an assurance that full reasons for detention would be given to everyone after a fixed interval. So far as I know, that has not happened. It is important that people who are being detained should know in greater detail than a check list the reasons why they are being detained. Similarly, we believe that they should have an opportunity to challenge those reasons so that when the case comes before an adjudicator they will have the full story of why the person was detained in the first place, and the reasons why that person believed that he should not have been detained.
1054
Amendment No. 164B would satisfy a point raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In paragraph 84 of its report, it stated that Clause 52(7) provides that the powers to detain will be exercisable where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to suspect that he may make a decision to remove that person but does not expressly provide that it may be exercised only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds.
The department told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds and that if he did not that would be unlawful. We join the Joint Committee on Human Rights in hoping that the courts will take the same view. But we also share its view that in order to avoid any possible doubt we should insert the word "only" before the words "where the Secretary of State" in what was Clause 49(7). It drew the matter to the attention of the House. I now suggest that we follow its advice and put this small amendment in the Bill to ensure that there is no possible doubt. I beg to move.
The Earl of Sandwich: I hope that it will be in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as well as the Committee if we debate Amendment No. 167 with Amendment No. 164A relating to the written reasons for detention. I have notified the Minister.
I have argued on previous Bills for written reasons. I believe that the proposed new clause would meet the many concerns of both detainees and of those who visit detainees. I declare an interest here as a patron of the Haslar visitors group. We shall hear more later today about the increase of the use of detention so I shall not detain the Committee on that. Suffice it to say that far too many detainees have been detained before an initial decision has been made. It is particularly important that all detainees understand the reason for their detention. Many will have had previous experiences of police cells, ill treatment or even torture. Therefore, any periods of detention will cause them anxiety. Any detention which does not appear to be justified or to have a time limit will be additionally traumatic.
As I pointed out previously, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate currently provides detainees only with a form now known as 1S91R on which it indicates in broad terms the reasons for detention. No attempt is made to link these general assertions to the detainee's individual circumstances. The information is of little practical use, therefore, to the detainee when coming to hearings. It is essential that a detainee is given reasons which are intelligible or he will not have sufficient information on which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.
At the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill in October 1999, several noble Lords argued for full written reasons for detention. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, replied (at col. 897 of the Official Report of 18th October 1999) that the check list would be tailored to individual circumstances. Despite that assurance, the new form did not allow space for a specific reference to the special needs of the individual.

1055
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was then on the Front Bench, gave a further assurance in his reply that he accepted the points made, the instructions would be reviewed and he hoped that the form would be amended.
I again raised the issue on 27th March of last year during our debate on the asylum detention rules but received no satisfactory answer. I very much look forward, therefore, to the answer that we shall receive today.
Lord Dholakia: The amendment to which I speak is grouped with Amendments Nos. 163A, 164A and 164B. Amendment No. 164ZB is not numbered on the Marshalled List but is printed under Amendment No. 164A. It is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Avebury and myself. At page 28, line 24, the amendment seeks to insert the words:
"Victims of torture, including rape, whose trauma is likely to be compounded by being detained for an indefinite period in conditions which may be reminiscent of those which they fled, will be exempt".
It is similar to Amendment No. 177ZA. I shall speak to both amendments at this stage. I hope that that will be in order.
An interesting point in this clause about the detention by the Secretary of State is that a person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending. In other words, the Secretary of State has a discretion as to whether a person should be detained. I wish to refer to the evidence which has been given to us about an organisation called Women against Rape. It highlights the devastating effect and impact of being detained in an induction centre and/or a detention centre in particular for women who are already traumatised by their experiences. These often include rape in detention. They experience extreme distress on being incarcerated. In some cases that continues for many months in conditions which remind them of the conditions from which they have fled. Women suffering from rape trauma syndrome need a very sympathetic environment, independent legal advice, appropriate medical and healthcare, counselling and other support which is not available in such centres. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pleaded with the Government to be sympathetic to women who suffer because of the situation in which they find themselves. Every immigration and asylum agency can detail such cases and the impact on victims.
We raised this issue during the passage of previous immigration and asylum legislation. We pleaded with government then and we do so again. I do not allege that the Government are heartless; that is the last thing that I should suggest. I am sure that the Government share our concern about such issues. I shall avoid detailing the harrowing examples that have been given to us by various agencies about women who suffer this trauma. This is not simply a question of people being raped in detention; it is also a question of people being
1056
tortured. Ample evidence is available from the report of the medical foundation. It highlights case after case of people who undergo that ordeal.
My plea to the Minister is that the Home Secretary should have discretion in this regard. The need for a more compassionate and humanitarian approach will resolve this difficulty. This issue deserves serious consideration. Our decision about the way in which we treat such victims will reflect on our civilised values. I hope that the Minister will not find it inappropriate to agree to the amendment.
9 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I suggest that this is one of the most important groups of amendments.
Amendment No. 163A refers to,
"a reasonable and limited period",
of detention. That is important because it is intended to prevent people being detained and then forgotten. We know that there are currently cases in which people are in detention before they have received their first decision or they are in detention after a first decision and before an appeal has been heard. The amendment would considerably improve the legislation.
I turn to the unnumbered amendment which follows Amendment No. 164A in the Marshalled List. Earlier, the Minister mentioned humanitarian criteria as being likely to govern the selection of those people who go to accommodation centres rather than being dispersed, which was helpful. Can he therefore say that those who can bring themselves to mention that in the past they have suffered torture or rape will, if possible, be directed to an accommodation centre? I am aware that it is not always possible for those people to declare that to an unknown government official at an early stage. When it does not happen and no declaration is immediately made, it can still be made at a later stage. At that later stage, it is crucially important that the person should be seen by an expert independent doctor with relevant experience of such cases; for example, those who work with the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
Even if the Government criticise the text of the unnumbered amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I hope that they recognise that it contains an important principle.
I turn to Amendment No. 164A, which appears in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It touches on the essential matter of written reasons. I prefer Amendment No. 167, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Sandwich, to which I have added my name. That is fuller, better and clearer. It is needed because the Government refuse to allow automatic bail reviews and because it has been shown that habeas corpus, which is an important part of the history of civil liberties, is an insufficient and inadequate procedure with regard to getting asylum seekers out of detention. I urge that amendment on the Government.
Lord Filkin: I shall speak initially to Amendment No. 163A. That amendment would require the detention of persons detained under the power in

1057
Clause 52 to be for only a "reasonable and limited period". Although it creates an explicit requirement to detain a person under this clause for no more than a reasonable and limited period, the amendment does not after the wording of the existing powers of detention in the 1971 Act. It is not entirely clear, as drafted, what the inclusion of the word "limited" in this amendment is intended to achieve. If it is intended to require the setting of a time limit for a person's detention under this clause at the point at which it is authorised, I fear that that is simply impracticable; nor do we regard it as necessary.
Setting such a limit at the outset of detention would require considerable predictive ability, which is unrealistic, or the setting of no more than an arbitrary time limit, which might bear no relation to the particular circumstances of the case concerned as it progressed. In either case, it would be odd for the detention of a person under this clause to be subject to a time limit while that was not the case for detentions authorised under the Immigration Act 1971. Moreover, a time limit on detention would be counter-productive in that it would simply encourage those in detention to prolong and frustrate the process so as to reach a point at which they had to be released.
Although there is no express requirement in legislation to detain persons for no more than a reasonable period necessary in the circumstances of each case, domestic and ECHR jurisprudence is clear and well established on this point.
First, the power to detain may only be exercised for the specific purpose authorised by the statute. Secondly, detention is only permitted for so long as is reasonably necessary in the circumstances for that authorised purpose. Thirdly, the detaining authority must act with reasonable diligence with a view to the purpose being pursued. That is well understood and it does not require a statement to that effect on the face of the Bill. For this reason, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary and invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 164A would require written reasons for detention to be given to any person detained under the power in Clause 52 with provision for those reasons to be challenged, albeit by unspecified means. These requirements would not apply to any person detained under the powers of detention in the Immigration Act 1971.
It is right that detained persons should be notified of the reasons for their detention. It is also right for such persons to be kept informed of the reasons for any continuing detention. It is for these reasons that Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires every detained person to be provided with written reasons for detention at the time of his initial detention and monthly thereafter.
In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time of their detention with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which detention has been authorised, the reason or reasons for detention, and the factors taken into account in reaching that decision. This notice must be
1058
explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The form itself and instructions to staff on its completion make this clear. The noble Lord's amendment does not therefore put in place something which is not, we believe, happening already. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
I am conscious that in tabling Amendment No. 164B noble Lords are acting on a suggestion made by the JCHR. I am conscious that the committee includes among its members some very eminent legal minds. It is therefore with some trepidation that I suggest that the amendment is, in the Government's view, both unnecessary and potentially confusing.
Unlike the committee, we do not consider that there is any ambiguity in the wording of subsection (7). If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is someone in respect of whom he is able to make one of the relevant decisions, that person may be detained under this clause. If the Secretary of State does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that he may make such a decision, there is nothing in subsection (7) that would allow detention on any lesser grounds, however one might define them. For that reason, we say that it is unnecessary to add the word "only".
The amendment is also, at the very least, potentially confusing and may actually have an effect which I do not think the committee intended. Clause 52 allows the Secretary of State to authorise the detention of certain categories of persons, all of whom may be liable to removal under the powers contained in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. In addition, subsection (7) allows this power to be exercised where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual concerned is such a person. In other words, if it turns out that the person who was detained is not such a person, then, provided always that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person could be detained, the detention was not unlawful.
If Amendment No. 164B were to be accepted, however, the circumstances under subsection (7) would not be in addition to the power to detain the persons described in subsections (1) and (2). Instead, on the face of it, subsection (7) would govern the rest of the clause.
On a plain reading of the subsection, as it would read if amended in the way suggested, the power to detain would be exercisable only where the Secretary of State had reasonable ground to suspect that he could make a decision of the relevant kind. But where he had something more than a reasonable ground—where, for example, he might have almost certainty—then perhaps it may not apply. As I say, I do not think that this is the intention of Amendment No. 164B and I hope that my explanation will persuade noble Lords not to press the matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, helpfully suggested the inclusion of Amendment No. 167 at this stage. It is of course right that the detained person should be notified of the reasons for their detention; it is also right for such a person to be kept informed of the

1059
reasons for any continuing detention. As I indicated, that is why Rule 9(1) of the Detention Centre Rules requires the written notification at the time of the detention and monthly thereafter.
In line with this rule, every detained person is served at the time with a written notice which sets out the Immigration Act power under which the detention has been authorised and the reason or reasons for doing so. This must be explained to the detainee, using an interpreter if necessary. The detention of individuals is reviewed monthly, assuming it lasts that long. If, following the review, a detainee is to remain in detention, he will be given a written update on the progress of his case, together with the reasons for maintaining detention.
The noble Earl's new subsection therefore does not put in place something which is not required already. It would, however, require rather more than the present position: to be frank, more than is necessary or practicable, namely that the written notice of reasons for detention should be translated into a language understood by the detainee concerned and that it should not he on a pro forma.
So far as the language is concerned, this option has been considered previously and has been rejected as impracticable and unnecessary. The existing notice has to be explained to the detained person and, if necessary, it must be done with the interpreter. This ensures that the detainee understands the reason for detention. In almost all cases the detainee's advocate is likely to be able to read English, and the documentation served in English makes it absolutely clear to the detainee's advocate the power and the reasons for detention. While interpreting is possible, it would be another thing for the notice to be translated and served on the detainee without delay.
There has been some criticism of the detention reasons notice being a pro forma. The clear intention behind Amendment No. 164A is that it should be an individually tailored letter in every case. I do not accept that the pro forma provides any less information on the reasons for detention than would realistically be given in a letter. It is certainly not the case that the current notice provides only generalised reasons for detention. It sets out the specific power of detention used and specifies the particular reasons and factors that apply to the decision to detain in the case concerned. A letter drawn up for each case would do no more and would be likely only to introduce further delay. For those reasons, we do not consider it necessary.
To amplify that, the checklist contains all current policy reasons for detention and the factors to be taken into account when detaining. Therefore, it addresses the individual circumstances of the person being detained. That meets the commitment made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. The form is kept under review, as my noble and learned friend Lord Williams undertook.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also spoke to the important Amendments Nos. 164ZB and 177ZA. I strongly sympathise with the sentiments that lie
1060
behind the amendments and the serious issues that they address, even though I do not think that they are necessary. We made it clear in our 1998 White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, that evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release when deciding whether to detain while an individual's asylum claim is being considered. That remains the case.
The instructions to staff authorising detention are clear on that. Independent evidence that a person has a history of torture is one of the factors that must be taken into account when deciding whether to detain and would normally render the person concerned unsuitable for detention other than in exceptional circumstances. Such evidence may emerge only after the detention has been authorised. That may be one of the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. If that happens, the evidence will be considered to see whether it is appropriate for the detention to continue.
We reinforced that in the Detention Centre Rules 2001. Rule 35(3) specifically provides for the medical practitioner at the removal centre to report on the case of any detained person who he is concerned may have been the victim of torture. There are systems in place to ensure that such information is passed to those responsible for deciding whether to maintain detention and to those responsible for considering the individual's asylum application.
However, unfortunately, there cannot be a blanket and total exclusion for anyone who claims that they have been tortured. There may be cases in which it would be appropriate to detain somebody who has a history of torture. For example, the person concerned might be a persistent absconder who is being returned to a third country. It might be necessary to detain such a person to effect removal. There will be other cases in which the particular circumstance of the person justifies such an action. There will be yet other cases in which we do not accept that the person concerned has been the victim of torture. Despite that, I repeat my earlier comments about the importance of seeking to interpret these cases with the utmost care and not lightly using the exceptions to which I referred.
The amendment, which would not apply to any person detained under the detention powers in the 1971 Act, would reduce what can be a difficult area to a blanket exemption in a way that is, by definition, overly prescriptive and open to considerable debate and argument as to whether all its conditions have been met in a particular case.
Amendment No. 177ZA contains similar, although not identical, wording. It is out of place in Clause 59. People are not detained on induction programmes and nor, to use the wording of the amendment, could they be seen as "reminiscent" of detention from which a person has fled. A stay near an induction programme will be short-term. The places where people will reside will have no resemblance to detention and there is no reason to make a blanket exemption from the provision in Clause 59 for those who have been tortured. I repeat that I am entirely sympathetic with

1061
the sentiments underlying the amendments, but I hope that what I have explained goes some way to relieving the concerns that have been expressed.
I also noted the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about whether those who have suffered torture and rape should be able to go to accommodation centres rather than being detained. I understand the spirit of what he is saying. However, accommodation centres do not have any detention process, so they would be unlikely to provide the necessary security if there is believed to be a need to detain. I hope that the noble Lord's concern is addressed by testing seriously whether detention is necessary when there is a potential case of' torture. I referred earlier to the noble Lord's point about whether the declaration could be made later. The responsible officials should attend to that and give it serious consideration.
Finally, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, concerning a reasonable and limited period, the implied requirement is already accepted that detention will be for no longer than necessary in the circumstances. Detention cases must also he kept under review with regular internal reviews. As I said previously, detention centre rules require reasons for detention to be given on a monthly basis.
I regret having spoken at such length but, of course, Members of the Committee grouped together a number of amendments and I needed to speak to five or six at the same time.
Lord Dholakia: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him some questions relating to Amendment No. 167 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, concerning detention centre rules. The Minister was good enough to tell us what the rules were all about and how they were being exercised. But Bail for Immigration Detainees, which has considerable experience in this matter, has drawn my attention to the fact that, although Rule 9 requires the Immigration Service to give reasons for detention on a monthly basis, in its experience detainees are rarely given such reasons in the monthly report which they receive from the service. That is a matter of very serious concern.
The issue has already been taken up with the Home Office, but I have been given to understand that the Immigration Service has not yet considered it appropriate to discipline immigration officers who fail, in their monthly reports, to give reasons for detention.
That is a serious matter which has a number of consequences. One is that it is very difficult for a detainee to prepare a bail application if he does not know the reasons for his detention. When previously unknown reasons for detention are advanced by the Immigration Service at a bail hearing, effectively that delays the decision and causes the whole procedure to be adjourned. On the basis of contributions made in the other place, I understand that that may be one reason for discussing the removal of the whole bail
1062
provision. It undermines Rule 9, and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give the matter serious consideration. The factors that I have set out breach the rule. I do not consider that to be right or proper, and I believe that appropriate action should be taken.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his further question. I also thank him for the information that he offered on Rule 9 and for setting out, following advice from specialist immigration organisations, his belief' that the rule is not adequately complied with. It is a serious issue, and perhaps the noble Lord would supply me with the best evidence that he has. Over the summer I shall undertake to look at that evidence and seek to make other inquiries. I shall also aim to have a further discussion with him before Report stage.
Lord Avebury: I am most grateful to Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate on a series of amendments. I hope that the Minister will have noticed that other noble Lords whose amendments were not grouped with this set have voluntarily grouped their amendments, thus saving the Committee's time and speeding up the process of discussion. The fact that they did so was a useful exercise because these amendments, including that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, were directly relevant to the three amendments which were grouped initially.
First, the Minister said that the time limit would require predictability, which is not in the possession of Ministers or immigration officers. He also said that, although there is no express requirement to limit detention to a reasonable period, domestic and European legislation demand that detention should be imposed only for a period which is reasonably necessary.
I could accept that if the outcome was that people suffered detention only for periods that were reasonably necessary. Bail for Immigration Detainees has just given me four examples of cases where people were released from detention after periods of six months, nine months, four months and eight months. I do not think that those periods were reasonable, and so the outcomes have not been in accordance with the assurances given by the Minister. The matter needs to be considered further.
With regard to the written rules, the Minister gave a useful assurance to my noble friend that he would consider the examples supplied by the agencies. While he is doing that, perhaps he will look at the question of translation in the light of the fact that determinations from the asylum support adjudicators are all translated before being served because of the importance of the decision and the reasons given therein. I do not understand why the same should not apply to the decisions about the liberty of the individual which to us are no less important. If it can be done in one case, it should be done in another. I hope that the Minister, in looking at the information to be supplied to him by my noble friend, will also take that matter into account.

1063
The question of the JCHR recommendation is a complicated matter. I do not profess to have fully taken on board the reasons given by the Minister in his reply. It is perhaps best if I leave that to be considered by the JCHR and perhaps it will offer further advice to the Minister. There was a dialogue between the JCHR and the Minister and it is surprising, if he put the arguments forward, that they did not prevail. It held to its view in spite of the fact that, as the Minister said, the committee is composed of people who are extremely well qualified in the law and particularly in human rights law.
Finally, on the question of torture, will the Minister think about the systems that are in place to ensure that information is passed to the appropriate officials? The detention centre rules provide only that a report should be made from the doctor, through the centre manager, to the Secretary of State; they are silent on what the Secretary of State should do with that information. A lacuna occurs in the rules which needs to be examined. If the Secretary of State is not under any obligation to take cognisance of the information submitted to him, people who have suffered torture or rape may be detained for a long time.
An example sent to me by BID concerned a female asylum seeker who had been severely traumatised by her experiences in her country of origin. She remained in detention awaiting appeal, during which time her mental health continued to deteriorate. She was held for over four months. It would be interesting to know how the system went wrong. Presumably when the information comes up from the doctor to the Secretary of State, some action is taken which feeds back to the detention decision-maker, and the person with growing mental health problems who is being detained will be promptly released. The fact that that does not happen is a matter of serious concern to us.
I shall leave those matters for the Minister to reflect on throughout the Summer Recess, as shall we. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 28, line 24, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "any of those paragraphs"
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting point. It is intended to make the wording conform more closely to the rules of syntax of the English language. Perhaps the Minister will speak to his amendments in this group, but they concern an entirely different point.
A person may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State whether to give directions under one of three paragraphs of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. Once the Secretary of State has given directions for a person's removal, he has the power to detain that person pending his removal. I understand the purpose of the clause, which is to enable the official who conducts the
1064
examination of the asylum seeker, to make the decision to detain on behalf of the Secretary of State. We have no quarrel with that.
As to the wording, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 the words "that paragraph" always refer to a single paragraph. In Sections 116, 117 and 120 that phrase refers to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Act and in paragraphs 60 and 126 of Schedule 14 it refers to only a single paragraph and not to two or more paragraphs. On the other hand, in Section 140 of the 1999 Act the words "any of paragraphs", followed by some numbers, refers to several different paragraphs.
The precedents refer to one paragraph and I believe that it would be less confusing if this amendment were to be accepted. I hope that the Minister will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord invites me to move the government amendments in this group, as I shall. As a matter of courtesy I shall deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, first. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his suggested amendment, but we believe that it is unnecessary. I can, however, see what prompted the noble Lord to table it.
However much it may jar on the ear or the eye, the use of the singular in subsections (1)(b) and (2)(d) is, according to our best advice—no doubt parliamentary draftsmen—correct. The true position under subsection (1)(a) is that it allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention pending a decision whether or not to give removal directions under one or other of those paragraphs. But the eventual directions, if and when they are given, will be under only one of the three. It would be pointless to set removal directions under more than one, even if that were possible.
Thus, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State. Similarly, subsection (1)(a) allows a person to be detained on the authority of the Secretary of State pending a decision by the Secretary of State, and so on. Finally, subsection (1)(a) permits detention pending a decision under paragraph 14 and subsection (1)(b) allows the person to be detained where directions have been given under that paragraph.
In other words, subsection (1) contains a single new power which allows the Secretary of State to authorise detention, first, pending a decision whether or not to set removal directions under one of three possible paragraphs, and then when directions have been given under the applicable paragraph. We believe that in terms of drafting, the amendment, although intended to be helpful, is not necessary.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are minor and technical amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and are consequential upon the power of detention contained in Clause 52. They are necessary to ensure that those detained under the power in Clause 52 are on the same footing as persons detained under the detention powers in the Immigration Act 1971.

1065
At present the 1983 and 1984 Mental Health Acts refer only to persons detained under the 1971 Act. The amendments to the provisions in those Acts relating to the transfer of detained persons requiring mental treatment will extend their scope to include persons detained under Clause 52. There are no substantive changes to the 1983 and 1984 Acts. Therefore, they are benign, helpful, minor and technical.
Lord Hylton: Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how bad one's mental health must be before one becomes "susceptible to transfer"? In prisons in this country there are thousands of people whose mental health is bad or poor and who need treatment but cannot get it because there are insufficient places in mental hospitals. Can the Minister throw some light on whether so far anyone has been transferred out of immigration or asylum detention?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may try to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I tried to understand—as best I could—the Minister's explanation to the points raised by the noble Lord. It may be that on close scrutiny of Hansard it will make rather clearer sense. But why should we be put to this extraordinary intellectual exercise? Instead of being brought up with a round term by this curious construction, surely life could be made much easier for everyone who has to deal with this issue if the word "the material" was inserted between "under" and "paragraph". Therefore, Clause 52(1)(b) would read:
"removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of directions given by the Secretary of State under the material paragraph".
It would then be perfectly clear what we are talking about. Instead of having this extraordinary exercise, perhaps I may suggest that to the Minister.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always enter with some trepidation any debate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am sure that with his legal mastery he is a draftsman of extraordinary talent. I certainly shall take account of his suggestion, which the officials will have noted. I think that what I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was right and attempted to establish a degree of consistency and understanding around the use of the terms. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the Minster taking the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew so seriously that he will write to him with his conclusions on this matter before we reach the Report stage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to agree to that. I always listen with great interest to the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord. We shall afford him the courtesy of a written reply.
1066
I shall offer the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a similar facility. He has asked a question which requires a degree of research. With apologies to the noble Lord, I am happy to investigate and to see what information, such as it is, we can find out on numbers and types of cases. It is an important issue and deserves a proper response. I am grateful for those two important points.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his comments. The existing wording is inconsistent with the Government's professed aim of making legislation more conformable with the English language. Whatever the Minister may say—I listened carefully to his convoluted explanation—I do not think that the present wording is readily comprehensible by those who need to understand it.
Therefore, although my wording may not have been ideal—I happily accept the alternative offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—at least the Minister, together with his department, should consider whether some other form of words would make more sense to ordinary readers of the English language.
With regard to the amendment proposed by the Minister relating to the Mental Health Act 1983, I am happy to accept that those detained should be treated in the same way as those who have been detained under the 1971 Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked a serious question, bearing in mind that we know that there is a gross deficiency of places in secure psychiatric units. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, may know, when the Select Committee recently considered the problem of transferring people from prisons to hospitals, which he mentioned, it found a shortage of about 500 places.
More recently, Dr John Reed of Her Majesty's Prisons Inspectorate told me that the number of places is still deficient. There are still 500 fewer places than are needed to accommodate the people who should be transferred from prisons into secure psychiatric units, so we may assume that the same is true of people in detention. People who need to be transferred into psychiatric units from places of detention may be held continuously in the place of detention because there is no room for them in a psychiatric unit. It is important that that is clarified. I also look forward to receiving the information that the Minister promised during the summer.
Earl Russell: Does my noble friend remember an occasion on which Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who was Lord Chief Justice, when offered that excuse that no bed was available in a mental hospital, summoned the Secretary of State for Health to appear as a witness in person? Is it not about time for that example to be repeated?
Lord Avebury: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State would be appearing in court every day, if that were to be the rule. We know that prisons and their medical officers have serious difficulties. When Beverley Hughes was in charge of prisons, she told me that it

1067
was not altogether a question of capacity, but also one of process. The Department of Health and the Prison Service recently signed a protocol that is supposed to speed up the transfer of such people, but so far it has not worked, because it kicks in only once the clinician in a secure psychiatric unit has accepted that the person is eligible for a place.
All of the difficulties that we encounter in the prison system read across into detention. There is a shortage of information in that regard which the Minister has undertaken to remedy. We look forward to that, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164A to 164B not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 165 and 166:
Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
"() In the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20)—

(a) at the end of section 48(2)(d) (detained persons susceptible to transfer for mental treatment: immigration) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State)", and

(b) in the heading of section 53 (supplemental provision) the reference to the Immigration Act 1971 becomes a reference to the Immigration Acts."

Page 29, line 21, at end insert—
"() In the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)—

(a) at the end of section 71(2)(c) (detained persons who may be transferred to hospital for mental treatment) there shall he added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)", and

(b) at the end of section 74(1)(b) (further provision about such persons) there shall be added "or under section 52 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by the Secretary of State)"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Sandwichhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
"REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) A person detained by the Secretary of State under Section 52 of this Act or by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State under the Immigration Act 1971 shall be provided with full written reasons for his detention in a language which he fully understands.

(2) Such reasons shall be provided within 24 hours of his initial detention and shall give a full justification for the need to detain him at that time.

(3) Further written reasons shall be given at the end of each period of 28 days or more during which he continues to be detained and shall give a full justification for the continuing need to detain him in particular.

(4) The completion of a pro-forma sheet listing general reasons for detention will not be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section."

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to the amendment. I should simply like to thank the Minister for giving us not just full written reasons but a full written and spoken explanation, and for the assurances he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Clause 53 [Control of entry to United Kingdom, &c.: use of force]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 29, line 37, at end insert—
"() After paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, there shall be inserted—
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State—

(a) to issue a code of practice in connection with the tape-recording of interviews of persons examined by an immigration officer under paragraphs 2, 2A or 3 above: and

(b) to make an order requiring the tape-recording of persons so examined."

The noble Lord said: If accepted, the amendment would bring into operation the practice of tape-recording interviews with immigration detainees. At the moment, many interviews are conducted without representatives. The quality of interpreters is variable; there is no recognised qualification they have to attain in order to become interpreters. Interview notes are not read back to the applicant; he only has to countersign in order to verify identity.
At Oakington, where proper advice is available to asylum seekers, lawyers frequently identify discrepancies and inaccuracies that can be corrected on the spot. In one recent case of a Zimbabwean rape victim who arrived in April 2001, she applied in August and was interviewed when still in acute distress. The Refugee Legal Centre picked up five pages of inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the interview record.
When interviews are conducted at an airport or at Croydon, frequently there may not be a representative present or the applicant is not given an adequate opportunity to contest the reliability or accuracy of the written record. With a tape recording the quality of the evidence would be enormously improved, to the advantage of both parties and in the interests of making the process faster and fairer, as we all wish to do.
The wording of the amendment is taken from Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It has long been considered that the criminal justice system is best served by having an accurate record of what is said at interviews. Surely the tried and tested procedures adopted in such cases would read across into the determination of asylum claims. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment. Last night, rather later than I would have wished, and therefore without the time to complete the reading I would have wished, I started to read the pamphlet Deciding to Detain, a report by the University of Essex Human

1069
Rights Centre by Leanne Weber and Todd Landman. It suggests to me that a great deal of the decisions taken that lead to detention—often mistaken detention—arise from mistakes in the initial interview. That is not a new thought on these Benches or in the House. But what is so good in the report is that it allows the immigration officers to speak for themselves in a vernacular speech that I can understand.
I hear in those immigration officers a sense of having lost control of the processes of their job, which as a professional is something I recognise far more closely than I would have wished. They often regard it as their job to prevent people coming into this country. I cannot complain at that. I am not a vegetarian: I cannot morally reprove people who work in abattoirs. I do not want Al'Qaeda and the Mafia walking all over this country with every weapon they possess. So I recognise that there must be people with that vocation.
But the point that the immigration officers make is that that vocation and the vocation of dealing with asylum sit uneasily together. Here is a quote from one:
"A colleague of mine at Dover said 'If I'd wanted to join an organisation that processed asylum claims I'd have joined the Immigration Advisory Line or something, I wouldn't have joined the Immigration Service'. Because we're not doing the immigration control—we're simply letting people through. That's what I said about asylum being a separate issue from immigration".
In those words is not only the frustration of someone who sees himself as having lost control of his job. There is also a clear expression of why immigration and asylum should be seen as two separate functions of the Home Office. They ought not to be done by the same people. If they were done by two lots of people with different vocations and different professional training, we would not get what the report suggests that we are getting—people recommending detention because it is the only way they can get back control of the process.
If anything like that is taking place—I say, "If"—the tape recording of interviews, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment, would go a long way to correct it. Beyond that, the material suggests that there is a long-term way in which our immigration and asylum system could be reformed. As I suggested at Second Reading of the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Bill, without the evidence that I now have, it would involve separating the immigration functions from the asylum functions and having them done by different people. That would be the beginning of wisdom. Until it is done, things will go wrong over and over again, and we will be back here for another Bill, almost before we have finished this one.
Lord Judd: I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the point covered by the amendment. I urge him to do so for two reasons. First, I do not think that I am speaking only for myself when I say that the Minister has convinced us of his decency, his integrity and his determination to see as much justice as possible in the administration of policy and theory. If there is any serious room for doubt—there seems to be a good deal in this area—the proposed amendment would, as
1070
the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, go a long way towards removing that doubt. That is important for justice.
The second reason why I urge the Minister to take the proposal seriously is that, if we take seriously the threat of terrorism—I. for one, certainly do—we must remember at all times that the extremist plays on any sense of injustice or justice miscarried. It is counter-productive to do things in a way that is not beyond question or doubt. It plays into the hands of extremists and gives them moral grounds for recruiting and increasing their circle of ambivalent support, if not direct support. That is the kind of climate in which it is easier for them to operate. For those reasons, regardless of whether we accept this particular amendment, the point behind the amendment is crucially significant. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reassure us that he takes it seriously.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I endorse what has just been said. I hope that the Minister will say that he will consider the point behind the amendment, if he cannot accept its precise terms. During that consideration, he should take into account the Home Office's experience of piloting and introducing the tape recording of interviews under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
At the beginning, there was a great deal of resistance from the police. Subsequently, the police realised that it was as much in their interest to have an objective and unassailable record of what had taken place as it was in the interest of the defendant. It is easy, with the best of intentions, to put a slant on art interview during which one has been able only to make running notes. Police officers, particularly those who conducted the trial—at Dartford in Kent, I think—became the most ardent protagonists on behalf of the innovation. Today, nobody would wish to go back to the days when there was no tape recording. I hope that the Minister will consider that example.
Lord Hylton: I wish to support the amendment because it bears not only on the quality of interviewing in the first place, but also on the quality of interpretation. Both are closely linked to the quality of first decision and therefore to the avoidance of further appeals and judicial reviews. We all understand that that is what the Government wish to see and we support them in that aim.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised important structural questions with regard to the Home Office. Perhaps I may follow his line by asking the Home Office seriously to consider changing the way it operates the system so that one caseworker stays with a case throughout the whole process until it is finally resolved. That would bring about a huge qualitative improvement.
Lord Kingsland: I wish to endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Indeed, I have to say quite candidly to the

1071
Minister that I had always assumed that such interviews were tape recorded. Indeed, I could not imagine the circumstances in which they would not be recorded. Surely it would be in the interests both of the person being interviewed and of the interviewer that the most accurate record of what has taken place is available, first, to both the parties participating in the interview and, secondly, for any subsequent proceedings.
I understand that the Government's objective behind the Bill is to secure expedition tempered by fairness. What better way of soundly establishing such a procedure than by making sure that, at the outset, the interviews are accurately recorded? The barriers of language and culture are huge. It is difficult to see how we shall have a reasonable chance of overcoming them unless we start off in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment.
10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had an interesting short debate. It took my mind back to the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Arguments were put forward from both the police and civil liberties perspectives to say that the tape recording of interviews would not be a good move. Ultimately I think that both sides of the arguments came to see that they were wrong and that the government of the day were absolutely right. The tape recording of interviews conducted in police stations has marked a tremendous advance in openness and transparency and has assisted both the defence and the prosecution in equal measure. Furthermore, it has added greatly to the fairness of the process.
I am going to give a commitment to reflect on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, but I give that commitment to reflect without a further commitment that there will be an amendment or a solution that necessarily accords with the spirit of the amendment before the Committee. I shall do that because there are certain immense logistical problems that would come into play if the Government were to follow this course. I wish to make that point plainly and ensure that it is put on the record.
Each year something in the order of 90 million passengers arrive in the United Kingdom. Of those, some 13 million are subject to some form of control by the UK Immigration Service at ports and at the Channel Tunnel. Plainly, aiming to tape record up to 13 million interviews a year would be a vast exercise. I do not know whether one would need to record all 13 million interviews; I doubt whether eventually it would be quite that number. However, some of those interviews would include those conducted with British and European citizens because some mistakes would be made. That could lead to long delays for people coming here quite legitimately in being received into the country.
We also need to consider the enormous cost of installing tape-recording machinery at every control desk at every port and point of entry. There are
1072
questions of practicality. If one thinks of ports and the facilities available there for the conducting of interviews, the quality of the interview rooms that we now demand in police stations and the technology used, one begins to get a fair measure of the practical difficulties.
The current system works reasonably well and there are fairly good and accurate records of interviews. Safeguards are in place. While I accept that recorded interviews would add something more and that there is an initial attraction to their introduction, many problems would need to be overcome in terms of language, recording and so on.
Attractive though this amendment is, and though I am happy to give a commitment that we will reflect on the comments made by noble Lords in this short and interesting debate, I can go no further. I can give only an agreement to reflect, without a commitment or promise that we will bring back anything. I appreciate that the amendment is intended to be helpful.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the Deciding to Detain report and was candid in extracting the comments of immigration officers. The research took place some years ago and involved a small number of immigration officers. We should like to place on record our debt of gratitude to our immigration officers. They have to work extremely hard and intervene in many challenging circumstances. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that much has changed in their working practices and that perhaps Deciding to Detain no longer accurately reflects the current position in the context of their work and the changed role and nature of our Immigration Service, which has had to match and meet some very testing circumstances over the past few years. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising points from the report, but his comments need to be set in context.
Lord Hylton: I welcome the Government's willingness to reflect. It is perhaps the first time it has happened during the course of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, it is not.
Lord Hylton: No? I accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rightly pointed to the logistical difficulties implicit in the text of the amendment. However, the Government's problems would be enormously reduced if the tape-recording experiment started only with first interviews in asylum cases.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the noble Lord's point. If the focus of the amendment was narrower, it might have some greater potential benefit in those kinds of cases. The amendment is broadly constructed as it stands and its remit would be to place on the service considerable administrative burdens, delays, costs, and so on. Despite its initial attractiveness, there is a fundamental problem with the amendment.
Earl Russell: The report Deciding to Detain to which I referred was not volume one, which was issued a little

1073
while ago, but volume two, which is this year's report. Although I recognise that situations change, if the proportion between asylum and immigration has changed in favour of immigration and against asylum, why do we have the Bill?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for his clarification.
Lord Avebury: I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Russell and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Kingsland.
Everyone who has spoken in the debate is in favour of the principle of tape recording. The only objection came from the Minister who said that it was administratively impracticable. He gave a sort of undertaking. I am not sure whether it was to review the position over the summer or to think about what has been said in the debate. He dropped a hint towards the end of this remarks that he might have looked more favourably on the amendment had it been confined to the interviews with asylum applicants because that would cut the numbers from a potential 12 million to something less than 76,000. We shall think about the matter during the summer and decide whether to table an amendment which is limited to asylum applicants, as the Minister suggested.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to decisions to detain. The Committee may remember the case of the Afghans who arrived on Ariana Airlines and were segregated in the fire service college over a weekend when interviews were held. They were reported on by an interpreter and showed the enormous pressures that were brought to bear on those people not to make an application for asylum but to return to Afghanistan. That followed an undertaking by the then Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary, that he would get rid of these people as rapidly as possible.
That is what happens when there are no proper recordings of interviews. It is possible for serious pressure to be brought to bear on applicants for asylum not to pursue that intention but to go back to their countries of origin. That could be avoided if interviews were tape-recorded.
I refer the Minister to a report by the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate dated July 1999 on the asylum decision process consultancy. There are several paragraphs relating to taping all substantive interviews. Paragraph 6.34 states that,
"taping interviews reduces the opportunity to dispute what was said during an interview … may encourage greater professionalism by the interviewer and interpreter and … the trial"—
which was undertaken by the Home Office, so we need not start again from scratch—
"has apparently indicated that applicants and their advisers have also behaved more professionally during the interview".
The saving in time and costs compared with the conventional process was threefold. Therefore, it is not a matter of enormous cost to accept the spirit of the
1074
amendment. It would be a saving as well as an enormous benefit to practitioners and their clients. We shall return to the matter on Report with the modification that the Minister has suggested limiting it to asylum applicants. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: I oppose Clause 53 stand part in order to pave the way for Amendments Nos. 171 and 172, the purpose of which is to consolidate the amendments made to the all-important Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 in this Bill with the schedule as amended. Technically it is not a true consolidation because, in addition to the task of reordering and renumbering the schedule itself to incorporate all the changes made to it since 1971, we would have to amend all the references made to the schedule in other legislation, and the matter would have to be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and the Law Commission to justify the term.
I am greatly indebted to the Public Bill Office for the assistance that it has given me in accomplishing part of the task and I hope that between us we shah have done enough to demonstrate the usefulness of the exercise and convince your Lordships that it should be completed.
We have taken Schedule 2, as amended, and inserted in it the words specified in Clauses 53 and 54. We should also have dealt with Clause 62(1) in the same way, but unfortunately through an error of mine, it was transformed into Amendment No. 179. But the wording of Clause 53 now appears as paragraph 18(2) of the revised schedule, and the wording of Clause 54 as new sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of that paragraph. The further tidying up still necessary would be to insert the words of Clause 62(1) after what becomes paragraph 11 in the renumbered schedule, and to renumber all the following paragraphs.
The effect of these amendments would be to enable practitioners, IND staff and clients to read the whole schedule as amended, instead of having to refer back to all the legislation that has been passed since 1971 to get the complete picture. I appreciate that it is possible to buy reference books that show how the 1971 Act appears with all the amendments, such as Margaret Phelan's excellent Immigration Law Handbook. But as fast as these tomes appear, Parliament comes along with fresh legislation and one has to spend another £40 on keeping up to date. This Government seem to have lost interest in consolidation, so let Parliament take a small step towards making the statutes easier to read, as an example that we should like all departments, but particularly the Home Office, to follow. I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In keeping with earlier debates, I was expecting views to be expressed on all sides of the Committee, but plainly that has not happened. I have quite a long briefing note on this

1075
matter. However, I am mindful of the hour and am thinking that the several pages of justification for the current situation are not something that Members of the Committee will want to hear.
We are grateful for the thought that lies behind the amendments in this group. I cannot accept the noble Lord's point that the Government are not interested in consolidation. My recollection is that we recently had a mini-debate on the subject. I believe it was my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer who made the point that there had been some consolidation during this Government's period of office and that further consolidation was very much in our minds.
We recognise the case that has been made for consolidating the Acts relating to immigration and asylum. The noble Lord made a fair point. But we cannot practically do that before the whole reform package has been perfected and put together. However, we are committed to consulting the Law Commission about consolidation in due course.
I recognise that "in due course" can mean "as long as a piece of string". But we are committed to this. It makes good and apparent sense. So although we do not intend to include consolidation measures in the Bill—and for that reason I cannot accept the amendments—we recognise it as important and significant. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. It is right that he does so.
I hope that the noble Lord will take some encouragement from my response. I ask him not to press the amendments that he has tabled.
Lord Avebury: As St Augustine said:
"Da mihi castitatem, sed noli modo"—
"Give me chastity, but not yet". The noble Lord expects me to be satisfied with an assurance that consolidation of the immigration Acts will happen at some time in the future. I suppose that I have to be pleased that he has given me that assurance, because I cannot expect anything more this evening. I hope that at least this debate has shown that the task is not so enormous. If the Public Bill Office can manage to supply half the work of consolidating the most important schedule of the 1971 Act, I am sure that it is not beyond the resources of the department to carry on and do the rest of the work.
So I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously and that we shall not have to wait indefinitely for consolidation when so much depends on it for immigration practitioners, for clients and for the IND. In the meantime, I shall not oppose the Question and I shall not press my amendments.
Clause 53 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 54 [Escorts]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 30, line 6, at end insert "(in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State)"
1076
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 169 would require any searches carried out by detainee custody officers, under the powers to be conferred on them by the proposed new sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, to be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. This amendment seeks to raise the question of how the conduct of detainee custody officers will be regulated when, as is envisaged under the provisions to be inserted under Clause 54 of the Bill, they enter premises to conduct searches and detain persons for whom they are responsible.
The Government propose to allow detainee custody officers to enter private premises without consent in order to conduct those searches—although they will be able to do so only where an immigration officer or a constable has entered the premises under a warrant. The existing power to search, the definition of which is referred to in the proposed new sub-paragraph (5) is contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
The conduct of police officers is obviously regulated by a number of well-known provisions, not least those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The amendment seeks to clarify the provisions that will apply to detainee custody officers in circumstances where they have entered private premises by force for the purpose of carrying out a search.
Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the rules on the searches by those custody officers, which are referred to in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the 1999 Act, have been made; and, if so, whether they contain an adequate framework for the conduct of custody officers in the circumstances that will pertain if they exercise the powers conferred on them by this clause?
We have received some representations on this point from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association and others who were concerned that there may be a deficiency in this respect. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure the Committee on this point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I start from the position that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the reassurance that he seeks.
The power for escorts to search a detained person is contained in paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 13 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. That power must already be exercised in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State regardless of the context in which the search is taking place.
Those rules are contained in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 (Statutory Instrument 238/2001). Specifically, Rule 7—it applies equally to escorts as it does to staff in removal centres—requires that detained persons shall be searched in as seemly a manner as is consistent with discovering anything concealed. It also requires that no detained person shall be stripped and searched in the sight of another detained person or in the sight of or presence of an officer or other person not of the same sex.

1077
The amendment is properly put forward by the noble Lord acting on information put to him by practitioners. However, our contention is that it is an unnecessary duplication of an existing provision. In those terms, I believe that the noble Lord should feel assured, and comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I do not want to repeat the Minister's reply in debate on a later amendment but did I hear him aright? Can the custody officer enter premises at present without the necessity for a search warrant signed by a responsible person?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think not; I think that the power is limited and that it can be exercised only when escorts are accompanying immigration or police officers to premises for which a warrant has been issued. I believe that that is the answer to the noble Lord's point but I shall seek further clarification and if I am wrong I shall write to him.
Lord Avebury: I listened carefully to the Minister's answer but I did not hear him address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the rules mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 to the 1991 Act. That provision gives the detaining custody officer the power to conduct those searches. It also states that that has to be in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, therefore asked: where are the rules and have they yet been made? The understanding of the agencies was that they still had not been published; that was also my understanding. If the Minister can assure us that the rules exist, I hope that he will also give us a reference to them so that we can look them up.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I see that those in the Box are nodding; I take it that the rules have been made and laid. If Members of the Committee want further clarification, I shall happily provide them with a note confirming the situation. Meanwhile, I believe that the answer is on its way over to me. The rules are in paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 2. They have been made. Rule 7 of the detention centre rules is the relevant provision. I referred to that earlier. Rule 7 applies equally to escorts as to staff in removal centres.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response and clarification. I hope that he will allow me to go away and examine rule 7 in the light of what has been said in this short and extremely useful debate, and to come back, if necessary, on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Detention centres: change of name]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 30, line 39, leave out "removal" and insert "holding"
1078
The noble Earl said: This amendment deals with the proposal in Clause 56 to change the name of detention centres to "removal centres". That sounds to me suspiciously like a pre-judgment of the case. My amendment would change the name to "holding centre", a much more neutral and balanced title.
Amendment No. 170, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would provide that those centres were holding centres for people whom the Secretary of State was lawfully entitled to remove. That would achieve exactly the same effect as my amendment. If the Minister is prepared to accept either of those amendments, I am not going to be fussy about which it is; I should be content with either. However, if the Minister condemns both amendments, I will be reminded of the person who said, in the case of the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, that it began to sound as if we would condemn him because we would condemn him. I hope that the Minister will agree to one of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As I understand it, the Government want detention centres to be called "removal centres" to make the point that detention may involve removal and that it is therefore better to give those centres that name even if they are still detention centres and will still detain people for purposes other than removal. The amendments of the Official Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats neatly bracket the Government's position, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. The Liberal Democrats approve of the Government's desire to change the name but they do so by involving both purposes, and the Official Opposition's amendment acknowledges the Government's desire to introduce the concept of removal by making it the single purpose. As the noble Earl said, that is a very simple choice for the Government to make between the two amendments.
There is, within a mile of this place, a good test of the Government's logic. The Tate Gallery stands where Jeremy Bentham's Millbank penitentiary once stood. As one might expect of Bentham, it was in some senses a model prison and, indeed, a modern prison. The domestic arrangements in the cells were ones of which Stephen Tumim would have approved when he was Chief Inspector of Prisons. The penitentiary, which was adjacent to where prisoners took the tender to the larger ships that would transport them to Australia, was where they were held but the prisoners were not yet committed to going. On the eve of their being transported to Australia they were taken to cells on five floors below the Morpeth Arms—a pub which still stands on Millbank—and were held there. That would seem perfectly logical. The penitentiary might reasonably have been called the detention centre; the cells underneath the Morpeth Arms—which I believe are still there—could reasonably have been called a removal centre.
The Government's position, if I may say so, is straight out of Alice. It is Humpty Dumpty saying that he wants words to mean what he wants them to mean. If the Government regret that they were ever called detention centres, my recollection is that there is

1079
another censorious character in Alice—perhaps the Caterpillar, perhaps the Red Queen, perhaps the Griffin, perhaps even Humpty Dumpty himself—who would have said, "If you wanted to call them removal centres, then that is what you should have called them in the first place", and I wholly concur with the noble Lord.
Lord Judd: I strongly support the amendment. It is not simply a matter of clarifying terminology and purpose. I believe that this amendment goes right to the heart of what this Bill is all about and how we want it to be perceived.
On Second Reading we spent a certain amount of time discussing the distinction between administering necessary policy justly in this area and playing to a negative public opinion by suggesting that the purpose of the legislation was to get rid of all of these people who should not really be here. Some of us argued that, while people who have no grounds for being here have no grounds for being here and will have to be removed, the primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that all those with any entitlement to be here are able to stay. That is what the Bill is about.
As soon as we introduce the word "removal" into clauses such as this, whether or not the Government intend it, the message becomes confused. It panders to the irresponsible media and the rest, who want to talk in hysterical terms about the need to remove people rather than talk about our responsibility as a nation for ensuring that those who are entitled to be here are able to be here, while dealing sensitively but firmly with those who are not.
I believe that there is a great deal more to this amendment—if the noble Earl will forgive me on this occasion, because it is most unusual—than even he suggested. I believe that he was too modest. While there was something to commend the terminology of the Official Opposition, I think that his own term is a better one and I wish that he would stand more firmly by it.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: It may help to look, if the noble Lord finds time to do so, at the Prevention of Terrorism Act applying to Northern Ireland. I believe that those three areas which were attached to police stations, which were specially secure for the purpose of interrogating those suspected of terrorism, were reclassified as holding centres. It was felt that this might be an assistance to the delicate process which, even in my distant days, was in train. It is perhaps a precedent to be looked at.
Lord Hylton: I prefer the second of these two amendments. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, has just said rather reinforces my opinion.
1080
The serious point is that one or other amendment—preferably the second—needs to be accepted until such time as no people are detained who have not yet received their first decision in an asylum case or who have not yet exhausted their rights of appeal.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and support the amendment. I have information from the Churches' Bail Circle that might be of interest to the Committee. There is evidence from the bail circle and from detention centre visiting groups that many asylum seekers are detained well before the end of the process of determining their claims, as my noble friend said—either on arrival or before the determination of their appeal.
The bail circle worked with 257 asylum seekers last year and in the first quarter of this year. Full data concerning dates of arrival, asylum claim and detention were available for 102 of these, of whom 77 per cent were detained at or soon after arrival. The sample is small, but there is no reason to suppose that it is not representative. It surely bears out what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to my Amendment No. 170. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that logically the Government ought to accept either his amendment or mine and that he is prepared to accept mine if need be. I also heard the noble Lord, Lord Judd, upbraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, saying that he preferred the noble Earl's amendment to mine. As long as we get the right result, I shall not be pedantic about which wording is adopted. I would be equally happy to support the noble Earl's wording if we can achieve the right result.
I shall be fairly brief, as the arguments have been covered effectively. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the only people held in removal centres are those whom the Secretary of State is lawfully entitled to remove. That seems an obvious aim. As my honourable friend Mr Malins said on Report in another place:
"Detaining asylum seekers is a sensitive issue and detention should be used with the greatest sensitivity. Detaining persons whom the Secretary of State is not entitled to remove is an unhappy concept for many Opposition Members".—[Official Report, Commons. 12/6/02; cols. 872–73]
We feel the same in this House.
I was grateful for the intervention of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both of whom, in their succinct way, made it clear that the Government's position is untenable. As my noble friend Lord Brooke, said, the Government's words seem like something from Alice in Wonderland.
Noble Lords have not followed through the question of the current designation of detention centres. I am told that the IND has already changed the name of detention centres to removal centres on letterheads and public signposts—for example at Dungavel—and on memorandums, even though the clause has not even been debated, let alone the Bill

1081
enacted. Can the Minister confirm whether the IND has made that change? If so, on whose authority was it done?
Like other noble Lords, I should be very disappointed if the Minister felt unable to accept either the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, or mine. At this late hour I do not intend to pursue the matter, but I give notice that I shall pursue it later.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Our purpose in renaming detention centres as removal centres is to reinforce the key role that detention plays in the removal of those who have no lawful basis to stay here. It does not signal a change of function for such centres. They will remain designated places of detention for the purposes of the Immigration Act. Similarly, it does not signal a change to the powers to detain. Our priority for the use of detention space is to support the removal of failed asylum seekers and others who have no basis of stay here, such as illegal entrants and overstayers.
Although we plan to increase the number of detention spaces to some 4,000, they will obviously remain a finite resource that must be focused on the area of greatest need—that is, the removal of failed asylum seekers. That is a priority. But it will always be the case that removal centres will need to be used in other circumstances and at other points in the process where we have power to detain, particularly, for example, at Oakington. That is an integral part of effective immigration control which would be prevented by the amendment. I question whether noble Lords would wish that to happen.
Apart from detention to effect removal, including deportation, our current policy is that we may detain in both asylum and non-asylum cases while a person's identity or claim is established, or because a person is likely to abscond, or, in asylum cases only, as part of the fast-track case processing at Oakington reception centre. Again, that will continue to be the case despite the change of name to "removal centres". On that basis, it would be inappropriate to seek to restrict those who may be held at removal centres, as Amendment No. 170 seeks to do, to those,
"whom the Secretary is lawfully entitled to remove".
There are also practical difficulties with the amendment. A person whose removal was not for the time being lawful—for example, a person with an outstanding asylum claim—would therefore not be able to be detained in a removal centre, although they could be detained in short-term facilities or prisons. It would also prevent the detention in a removal centre of those who are removable, but the power to do so is vested in an immigration officer rather than the Secretary of State. That would apply to the majority of those refused leave to enter.
I know that there has been some concern that the change of name may lead to confusion among detainees, especially asylum seekers, who have yet to receive a decision on their application but are held at a removal centre. We simply do not accept that. All detainees receive a notice at the time of their detention that sets out clearly the reasons for that detention.
1082
Therefore, detainees should be under no illusion as to the reasons. In addition, detained asylum seekers will go through the induction process at the place of detention, and that will include in formation on the asylum process. Therefore, they will know that they will not be removed while their claim is outstanding. I have set out why we decided to adopt the name "removal centre", and I do not consider that "holding centre" is a better alternative.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, made the point that, within the context of Northern Ireland, there were holding centres for those held pending the further determination of their situation. I am not sure that that necessarily helps the argument for the amendments offered by some Members of the Committee this evening. Surely that could create confusion in some minds as to the purpose of the centres. The comparison with centres used to hold suspected terrorists would be an unenviable parallel. I wonder whether that is as wise a move as some in the Committee might like to argue. I believe that, in the context of immigration and asylum cases, it is not a matter to which we should give serious consideration. Having heard those arguments and points, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judd: Before my noble friend sits down, I hope that he will accept that in relation to this amendment some of us—I am fairly certain that I shall not be alone—feel that, while he has tried hard to argue the case, he has not convinced us. I ask him again to think himself into the position of people in the centres and, indeed, of many irresponsible people in the media and elsewhere in this country. Some are determined to suggest that we should remove everyone it is possible to remove. Inevitably, that view will become an acute anxiety on the part of people in the centres.
I understood my noble friends to say repeatedly in the deliberations on this Bill that they are committed to getting the right result in each case. Why throw away that flag of commitment to getting the right result by the injudicious and loose use of the word, "removal"?
Earl Russell: Before I reply, perhaps the Minister will reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. Is it true that the name of some centres has already been changed to "removal centre" before the approval of Parliament has been given? Can he answer that before I reply?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am happy to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a perfectly proper question. The answer is yes; the change was made on the direction of the Home Secretary.
To pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Judd, we are committed to ensuring that people who come into this country, albeit illegally, claiming asylum and refuge are treated humanely, decently and properly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and law. In renaming detention centres we are seeking to reinforce the key role that detention

1083
plays in the removal of those who have no lawful base on which to stay here. It does not, of itself, signal a change of function for the centres. It underlines the important role that they play in the range of facilities, the range of strategies, that we seek to employ to manage and handle the situation.
The problems that confront us are serious and we take them seriously. We believe in fair and proper treatment. We are a government that have demonstrated that not just in this field of legislation, but in many others. Our record and reputation are second to none in that regard. Therefore I insist that the amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.
Lord Dholakia: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say, if the Home Secretary has already agreed to rename the detention centres as removal centres, what is the purpose of this clause?
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he say when the Home Secretary made that direction? Under what power? And what publicity did he give to his decision to do so?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have that information. The noble Lord is entitled to the details and I am happy to place on record that I do not have the details at the Dispatch Box this evening. However, I shall ensure that the noble Lord is furnished with them and also that other Members of the Committee are also provided with them.
Earl Russell: I am grateful for the support I received from the Committee for either my amendment or that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. But I could not help thinking what would happen if that process were repeated now, when the people shipped out from Millbank arrived in Australia. It would be a pretty kettle of fish. All the same I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord reached the wrong quotation from Alice. Begging his pardon, the one we wanted was, "Verdict first. Trial afterwards". The noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made the point that the name, "removal centres", cannot be justified while they hold people whose claims have not yet been determined or who have not yet exhausted their right of appeal. It completely prejudges the question. In my
1084
view it is a contempt of the courts. As for the change of name on the Home Secretary's authority, that is, in my view, a contempt of Parliament.
I was always brought up to believe that Parliament made the law. Of course, I have been here long enough to know that that principle is honoured as much in the breach as in the observance, but on this occasion it has not even been honoured in the breach. I take that deeply amiss. I agree with my noble friend Lord Avebury: in that case what is the purpose of the clause? Why not delete it altogether if we do not need it? If we do not make the law, what are we all doing sitting here at this time of night pretending that we are trying to change matters that are being altered without so much as a by your leave from any noble Lord?
It is absolutely vital that justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done. That means that when people's claims for asylum come up for hearing they should believe that whether their claims are successful depends on the evidence that they offer and the legal justice of their case. If people are put straight into places that are labelled removal centres, that argument cannot be made. One cannot claim to be conducting impartial justice because one has announced to the world at large, in capital letters and printed on signs, that one is doing no such thing. Perhaps that announcement is not accurate, but in that case it was unwise to make it.
I believe that this is the most unsatisfactory reply that I have heard in Parliament for a good many years. I understand that the Minister offers us good intentions. I believe him, but he sounds remarkably like a servant brandishing an open testimonial that says, "During his period of service with me, Mr So-and-So has discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction". He has not discharged them to our satisfaction. I hope that before Report stage we shall see a government amendment so that we shall not have to put our own amendment to a Division. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Lord Filkin: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Adoption and Children Bill
  Monday, 15th July 2002.
  Adoption and Children Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Resumption of Grand Committee in the Adoption and Children Bill.
    Clause 55 [Information to he kept about a person's adoption]:
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 80:
    Page 33, line 2, at end insert "which shall include all the information necessary to fulfil the duty imposed by virtue of section (Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption)(2)"
    The noble Earl said: I rising to move Amendment No. 80, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81. These amendments deal with a fundamental human right; the right for an adoptive person to be told, before entering adulthood, that he or she is adopted. Most adoptees will of course already be well aware of their adopted status, long before they reach the age of 18. Many will have been adopted at an age when they knew exactly what was happening to them. However, there will still be many who will have been adopted as babies. They will have no knowledge of their origins unless they are told about them when they are old enough to understand.
    Adoptive parents, if they are sensitive and caring, will in the majority of cases take it upon themselves to disclose this information to the child in a sensitive way at what seems to them an appropriate moment. There are ways in which this can be done that minimise the risk of angst or trauma in the child. However, we need to ask what should happen when that does not take place; when a child becomes an adult and, for whatever reason, continues to be unaware of his or her background.
    There are two main reasons for concern here. The first is that for an individual to discover accidentally, as an adult—possibly even when well into adulthood—that he was adopted and that the two people he had previously regarded as his genetic parents were not his genetic parents is one of the most shattering experiences it is possible to imagine, short of bereavement. We should not allow for the risk of it happening. The second consideration is very practical: unless someone knows that he or she was adopted, it will be impossible to guard against the possibility of incestuous contact with siblings who, unknown to them, may have been brought up in the same area.
    CWH 278
    While I am instinctively reluctant to impose further duties on the state, I see little alternative but to do so in this particular context. It should be up to the public authorities, purely as a longstop arid failing all other safeguards, to fulfil this duty of care to adopted individuals. I say that because the state has created that individual's status as an adopted person; the state, therefore, has a duty towards him. It is as simple as that.
    I am well aware that such a duty implies the need to monitor the individual's whereabouts until the age of 18 and I fully admit that this would create additional administrative burdens, but the burdens are necessary. It should not be beyond the wit of officials to come up with a methodology that does not involve a huge bureaucratic apparatus in order to maintain the relevant records. To a large extent, the records will be maintained anyway. It is simply a question of keeping track of an adult till his 18th birthday, which is not a particularly onerous requirement in itself.
    I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment and to the other in this group. I beg to move.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): First, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising what I agree is a very important issue. However, I feel that his solution may take us down some rather difficult paths, one or two of which he alluded to as regards the practicality of ensuring that what he proposes in the amendment takes place and about extending an element of state intrusion. That is a particularly difficult issue when we come to look at the issue of human rights in relation to the child and to the respect for private and family life. There are some difficult issues here which need to be considered.
    As regards the existing provision, there is provision for the disclosure of information to adopted people and their birth relatives under existing legislation. Adopted adults have the right to access a certified copy of the record of their birth from the registrar general, which will contain the names of their birth parents and their address at the time the record was made. Over and above that, regulations give adoption agencies a discretionary power to disclose information, including identifying information to adopted adults and their birth relatives. The courts may also exercise their discretion in disclosing information from their records of adoption cases. Adoption agencies have a wide discretion, therefore, under current legislation to disclose information.
    While I readily accept that current practice is variable. The adoption law review and the adoption White Paper published in December 2000 found there were wide variations. In some cases, agencies had passed on sensitive identifying information without consulting the person who would be identified.. We propose to address these issues in two ways: first, for future adoptions, setting out a clearer framework in primary legislation; and, secondly, by taking a number

    CWH 279
    of steps to ensure that for past adoptions agency practice is improved, made more consistent and more sensitive.
    We want people to have greater access to better means to deal with the exchange of this information which, given the circumstances of past adoptions, may be particularly sensitive. We want to do this in a way that recognises the practical differences between legislation for future adoptions in the context of a comprehensively regulated adoption system and past adoptions that may have happened in very different circumstances with, or indeed without, the involvement of an adoption agency and in the context of little regulation and poor records.
    The provisions in the Bill give a systematic and clear process in primary legislation for future adoptions for taking forward an application for identifying information held in their records. For example, where an agency decides to process an application seeking identifying information about an adult, it will have a duty to take reasonable steps to seek the views of the person who would be identified. The adoption agency may disclose the identifying information having regard to all the circumstances, prescribed matters, any express use for the person the information is about and the adopted person's welfare.
    As regards what I might describe as pre-Bill adoptions in a later group of amendments, I will explain the measures we are taking to help achieve the same results, while recognising some of the practical issues alluded to by the noble Earl that arise to the different contexts of these adoptions.
    As regards the specific amendments, Amendment No. 81 would place a duty on an adoption agency to inform the adopted person of his adoption. It also allows regulations to be made which could set out the method by which the agency carries out this duty, and provides that the duty would not apply to certain groups of adopted people. As the adopted child becomes by law the child of the adoptive parents, the agency has no further role after the time of the adoption order, except in so far as there is an agreement for ongoing support or the family initiates the agency's involvement by requesting support. The fact that the state has facilitated the adoptive family does not reduce the privacy that the family is entitled to expect. Although nowadays the vast majority of adopted people will know about their adoption, the agency cannot be certain unless it has had recent contact with the family. In almost every case the adoption agency would have to contact the family. Adoption agencies may find themselves in a position where they are unable to fulfil this duty, for example where the adopted person cannot be found or where compliance with the duty would constitute a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, there is probably not a large number of adult individuals who do not know of their adoption. They will probably have been very young when they were adopted and they will probably be the most difficult to trace. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, thought that it would be perfectly possible
    CWH 280
    for my officials to come up with a straightforward, streamlined scheme of administration. I am afraid that that is not normally the noble Earl's view. In this case, however, the noble Earl has every confidence in the department being able to do that.
    However, one cannot just pass over some of the administrative difficulties, even with the skill and expertise of my own department at the helm. In these cases, the agency will be seeking to contact the adopted person some 15 to 17 years after the adoption and the records the agency holds are likely to be out of date. I am informed that the average family moves home every seven years. The other practical issue here is that trying to keep track of adoptive families could be an intrusion as agencies would need to contact them to confirm their address or ask them to notify the agency of their home moves. It could also place a significant administrative burden on adoption agencies—and we will come to that problem in a later group of amendments on information—thus drawing away a significant proportion of their workforce and resources from the primary aim of arranging and supporting adoptions.
    Where an adopted person or his family are not currently in touch with the agency, we would also have to face up to the fact that they may be reluctant to meet with it, or indeed alarmed by the initial approach. Where the adopters have not informed their child of the adoption, some of them may then do so, prompted by the inquiries made by the agency. Others, however, may attempt to obstruct access to the adopted person if he or she is living with them, or to refuse to pass on details of where he or she is now living. If the agency is able to meet with the adopted person, the probability is that the agency will be informing him of something he already knows. Where he does not, it could well come as a shock to those who have been living under the impression that their adopters were their natural parents. For those who learn of this information other than from adopters, the experience could well be distressing. The approach may also have consequences for the family unit as a whole, and in particular the adopted person's siblings. In some cases these siblings may themselves be adopted but as yet be too young to be informed by the agency.
    We have consulted the Association of Directors of Social Services on this issue. They are concerned that in a few cases where the adopted person is particularly vulnerable he could be put at risk by the agency's intervention in his relationship with his adopters, for example where he is suffering from mental health problems.
    I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I have no doubt that the adopted person should be informed of his or her adoption. The essential questions are who should inform the adopted person, and how and when it should happen. Most people would agree that the adoptive parents are best placed to inform their child of his or her origins and background. One has to rely on their good judgment to know when the time is right for that child. As the legal parents of the child, the adopters are responsible for the child's welfare and with their knowledge they should be best equipped to explain these facts to the adopted person. However, we need to ensure

    CWH 281
    as far as possible that adopters understand that part of their responsibility to their child is to inform him at the appropriate time of his adoption.
    In the light of the amendments and the substantive point put forward by the noble Earl, and—I hope that he will accept this—the practical difficulties they pose, we believe that the best way forward is to formalise a commitment by prospective adopters to be open with their child about his adoption. Therefore, we propose that, as part of the assessment process, prospective adopters would be asked to sign a formal commitment to inform their adopted child of his adoption before he reaches the age of 18. We intend to require adoption agencies to ensure that this is part of the assessment and recommendation process for adopters, using the general regulation-making power under Clause 9 of the Bill. We shall support this with clear guidance to adoption agencies. We have also discussed this matter with the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. They agree that the proposal I have outlined is:
    "The best approach, given the practical difficulties of requiring the adoption agency to inform the adopted person of his adoption".
    This formal commitment would also be submitted to the court as part of the papers that accompany the adoption application. Although the written commitment would not be legally binding, it would reinforce the importance of the adopters informing their adopted child, especially when combined with the advice they will receive and the support available from the adoption agency. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that I have gone as far as I can in terms of the practical difficulties that I envisage with his amendments. However, I hope that he will recognise that he has raised an important matter.
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the Minister tell the Committee what will happen if this formal commitment, which is not legally binding, is not honoured? Surely the spirit of my noble friend's amendments, which I wholly support, has to come into play. That has to he considered. I am not suggesting that, as drafted, Amendments Nos. 80 or 81 are, of necessity, totally correct, In Amendment No. 80, "all" creates tremendous difficulties as regards the European Convention on Human Rights. I shall not take a lot of time but I merely wish to indicate some of the points.
    On Amendment No. 81, which, again, I support in principle, one would have to introduce—would one not?—some sort of safeguard that the regulations would require the best endeavours to discharge—something of that kind. I am not here to seek to indulge in drafting, only to support my noble friend, in principle, on both amendments. I respectfully ask the Minister to give further consideration to this before the next stage of the proceedings.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I confess that I am rather horrified. The age of 18 is far too late to tell an adopted person that he has been adopted. I believe that the shock would be very great. The shock would be very great even at a much younger age. There will always be a shock unless one is brought up from the time one can speak
    CWH 282
    and understand to know that one has been adopted. That ought to be part of what an adopting couple are told at the time of assessment. However, by the time a child is eight, nine, 10 or 11, let alone 18, he or she will be very shocked. I know that I would have been if someone had told me that I was adopted. If it is riot done in very early childhood, if possible it should not be done at all. I am not interested in the danger of incest. I am sure that incest has been taking place down the centuries without anyone ever knowing about it. There are times when it is better that it happens and nobody knows about it.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: One should always be wary of talking about incest, particularly in your Lordships' House. I realise that I am now in deep trouble, from which I shall try rapidly to extricate myself.
    I believe that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, put her finger on the problem. That is why I sympathise with the principle enunciated by the noble Earl; namely, that adopted children should be informed. However, if we were to accept either the amendment or the principle behind it, we could end up with the kind of situation that the noble Lady described. This is why I am not at all convinced that the route down which we should go is by way of the amendments, or the principle that it seeks to put forward.
    Nor am I particularly convinced that any written commitment given at the adopter-approval stage should be legally binding. One has only to imagine the circumstances in which such parents could be taken to court; indeed, the adopted child would have to experience his adoptive parents being taken to court for not informing him that he had been adopted. I believe that one should think very carefully before one went down that path.
    We also need to recognise, first, that it is good practice to tell the child; and, secondly, that the culture has changed in adoptions. Surely, it is very unlikely that adoptive parents who now put themselves forward for consideration would be able to avoid this. The attitude of the potential adoptive parents to telling the child would be one of the factors that would help the agency come to a view as to whether such people were worthy of being considered for adoption.
    As regards the issue of incest raised by the noble Earl, I would draw his attention to Clause 78(7), which provides for the registrar-general to inform an adopted person, on application to him, whether or not it appears from the register, and other records, that the applicant and the person he intends to marry are related. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Earl's point.
    Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister for his extremely considered and thoughtful reply. I am pleased that he regards this as a genuine issue. I certainly believe it to be so. The question I ask myself is this: which is worse in terms of human rights, an intrusion into someone's private life, or to allow for the possibility that someone could grow up ignorant of his origins?

    CWH 283
    I believe that the Minister has implicitly acknowledged the importance of someone being made aware, in some fashion, of the fact that he has been adopted. I should add immediately that I accept the force of the points that he made about practical difficulties. Obviously, such points went through my mind as I thought about this matter. There is no perfect answer to this problem. I realise that the BAAF, which has immense experience in this field, will have thought about this very carefully. I must take on board its response to the Minister's approach on this issue.
    I agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, that 18 is too late to be told that you are adopted. In the normal course of events, as I said, one would expect a young person to have been told long since that he or she had been adopted. I was seeking merely to establish some sort of longstop answer to this. I do not agree with her that ignorance is bliss; there is a genuine right for someone to know about his origins and the later it gets in someone's life, the worse it is.
    Nevertheless, I shall read and reflect carefully on the Minister's comments, for which I thank him. I shall consult on the matter and consider whether or not it is necessary to bring it back on Report. I somehow doubt that it is in the light of what he has said but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 55 agreed to.
    Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
    Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to.
    Clause 60 [Disclosing protected information about adults]:
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 82:
    Page 34, line 43, at end insert—
    "() This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act."
    The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 82 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 82A and 85. These amendments take us to the important issue of retrospection, which is a subject highlighted by several of the organisations with an interest in adoption, in particular the Children's Society and NORCAP.
    These amendments are particularly important because of the repeal in this Bill of the Adoption Act 1976, which currently in Section 50(5) allows the High Court to release information. This provision is narrow but did, for example, facilitate the recent reunion of triplets horn in 1932. Clause 78(4) allows the provision of information about people adopted before this Bill but only in exceptional circumstances and Clause 78(4) is considerably narrower than Section 50(5). which was itself narrow. Thus, the problem of getting information about past adoptions will become even more difficult once this Bill is passed.
    I do not need to rehearse the history of adoption. The stigma of illegitimacy often resulted in massive pressures on mothers to let their children be adopted with no further provision for contact. Many lived to regret that
    CWH 284
    and I am sure that Members of the Committee have heard of or know those whose lives have been blighted by the loss of a child through virtually enforced adoption.
    Since 1975, adopted adults have been able to obtain their birth records and thus start the process of searching for their birth parents and more than 70,000 have already done so. However, that is one-way traffic; it does not allow for the birth family to start to search for their lost child. This Bill puts right the anomaly for new adoptions and will allow birth relatives to apply for information about a family member who has been adopted. As such, it is welcome, but it does not go anything like far enough and will have no practical impact for many years to come. There is no logic to refusing the facility for previous adoptions. Indeed, it is in that area that the need is greatest, given the unenlightened approach to illegitimacy and adoption in the past. There are a couple of generations of parents—mostly but not only mothers—who desperately need to try to contact the child whom they lost.
    Amendment No. 82 inserts a new subsection into Clause 60, which allows people to apply for protected information about adopted adults, giving retrospective effect to the clause. When this amendment was considered in Committee in another place, the Government made much of the practical difficulties which would result from giving retrospective effect to Clause 60. In the light of that, Amendment No. 85 is put forward as a different approach. Amendment No. 85 amends Clause 78, which deals with the adoption register.
    Amendment No. 85 puts four new subsections into Clause 78. The first requires the registrar-general to maintain and make available a list of adoption support agencies to provide intermediary support services between adopted persons and birth relatives, all of course subject to regulation. It does not require the registrar-general to vet the agencies, simply to maintain the list. The third subsection makes it clear that the registrar-general has no responsibility for the intermediary services provided. The amendment therefore does not place a particular burden on the registrar-general.
    The meat of it is in the second subsection which requires the registrar-general to provide information held by him on adoptions before 1975, so that the agency can obtain a certified copy of the adoption entry. The consent of the adopted person is important, as the fourth new subsection makes clear.
    The amendment, which has been drafted by NORCAP and the Children's Society, overcomes all the practical difficulties raised by the Minister in another place to the equivalent amendment to Amendment No. 82. In particular, the problem of incomplete records in adoption agencies and local authorities will not be a problem. The registrar-general has a complete record of adoptions.
    The adoption support agencies will take the burden and hence will not drain resources away from adoption agencies which can continue to prioritise their work on to the important task of getting more children adopted.

    CWH 285
    The Minister in another place said that there would be too much demand for this information. However, provided that the demand can be satisfied without impact on today's adoptions, I believe that that argues for the amendment and not against it.
    It may well be difficult to trace people, but today's technology provides new opportunities for search, and making the information from the adoption register available gives people the chance to search.
    I should point out that the amendment does not apply to adoptions between 1975 and the appointed day under this Bill. It applies only to adoptions before 1975. It is not therefore wholly logical as there will be no information provision for birth relatives of persons adopted between 1975 and some time in 2002. That is something on which we may want to reflect further before the next stage of the Bill.
    Finally, Amendment No. 82A is very specific about the ability of siblings to obtain information about their adult adopted siblings. This has full retrospective effect hack to the start of legal adoptions in 1926. Under the amendment, an adoption agency would obtain information from the registrar-general under Clause 78, and there are the usual safeguards for the views of the adopted adult or, indeed, the involvement of the High Court authorising the agency not to disclose in appropriate circumstances.
    This is designed to help people trace their long-lost adopted brothers and sisters, who have been separated by adoption. I spoke earlier about adoptions under a different social climate where there was de facto an endorsed solution separating children from their mothers. However, there were often some innocent bystanders in that process; there were children either then existing or children who came later in a subsequent union. In all those cases, the emotional needs of siblings, who were innocent as far as the adoption was concerned, can be as important as those of the mother.
    The Minister may well try to beguile us with plans to promote the adoption contact register, and bolster intermediary support services. I thank his office for sending me a copy of a letter from the department of 10th July which sets out the Government's plans. Those ideas, which are indeed welcome, will not replace a right for birth relatives to obtain information about adopted persons.
    All of these amendments in different ways deal with the needs of the families affected by adoptions in the past. We should not ignore the pain that still exists today for people affected by those adoptions. I welcome the Bill for its prospective effect but do not believe it would be responsible for this House to lose this opportunity to give hundreds or thousands of individuals a last chance to connect their past or their present. I beg to move.
    4 p.m.
    Baroness Barker: During Second Reading I spoke of how other parts of the Bill had been picked up in the press as very important and I did not think that they were. However, I believe that this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The key reason for that is timing, and I shall come back to timing at the end of my
    CWH 286
    remarks. I wish to deal with three particular points primarily in relation to Amendment No. 85: first, why searches should go via the registrar-general; secondly, why siblings should be included in this; and, thirdly, why regulations are simply insufficient in this matter.
    The first and most important point to make is that the matter needs to go via the registrar-general because that is the only place where complete records exist. Adoption agency records are incomplete and, indeed, a very high percentage of the adoptions we are talking about were private adoptions. It was were perfectly legal until 1975 for there to be private adoptions, and many of them were, so there are no records. The Minister will probably argue that it is not unlawful now for birth parents to make searches, and indeed they do primarily via the Children's Society. It is not unlawful, it is just extremely difficult because it is extremely difficult to get the correct information.
    I wish to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the statements made by the Minister in another place, Miss Jacqui Smith. In Hansard of 16th May 2002 at cols. 1016 to 1020, she eloquently set out the reasons why this will not happen; this will not be a priority if it is left to regulation. She, too, referred to the fact that information was not comprehensive, that many adoptions were private, and that the matter will not be given any priority when most adoption agencies will now quite rightly be consumed with the arrangement of new adoptions.
    I have to make an additional point—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that legislation is not retrospective unless it is expressly so. As far as I understand it, there is no retrospection in the Bill. Perhaps he can guide me on that.
    I suspect the Minister will tell us that guidance is forthcoming and I thank his department for sharing with us the letter of 10th July. I notice that the letter of 10th July has a cut-off date for response of 26th July. As far as the Department of Health regulations on this sort of thing go, that is quite a long time. On the intercountry adoption Act regulations, his department surpassed itself by issuing a document on Maundy Thursday with a return date of the following Tuesday and not setting out any of the organizations—
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that that is all part of our streamlined process.
    Baroness Barker: It is interesting to know what the Minister thinks we should all do over the Easter weekend. That is a very quick turnround. The more serious point is that there is a history going back to the Second World War of regulations being promised on this subject and not happening. That has been the case for the past decade in particular. The letter from the Department of Health talks about encouraging the wider provision of intermediary services. It does not talk about requiring there to be higher quality intermediary services. It is all couched in extremely tentative language.
    In the face of the other pressures on adoption, about which we have spoken throughout the passage of this Bill, there is no reason to believe that this will be any

    CWH 287
    more of a priority. In fact, in following recent consultations, I gather that some local authorities which used to provide this service have stopped doing so and indeed, only 50 per cent of authorities in England operate an intermediary service. When local government re-organisation hits and unitary authorities come into play, there is every reason to believe that that percentage will go down.
    Much is made of what the department's intentions are. It is important to note that the document we were given last month, Providing Effective Adoption Support, does not mention birth parents. Yet again, they fell off the agenda, as they always have done.
    In 1976, when this country took the bold step of introducing the measures which enabled adopted people to search for their parents, we led the way in the world. There was a great deal of trepidation at that time about what might happen and the potential disappointment and hurt to individuals. Except in—so far as I know—one case, that has been an unqualified success, so much so that other countries in the world followed our lead. Now, however, we find ourselves trailing yet again because Canada, New Zealand and Australia have retrospective legislation for birth parents while we do not. It is difficult to see why not.
    On the issue of siblings, I wanted to thank a Mr Robin Harrit, a correspondent who has written to a number of noble Lords. He has set out for us his difficulties in trying to trace his seven siblings, all of whom were adopted. I, too, must disagree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. Perhaps I might take a different view and say that if one knew that one was committing incest, that might be a different matter, but when it happens and you do not know, that is wholly wrong. It is actually wrong in both cases.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: What I meant was not knowing and never knowing.
    Baroness Barker: I see the point the noble Lady was making, but I still believe it is better that individuals have clear knowledge about who they are and who their relatives are.
    A great deal will be made about the potential cost and the numbers of people involved—I shall return to the question of costs shortly. In my researches on this subject, I have been trying to determine what the potential scale of the problem will be. The Library has provided me with the list of annual adoptions, which total 867,355 since 1927. There was clear bunching from 1945 to 1949, at the end of the War, and from 1964 to 1975. In another place, it has been argued that 867,000 will mean a huge burden.
    However, it is important to point out that in this country in any year, approximately one-third to one-half of all adoptions are step-parent adoptions. Secondly, since 1975, most adoptions have been of children from public care and those children have gone into adoption with a great deal of knowledge about their families of origin.
    CWH 288
    Another interesting fact is that until 1950 adoptions were not private. Serial numbers started to be used only in 1950. Prior to that, an adoption application to a court was by a named couple to adopt a named child from a named person. To some extent, therefore, we are beginning to whittle down that total figures of 867,000, which is an absolute figure.
    We then come back to the issue of cost. Having spoken to some of those involved in the issue, I know that they would pay anything for this information. This information means more than anything else to them. A system such as that proposed in these amendments which operated via the registrar-general would be more direct and more effective. It would allow people to spend much less time than they do now in chasing insubstantial leads and half-remembered records. They would be able to go straight to the necessary information.
    As we discussed on Second Reading, whatever action we take will come with no promises of success for the individual. I think that those affected by this matter understand that, in proposing this amendment, noble Lords are not guaranteeing success at all. However, I have come to the conclusion that some of the arguments put forward so far by the department are rather hollow, particularly those in relation to cost. The department's arguments about raising people's hopes ring particularly hollow. These people's hopes have been raised and dashed for years. For years on end they have been promised regulations, but those regulations have simply not materialised.
    I hope that the Minister will indicate his willingness to include in the Bill these provisions tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lady Barker have made an incontestable, rational argument for this group of amendments. Unashamedly, however, I shall briefly make a strong emotional case for the amendments. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a necessity to legislate, and legislate now, for an entire generation of birth parents. If we do not legislate now, we shall miss an opportunity. As we know, adoption and children legislation of this kind comes but once in a generation.
    In addressing this issue, I should like to cite two letters I have received which outline two case studies that have affected me deeply. I think that we have all received a lot of correspondence on the Bill. Emotionally, however, the retrospection issue has touched me more than any other aspect of the Bill. I shall start by reading out a letter from an 80 year-old correspondent, a birth mother who gave up her child for adoption many years ago, in the late 1940s, I think. She writes:
    "I expect that many mothers like me held themselves together with the secret belief that one day the baby, now adult, would search for and find them. This dream of eventual reunion totally ignored the knowledge on the mother's part that the law had been expressly designed to make this impossible but in your dreams anything may happen. In my case, and many other women, of whom I have met quite a few, that dream could never come true. It took me 12 years of searching and importuning to be given the information that my daughter had died in 1958, aged 11. At that stage, I was 76 and my daughter would have been 51. Even then I was not allowed to know

    CWH 289
    her adopted name or even the date on which she died. A solicitor and a QC gave their services to help an appeal to the High Court. The Appeal failed.
    Because, by chance I have some skill with words and the confidence to use them, I was interviewed for a number of TV programmes and numerous newspaper pieces. These factors cumulatively must account for my receipt, anonymously, of the information needed to get in touch via an intermediary with the remaining family of my daughter who welcomed me with both sadness and joy. We remain in contact.
    Four years on and just after my 80th birthday, I still hope to see the day when birth relatives, especially siblings who had no part at all in the adoption, will be set free, able if they wish to get the information needed to send a message to someone whom they had loved and kept in mind down all the long years since their birth. The message says, 'I am here, I have always loved you and I want contact, if you choose it and in whatever way you choose"'.
    It is a very moving letter.
    The issue of siblings is also extremely important, and adopted siblings have found huge difficulties as well. I was very touched by another letter from somebody who discovered that they had a brother. The letter states:
    "A few years ago I discovered that I have a brother. He was born in 1945 to my then unmarried mother. She nursed him for seven months then put him up for fostering. It was after the death of my father that a distant relative told me, an only child, that I might have a brother or sister.
    "At the age of 45 it came as a bit of a shock, but I was happy that at long last I had a sibling and set about finding them. I didn't get very far. A birth certificate for"
    —X—
    "was fairly easy to find, as were the details of his first seven months. The next stage was to register my interest with both the adoption register at"—
    Y—
    "and with NORCAP … Now I have to wait and wait and wait until a 57-year-old man discovers that he is adopted and may be interested enough to register his name on the corresponding page of the register.
    "I have gone from shock to euphoria and to complete dismay. The procedure is extremely difficult to unravel as it is. With the proposed legislation the task will be made even more impossible.
    "Obviously my interests lie in only one small piece of the legislation. However there are thousands in similar dilemmas, there are thousands desperately seeking out brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Many wish to meet up with their blood relatives hut many such as myself would accept just the truth if nothing else were possible".
    I think that those two letters, very movingly, speak for themselves.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I should like first to pay tribute to the contributions that have been made—both, in a sense, to the rational and to the emotional, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it. I, too, have read some of the stories of those who have tried to discover their adopted children, and stories of adopted children who have attempted to discover their birth parents. They are very moving indeed. I hope that, in my response to these amendments, noble Lords will not underestimate my sympathy for the points made in this debate.
    Equally, I have to bear in mind the practical implications of what is being proposed. We have to recognise that—in reforming the adoption law, and in reforming the practice of local authorities, adoption agencies and all those involved in adoption—we seek to
    CWH 290
    put in place a much enhanced service which will require tremendous effort on the part of all those involved. The balance of the argument essentially rests on the Government's concern that the kind of duties proposed in the amendments would impose such great duties on the agencies concerned that they could put at risk the ability of those agencies to focus on the essential task of improving current and future arrangements for adoption.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, very ingeniously tried to peel off some considerable figures from the 875,000—an approximate figure—adoptions that have taken place since passage of the Adoption of Children Act 1926. She made the point that many of those adoptions relate to step parents. I am happy, between now and Report, to look at those figures and to discuss them with her. Ultimately, however, I suspect we will still be left with potentially thousands of—
    Baroness Barker: I shall take up the Minister's generous offer. With the powers at his disposal, perhaps he will be able to discover the answer to a question that I have not been able to find. I have sought via the Library to obtain an estimate from the Government Actuary's department of how many of the parents in those cases would still be alive. I have been unsuccessful thus far, but, with the might of his department, the noble Lord may be able to find the answer.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I have some doubts in that respect. However, I shall see whether we can discover what figures are available. I would be happy to discuss the matter with the noble Baroness. At the end of the day, we can have a most interesting and perhaps somewhat academic argument about the numbers involved, but it does not take us away from some of the practical issues that we would face. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, acknowledged, with many of the adoptions being arranged privately there are often very few records, other than a report about placement, which the adoption agency may or may not hold. Before 1984, we know that the obligations on adoption agencies to keep and record information were not as comprehensive as they are now. Many records exist in part, while others have been lost.
    If details of an individual are found on the case file in relation to an adoption that was made many years ago, there would then be the practical difficulty of trying to trace that person to seek his views about the disclosure of information. As is clear from the terms of the amendment, this would be a considerable burden on the agencies. This is where we come to the difficulty, the argument, about priorities. Although the Government are sympathetic to why these proposals are being put forward, we are concerned that we focus not just resources—the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned resources, and of course resources is always an important matter. Indeed, it is not just resources; it is also the use of skilled staff, time and energy, and the right sort of focus. We have already had a riveting debate about adoption support. That is an area in which Members of the Committee are urging the Government to do everything possible to ensure that the proper adoption support is given after assessment. That is why we are concerned about the full impact of the proposed amendment.

    CWH 291
    I want to acknowledge the force of the argument being put forward. The Government are listening very carefully to the comments that have been made. Adoption agencies have discretion to disclose information, and the provisions in the Bill do not remove that discretion. The Bill provides a framework within which the agency may exercise its discretion. We obviously need to assess the impact of that on future practice in relation to current arrangements. We will be issuing guidance later this year to adoption agencies to help ensure that practice is more consistent. We will advise agencies to take a more positive approach to the disclosure of information and encourage them to base their practice on the Bill's provisions. We envisage intermediary services, which are available in some parts of the country, as being able to provide sensitive support and counselling to those seeking to make contact with a relative, thereby sharing some of the work that might otherwise fall on adoption agencies.
    When it comes to the promotion of best practice, we have also made it clear that we will expect those agencies to adopt the principles of best practice. I accept that there are issues relating to the current patchy provision of services, and the kind of difficulties which noble Lords have mentioned regarding people seeking to find information. We shall be consulting shortly with adoption stakeholders on the operation of the scheme. This will follow with a selection process in relation to the services that can be provided for one leading provider to act as a resource for adoption agencies.
    The adoption contact register facilitates contact between adopted persons and their birth relatives where both parties have expressed a wish for such contact. However, the majority of adopted people and their birth relatives do not even know that it exists. There have been only two brief attempts to promote the register since its establishment in 1991. We see that a more pro-active and frequent promotion of the register through adoption agencies and key stakeholders would raise its profile and encourage more people to use it. We are looking at ways to achieve this and we will be consulting adoption stakeholders.
    Amendment No. 82A is directed at the linking information maintained and safeguarded by the registrar-general. The linking information forms a bridge between a person's adoption record and his birth record. It is needed so that when an adopted person applies for his birth certificate and he does not know his birth name, the registrar-general will be able to use the linking information to find the birth name. This would then be given to the adopted adult so that he may exercise his right to obtain his birth certificate.
    While the amendment does not open up the linking information to public inspection, it would appear to mark a shift in the way the information is safeguarded by current law and would be protected under the Bill.
    There appear to be two intentions behind the new clause. The first is to allow applications to be made to the adoption agency in respect of those adopted since 1976. The second is to replace the provisions in the Bill which build on both the Adoption Act 1976 and the
    CWH 292
    1996 Appeal Court case. It would allow the adult birth sibling of an adopted adult to have a right to make an application to an adoption agency to obtain the linking information from the registrar-general. This amendment is based on the presumption that the confidential linking information is to be disclosed to the adopted person's birth sibling. It places a duty on the adoption agency to seek the views of the person to whom the information relates. It does not place a limit on this duty.
    The implication is that the agency must continue to seek the adopted person's views, regardless of the expenditure of time and resources. In some cases, this will not be possible if the agency cannot trace him. The agency will be required to disclose this information, unless the adopted person refuses his consent, or the agency is able to secure from the High Court an order not to disclose the information. The court could make such an order only if it considered that the circumstances were exceptional. The amendment does not provide for the agency to exercise discretion, nor does it provide for those situations where it cannot trace the adopted person.
    This provision would apply to adoptions made since the coming into force of the Adoption Act 1976, but it is not clear as to the date from which it is to apply. For adoptions made after the Bill is enacted, it is clearly unnecessary as under Clause 60, any sibling would be able to apply to the adoption agency for information about his adopted sibling.
    For adoptions made prior to the Bill's enactment, birth siblings or other members of the birth family may already seek information about the adopted person. There are four possible routes. The first is to apply to the adoption agency. Regulations provide that an adoption agency may disclose information from its case records as it thinks fit, for the purposes of carrying out its functions as an adoption agency.
    The second route for information is through the courts. The courts may also exercise their discretion in disclosing information from their records of adoption cases. Thirdly, birth relatives may seek to contact the adopted adult through the adoption contact register. Finally, a birth relative may apply to the High Court for it to order the registrar-general to disclose the information that is at the focus of this amendment; that is, the linking information.
    Turning to Amendment No. 85, first, I commend the ingenuity of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in drafting the amendment, which follows on the debate which took place in the other place. The amendment aims to provide for the registrar-general to pass identifying information about an adopted person to an adopted support agency, so it may disclose if he gives his consent.
    The first part of the amendment will provide for the registrar-general to maintain and make available a list of adoption support agencies which provide intermediary support services. Adoption support agencies will be required to register with the National Care Standards Commission in England and with the National Assembly for Wales. I want to make the point here that

    CWH 293
    the primary function of the registrar-general is the maintenance and control of access to registers for births, marriages and deaths, and in adoption the maintenance of adoption records. The registrar-general has no locus in the registration or maintenance of records for adoption support agencies.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has made a helpful comment as regards the wording of the amendment in relation to those adopted post 12th November 1975. This part of that amendment also requires the registrar-general, subject to an application being made in a prescribed manner, to provide the adoption support agency with the information necessary to obtain a copy of the adoption certificate from the adopted children register. This would enable the adoption support agency to obtain information such as the names and address of the adopters at the time of the adoption.
    The third part of the amendment provides that the registrar-general should not be accountable or liable for any subsequent arrangement for intermediary services made by provision of a list of adoption support agencies.
    The final part of the amendment provides that the adoption support agency is not to disclose the identity of the adopted person unless he is given his consent.
    I have considered the amendment very carefully. I have already explained in my earlier comments on this group of amendments that intermediary services, which are available in some parts of the country, can provide helpful support and counselling.
    In light of the views that the Government have heard from stakeholders on access to information under existing regulations, we have promised to take steps to improve the current arrangements. Guidance will be issued later this year to adoption agencies to help ensure that practice is more consistent. We shall, as I have already implied, advise agencies to take a more positive approach to the disclosure of information and encourage them to base their practice on the provisions that are set out in the Bill.
    The adoption contact register facilitates contact between adopted persons and their birth relatives where both parties have expressed a wish for such contact. The majority of adopted people and their birth relatives do not know that it exists, and we are consulting on ways in which we can develop a more pro-active and frequent promotion of the register.
    For intermediary services, which I believe again have an important role to play here, although the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was unduly pessimistic about the potential of those services, we have pledged that as part of the Section 64 funding for the financial year starting in April 2003 we will provide money for one leading provider to run the intermediary services support project which will act as a resource for adoption agencies. We believe that their role in providing access to information and in opening up contact between the adopted person and his birth relatives is an important one. That is why we are consulting on the role of those intermediary services and other services through the publication of our providing effective adoption support.
    CWH 294
    Adoption support agencies could provide intermediary services under the Bill. In the light of the discussion and Amendments Nos. 82 and 85, we are now prepared to consider whether adoption support agencies could help in the disclosure of information for adoptions made before and after the Bill's enactment. We shall discuss this with adoption stakeholders and also consider the responses to the consultation of the adoption support framework which is to conclude in September.
    I have spoken at some length. I think that all noble Lords recognise the importance of this matter, and sympathise with those who sought information and had difficulties in so doing. That is why I have committed the Government to examine current practice under the existing regulations to see what we can do to improve that practice and iron out the variation that is to be found at the moment.
    However, I doubt very much whether we would be wise to accept the amendments, which I believe would put considerable pressure on the very agencies that we are relying on to ensure that the Bill's main provisions, when they are enacted and come into force, are able to perform the core role of ensuring that adoption practice in the future is as effective as possible.
    Baroness Barker: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, replies, I should like to pick up on a couple of comments that the Minister made. He said that we were talking about the balance of the argument in relation to the other work done by the adoption agencies, but I do not accept that. This is not a matter of balance; it is one of the few absolutes. It is a matter of absolute principle.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Baroness says that this is a matter of absolute principle, and I agree. However, does she accept that in saying that this is a matter of absolute principle, the law of unintended consequence is such that, by saying that, one might well undermine the ability of these agencies to be effective in their core purpose?
    Baroness Barker: I do not accept that. I think that it is entirely possible, if the Government will it, to have different agencies specialising in different areas of the world. Indeed, it is currently the case that the same agencies are not involved in the process. If there were the will—as there is in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand—to open up access to this information, it would be entirely possible to set up agencies specifically for that purpose. We could enable voluntary agencies to raise resources from elsewhere and, if necessary, to operate on a charitable basis, as they do in other aspects of the process.
    I therefore do not accept the argument about distraction. I do accept that, as long as this remains a matter for secondary legislation, it will continue its descent on the priority list until it drops off the list entirely. That is what will happen. As we know from the daily work of social services departments, dealing with children who present immediate problems is a priority, but this is never a priority at all. In effect, therefore, we are saying that we are quite happy to see the point go.

    CWH 295
    The Minister also talked about the discretion of the agencies. As he knows, the issue of agencies using that discretion is an extremely complex one. The practice is patchy, and the history of British adoption agencies opening up their records is lamentable. As I have said before to noble Lords, I have spent a considerable amount of time reading up about what happened to the migrant children. The practices of the agencies at that time—most have changed, but some have not—were an absolute scandal.
    I am sure that underlying this issue is a fear by some agencies that, when they open up these historical records, they will discover information, comments and notes from that period that would be totally unacceptable to us now. There is great difficulty in persuading organisations that they should voluntarily open up their files when they believe that, by so doing, they may be opening themselves up to litigation. In relation to this Bill, that has been the history of information provided for by secondary legislation.
    I have no doubt of the Minister's personal commitment on this issue. However, none of his comments sounded like an absolute commitment to make this work. He seemed to describe just another set of hurdles. I believe that it is clear, even from the guidance issued in 2000, that if such provision does not appear in the Bill, there is no hope of changing the practice of the agencies at all.
    The amendment was moved by the noble Lady, Baroness Noakes, and she will do with it as she will. However, on behalf of these Benches, I signal our intention to return to the issue at Report stage. I look forward very much to what the Minister will tell us following his consultation in September. However, if the matter does not have the force of primary legislation behind it, we shall return to the matter with some force.
    4.45 pm
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify one point. We have been talking about birth parents and siblings seeking information about adopted persons. It seems that the adopted persons' consent will be required before any information can be given out. There is also the opposite situation where the adopted person is seeking information about the birth mother. Will she have an equal ability to refuse consent for disclosure, and will her confidentiality be respected equally?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My understanding is that the answer is in the affirmative. I do not want to intervene again before the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, responds, but I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, whether she accepts from what I have tried to outline that we accept the challenge to improve current practice, and that, through the development of some of the initiatives that I have mentioned, this represents a genuine attempt by the
    CWH 296
    Government to improve the circumstances. while being quite open and saying that, of all the things that need to be done, this is not of the first rank?
    Baroness Barker: I do accept that. Nevertheless, although it may be a genuine attempt, in my view it is not a satisfactory one. It still does not address the issue of the agencies. I believe that, above all, an individual caught in this position needs the full power of legislation behind them. The Minister spoke earlier about people having the ability to go to the High Court. Individuals spend vast amounts of their lives trying to obtain a piece of information which they know exists, to which nobody will let them have access.
    I accept that it is an attempt. However, on this matter, we have perhaps momentarily come to a point of disagreement. I hope that, before Report, we will be able to reach agreement. However, we one these Benches believe that this is an absolute right. We believe that, in a Bill that sets out in considerable detail the rights of adopted children to pursue it, there ought to be space for those caught in this position—often of their own making—to make their way through a considerable legal thicket, to obtain to information about them and their family.
    Baroness Noakes: This has been a very interesting debate on a very important topic. I thank the Minister for his carefully considered reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for their significant contributions. The Minister will be left in no doubt as to the strength of feeling of several of us about the importance of this issue.
    The Minister spoke about the practical impact and burden that the provision would impose on adoption agencies. If I may, however, I refer him to Amendment No. 85, the point of which is to ensure that the burdens are placed on the adoption support agencies that choose to provide intermediary support services. There is no compulsion or requirement on that; it will be funded either by fees or by charitable donations. There is no leeching of resources out of public service. The only impact on the public service would be that the registrar-general would have to provide information but he already has that information. He has been keeping that information so that he has a complete record. The amendment has been drafted in this way precisely in order to meet the practical points raised in another place. The Minister credited me with ingenuity for devising that amendment, but I claim that not for myself because NORCAP and the Children's Society have worked extremely hard to try to produce a solution which met all the practical concerns.
    I welcome the Minister's comments about the actions that will be taken and consulted on, leading to other action; in particular promoting the adoption support agency, giving further guidance and trying to eliminate patch practice across the country. All of that is very welcome and I suspect that all those involved in the adoption societies, those who have considerable experience of this, will say, "And not before time". The real issue is going to be whether those actions by the

    CWH 297
    department could be believed in and trusted to be anything like as good as some kind of statutory right to information.
    My preliminary conclusion, standing here today, is the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: it simply could not be. That is partly a product of history and partly because it is unlikely that any kind of guidance would get to a position that would give the wide range of birth relatives who will wish to start a search process the same sorts of facilitation processes to help them in this search.
    We will, of course, consider the matter further during the summer, before we come back at Report. However, my feeling at the moment is that we shall want to return to it on Report and to revisit it with considerable vigour. It is an extremely important matter and I would not like the Minister to go away from this Committee feeling anything other than that this is one of the most crucial issues about the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 60 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 82A not moved.]
    Clauses 61 to 76 agreed to.
    Schedule 1 [Registration of Adoptions]:
    [Amendment 82B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 83:
    Page 87, line 35, at end insert ", or
    () adoption, whenever granted, which the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction orders to be registered in the interest of the adopted person."
    The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 83 brings us back immediately to an issue relating to retrospection. A week or two ago, I had a letter from an English couple who some years ago adopted two Chinese daughters as babies. Because China is a designated country in relation to overseas adoptions, the couple have not had to readopt their daughters in the UK in order for their adoption to be recognised here. However, they cannot register the adoptions in the UK, which means that they cannot obtain a British adoption certificate or birth certificate, even though the children have British citizenship.
    That is a very real issue for those two children. We can all think of instances throughout our own lives when we have needed to produce our birth certificates, but those who are adopted in this country have to produce proof of their adoption. The couple of whom I am speaking have already had to provide the birth certificate of their elder daughter when they put down her name for their local primary school. The point this couple have made to me most emphatically—and I am entirely on their side about this—is that it is not in their children's best interests for them throughout their lives to have only a Chinese document showing them as abandoned or with parents unknown. I have copies of the documents here and that is what they say. It surely has to be right that those children should be able to prove easily that their
    CWH 298
    adoption is legally recognised in this country. How can they do that if all they have are their Chinese adoption certificates?
    The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 will allow for overseas adoptions to be entered in the register. That fact proves to me that the Government recognise the need for this, but what about the many hundreds of children adopted from overseas before the 1999 Act came into force? They cannot be entered in the register; they are effectively in no-man's land. It would be possible for the couple I have been speaking about to readopt their children through the English courts. The problem here is that not all courts are willing to consider such applications. In any case, what an appalling waste of time for social services and the courts, and what a way to treat the children, who would be put under unnecessary pressure meeting social workers and attending court sessions.
    The answer, surely, is to allow the registration of overseas adoptions to take place retrospectively. That is the affect of my amendment, which adds a further category to the definition of registrable foreign adoption to include an
    "adoption, whenever granted, which the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction orders to be registered in the interests of the adopted person".
    I am not in general a believer of retrospective legislation. The last group of amendments was a signal exception to that general rule. However, I also believe that this particular retrospective measure is both necessary and humane because it is very much in the interests of children. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl has raised a very interesting point, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him that the position is covered, because I have some sympathy with the points he has raised. Amendment No. 83 would widen the meaning of registrable foreign adoptions. It would extend the scope of registrable foreign adoptions to include those adoptions where the High Court so ordered, irrespective of when or where the adoption order was granted, if it is in the interests of the adopted person.
    The reason the Bill limits the registration of foreign adoptions to convention adoptions and overseas adoptions is that we recognise these adoptions in the UK and are satisfied that the procedures in the countries where they are made safeguard the needs of children, both parents and the adopters. In order to ratify the 1993 Hague convention, the country must have in place procedures which meet certain requirements. In order for a country to be included in an order under Clause 85, it will have to meet or demonstrate that it will meet in a reasonable time requirements to be set out in regulations. The countries which are contained in the order will be kept under constant review. This is a very big improvement on simply having a designated list which exists for all time, because countries can then be removed if they are not likely to meet the requirement, and new countries may be added if they prose that they can meet the requirements.
    We have understandable concerns about adoptions which are made in other countries which fail to comply with recognised safeguards. Clearly, children and their

    CWH 299
    families should be protected from the exploitation that exist in some countries where children are given up for adoption as part of a commercial transaction. That is the principle whereby we only wish to register adoptions from countries where the appropriate safeguards are in place.
    As we debated at Second Reading, the UK has not yet ratified the 1993 Hague convention, so there are no Hague convention adoptions to be registered. However, it is our intention to ratify the Hague convention in early 2003, and the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 contains similar provisions to the Bill to enable convention and overseas adoptions to be registered where the necessary information is available.
    The term "overseas adoption" is defined in Clause 85 as,
    "an adoption of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
    This order will specify that adoptions recognised under the designated list set out in the Adoption Order (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) 1973 will be included in the definition of "overseas adoption". This list includes Commonwealth countries and UK dependent territories as well as other countries and territories. The noble Earl will probably know that China was added to the list in 1993. That means that provided the person applying to have the old designated list adoption registered can provide the information and documentation required by the registrar-general, he will register the adoption. The intention is to set out the requirements and information which must be provided in the regulations.
    I have to make it clear that it is possible that when an old overseas adoption was made, the adopters were not provided with the information or documentation that the registrar-general applies to register the adoption. This will vary from country to country, as some countries provide very full information to adopters while others will provide only minimal information. However, where that information is available, the registrar-general will be able to register what are best described as "old overseas adoptions".
    Therefore, as regards the particular example raised by the noble Earl, under current legislation the adoption cannot be registered on the adopted children register. Under the 1990 Act they will be able to do so and they will also be able to do so under the Bill. The term "overseas adoption" includes adoption made under the old designated list. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, but if he would care to pass me the documentation I shall check out the details of the individual case.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Earl replies, I rise because our amendment in this group is joined with his and has an identical purpose. I listened as carefully as I could to what the Minister was saying, and I am still not quite certain whether what he has outlined will have a retrospective impact because that is the point here. It is not what will happen after 1999; it is
    CWH 300
    what will happen to about 800 children in this country who are adopted and who need to obtain some proper papers.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Provided that they are covered by the old designated list, they will be able to apply, and the current legislation in the 1990 Act will apply to them.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have listened to the intricacies of this problem—I know a little about them,
    but not as much as I have been told this afternoon—and it seems to me that the approach of my noble friend Lord Howe must be right. Provided that you qualify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction—for example, not to be exercised if there is a sale transaction for the children, which is the only one that has turned up but there are others—the approach of my noble friend, which I commend to the Minister, is right. It is the one way to get through this maze of technicalities.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord on this matter but the approach here is surely that we have the Hague convention, which we hope to ratify very shortly. We also have a designated list of countries whose adoption procedures we believe are, in principle, acceptable. We are giving ourselves greater discretion in relation to a designated list in the future, to allow us to review and to add countries and take them off. It is on that basis that we can then recognise overseas adoptions.
    In relation to the specific case raised by the noble Earl, from my reading of it—although I will check the details—they should be covered under what we are proposing.
    Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the Minister and I accept his answer in the spirit in which it is given. The case I cited relates to two children whose adoption is recognised in this country—there is no question of their adoption not being legal or anything of that nature. However, the parents cannot register the adoption, which is the key issue for the purposes of this amendment. I am encouraged by what the Minister has told me. Effectively, if I have understood him aright, the regulations under the 1999 Act will allow for an element of retrospection, under what he terms the "old adoptions".
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The term is "the old designated list".
    Earl Howe: I welcome that. If I have misunderstood the Minister in any way, clearly he will advise me of that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
    [Amendment Nos. 84A to 84C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
    Schedule 1, agreed to.
    Clause 77 agreed to.
    Clause 78 [Connections between the register and birth records]:
    [Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
    Clause 78 agreed to.
    5 p.m.
    Schedule 2 [Disclosure of Birth Records by Registrar General]:
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 86:
    Page 90, line 45, leave out from "must" to end of line 49 and insert "inform the applicant that counselling services are available to the applicant as laid out in paragraph 2(1), and strongly recommend that the applicant use those services before gibing any information to an applicant"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 86 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. Schedule 2, to which this amendment relates, applies only to adoptions made before this Bill becomes law. Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 provides that the registrar-general must not give information to an adopted person who applies for information to allow him to find out about his birth history unless the applicant has attended an interview with a counsellor. We are not opposed to counselling and indeed we believe that the best advice that could be given to an applicant is that he should receive counselling before being given information. However, we find it difficult to agree with compulsory counselling. By definition, it is adults who are applying for information because until they reach the age of 18 they cannot do so. They are not children and it is very likely that they will be considerably older than 18.
    We believe, as our amendment proposes, that the registrar-general should strongly recommend that the applicant use counselling services before receiving the information, but it is not right that a person should be compelled to sit through a counselling interview. That would be taking the nanny state to unnecessary lengths.
    Clause 62 of the Bill also deals with counselling and adoption agencies, but that falls short of compulsion in the sense of requiring an individual to submit to counselling, as opposed to having counselling services made available. Counselling is not compulsory under existing legislation. Can the Minister explain why the Schedule 2 approach is different? If the paragraph remains and individuals do not feel they need any counselling or do not want to use the services of the bodies listed in paragraph 2, they will have a problem. Either they will be denied information that should be theirs by right or they will have to submit to an unwanted procedure, which could well waste scarce resources which would be better deployed elsewhere.
    Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 are similar but apply to overseas applicants. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendment No. 86 removes the requirement for an applicant adopted before 12th November 1975 to have received counselling before the registrar-general provides the information. It replaces the current provision with a requirement for the registrar-general merely to inform the applicant that counselling services are available and strongly recommending that he use them. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked an understandable question as to why this should be. The simple answer is that her amendment seeks to overturn a scheme that is based on a clear commitment made by
    CWH 302
    Parliament in 1975. Individuals who do not know their birth details and were adopted before 12th November 1975 are required to see a counsellor before they are given access to their birth records. Individuals adopted on or after 12th November 1975 are informed of the counselling services that are available to them but counselling is not a precondition to disclosure of the birth record information.
    The noble Baroness is right about the importance of good counselling services. The reason for the distinction is that until 12th November 1975 adopted people did not have a right to access their birth records. When Parliament provided this new right, it also gave it to individuals adopted prior to 12th November 1975. To balance the concerns of birth parents who had previously had anonymity, Parliament decided that counselling would be compulsory for those given the retrospective right. An adoption that took place before 1975 could have done so in the expectation that there would be little prospect of the birth parents' identity being revealed to the adopted person.
    As Members of the Committee have said in speaking to previous amendments, many adoptions before this time happened in an atmosphere of secrecy. At the time Parliament considered the issue carefully before deciding to allow the adopted adult access to his birth record. As I said, in the light of the potentially sensitive situations that might arise, Parliament decided that the adopted adult should have counselling before being given access to sensitive information.
    I am happy to discuss this issue further, but I hope that I have given a clear explanation. One has to respect the reasons why legislators took this decision 25 years ago.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that explanation of the provision. Under Schedule 2 the provision now applies to all adoptions before the appointed day for the Bill; it is not restricted to adoptions prior to 1975. Therefore, the Bill has extended compulsory counselling.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That is certainly not the position and certainly not the intention. My understanding is that it simply maintains the position for those adoptions prior to the 1975 date.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that. On that basis I clearly need to think further, which I shall do. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
    Schedule 2 agreed to.
    Clause 79 [Adoption Contact Register]:
    Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 89:
    Page 44, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
    "(3) The Registrar General may only make an entry in Part 1 of the register for an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years."

    CWH 303
    The noble Baroness said: We now move on to a series of amendments concerning the adoption contact register—clearly one of the key parts of the Bill.
    Amendment No. 89 may seem on the face of it rather odd given the parts of the clause which it seeks to delete. However, the purpose of the amendment is to bring about the extension of the adoption contact register to two groups of people who would potentially be excluded as the clause is presently drafted.
    The first group concerns people in this country who are foundlings. I bring to mind the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about that group of people earlier. I assume that there can be no register of their birth. The principal reason behind the amendment is to open up the adoption contact register to people who have been adopted from overseas.
    People seeking contact with family members lost through intercountry adoption have an extremely difficult time, even worse than their domestic peers whom we discussed in relation to earlier amendments. Therefore, the effect of this amendment—and indeed some later amendments—is to open up the adoption contact register in such a way that it can be used by people seeking information on someone whose birth was not registered in this country. I refer to the requirement that the registrar-general should be satisfied that a person has such information as is necessary to enable him to obtain a copy of the record of his birth. In the light of the recent discussion we had on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, there may be people for whom that is simply an impossibility. I beg to move.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments No. 90 and 91.
    Earl Howe: I have a confession to make. When I read this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness I had not realised that this was its purport and intent. Perhaps I can save the time of the Committee by speaking to the issue which the noble Baroness has raised, which I raise in the next group of amendments and which, in the circumstances, I shall not move.
    I endorse everything that the noble Baroness has said. As the Bill stands currently, there is no indication as to whether the Government intend to extend the use of the register to those who are at present unable to use it—principally, as she has mentioned, people who were at one time adopted from overseas and the birth parents and siblings of such people.
    If we think that it is difficult for British-born adoptees to trace and contact their birth families, and vice versa, we ought to reflect how much more difficult it is for those who were once adopted from a third world country to do the same thing.
    Recently, I learned of a case of someone who came to the UK from a fairly poor third world country as a baby, and who some years later, wanted to try to find her birth family. There was another case where the
    CWH 304
    mother of a baby, taken from a third world country and adopted into the UK, wanted to trace her child many years later. There is no framework in the UK which enables a birth relative from overseas to register an interest in being contacted by a child placed in an intercountry adoption and adopted in the UK, nor, in reverse, for that adopted child to register an interest in being contacted by his or her birth relatives. The desire for such contact is natural; it is human. As intercountry adoption increases over the years ahead, as it surely will, more and more individuals are bound to want to avail of such arrangements. If the United Kingdom wishes to regard itself as a paid-up member of the international community in the field of adoption, the least it should do is to ensure that there is a register held by the central authorities, with modest fees, to facilitate such contacts.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may respond to the two specific issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and then seek guidance from her. If the noble Baroness were to pursue her amendments, my view is that that would actually take away some of the critical safeguards that there need to be to enable the registrar-general to be satisfied that a birth relationship exists.
    As far as concerns the question about whether the adoption contact register should be extended to those affected by intercountry adoption, our view is that the register could be used as a contact facility for inter-country adoptions. As has already been discussed, in future the registrar-general will, with sufficient information, be able to register on the adopted children register the adoption of a person adopted as a result of an intercountry adoption. In such cases, the adopted person or his birth relative could subsequently register on the adoption contact register. My understanding is that the registrar-general intends to provide this service for future intercountry adoptions if sufficient information is made available to him by applications for registration on the adoption contact register.
    I turn to the question of abandoned children. I should tell the Committee that the Government have considered this matter most carefully. From a practical point of view there are a number of very difficult issues that would need to be overcome; for example, there would need to be proof of a blood relationship between the adopted person and the birth family before the register could be used to pass on information.
    In such cases, evidence would be required from the adopted person and from possible relatives before an entry could be made in the relevant part of the register. The adopted person and the possible birth relatives would have to be willing to undergo DNA testing to facilitate this process. Another complication is that under Section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it is a criminal offence to abandon a child under the age of two. If the DNA test confirms the person is the birth parent of the person abandoned as a child, that person would be admitting to having

    CWH 305
    committed a criminal offence and the registrar-general would be obliged to inform the police. One can see that there is a real difficulty in that connection.
    The problem that I have with the amendments is that without the essential details needed of the relationship between the adopted adult and the applicant, the registrar-general cannot be satisfied that a birth relationship exists; and, therefore, there would be no evidence. If this safeguard were removed, any person claiming to be a relative could expect to be registered on part 2 of the contact register, irrespective of whether he were in fact related to an adopted person. That would potentially allow the abuse of the facility intended to assist genuine contact between members of the same birth family. In some cases, this could lead to emotional entrapment of the adopted person if he were led to believe that the other person were a relative with whom he wished to have contact.
    In circumstances where an applicant is not able to satisfy the statute requirements for an entry to be made on the contact register, the registrar-general has referred individuals to NORCAP, as it operates its own contact register. They are then advised that the threshold for proof of a relationship between the two parties on NORCAP's register is lower. However, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has moved this amendment in order to raise two questions, which I hope I have responded to in an informative way.
    Baroness Barker: The Minister has indeed answered the questions that we were trying to probe. On the issue of the abandonment of children, is there not a statute of limitations in that respect? For example, if somebody had abandoned a child many years before and subsequently came forward to own up, would he or she still be laying themselves open to a criminal offence? I simply do not know the answer.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will certainly want to check that out. However, that is but one of the practical problems that one would face if one wished to pursue the route that the noble Baroness suggests.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for that. I was seeking, perhaps in a defective way, to pursue the issue of opening up the register, particularly for those for whom access has been extremely difficult. I welcome the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in response to that point.
    There is no doubt but that the maintenance of an adoption contact register that tracks intercountry adoption will become increasingly necessary. One of the reasons for wishing to do that and to ensure that the adoption contact register fulfils that objective is that, if it does not do so in the Internet age, people will start to do it for themselves, and they will do so in a wholly unregulated way. I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. I shall go away and read his words. Meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 90 to 92 not moved.]
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 93:
    Page 44, line 29, leave out "may provide for"
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 93, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. I shall do so briefly.
    The effect of these three amendments on Clause 79(6) is to require the regulations under Clause 79 to provide for the disclosure of information contained in one part of the register to persons for whom there is an entry in the other part. This is a probing amendment. We have tabled it because it is far from clear why regulations should do other than require the linking of Part 1 and Part 2 information by disclosure. That is, after all, what the register is there to do.
    Can the Minister give any reason for the current construction of Clause 79(6)? Can he say why regulations should not provide for the disclosure of information between parts of the register? I beg to move.
    Baroness Andrews: This is my first "may/shall" debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is not in his place to add to the tally of his great performance in this regard.
    I am afraid that things have taken a turn for the worse already. I had intended simply to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that the Government have every intention of bringing forward amendments in case there was any doubt on the point. I should like to dispel any doubts there may be about that.
    As for linking, given the construction of the clause, it is extremely important to be clear that where there are two positive corresponding entries in the contact register, one for the adopted adult in Part 1 and one for the adult birth relative in Part 2, that information will be disclosed. If the entries match and both parties wish for contact, this fact, together with birth relatives' details, will be passed on to the adopted adult.
    I believe that that, plus the intention to bring the regulations forward, should answer the noble Baroness's question. If they do not, I shall be happy to write to her on those points. I hope that, pending a further and more detailed explanation, she will feel that, on reflection, she can withdraw the amendment.
    Baroness Noakes: If thank the Minister for that reply. As I said, this is a probing amendment, to try to find out why the provision was constructed in this way. I felt that if the regulations did anything at all, they would provide for the matching of information between Part 1 and Part 2. The provision implied that they might not do so. I heard what the Minister said about the intention to issue regulations to that effect, and that she will look at it again and write to me if necessary. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
    Clause 79 agreed to.
    Clauses 80 and 81 agreed to.
    Clause 82 [Restriction on bringing children in]:
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 96:
    Page 45, line 31, leave out "natural" and insert "genetic"
    The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 96, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 97 to 100, 102 and 118.
    With regard to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, it is important that we get the terminology correct. The phrase "natural parent" is an odd one because it implies that any other sort of parent is unnatural—it is saying that unconditional love is not natural. Surely it is not unnatural to care for and cherish another person's child—something which has happened throughout history very successfully.
    In the Special Standing Committee in the other place, the Minister had some sympathy with our amendment, but preferred the term "birth parents". We accept that the use of the word "genetic" is not perfect, but we should be grateful to hear the Government's thinking on this issue.
    Amendment No. 98 is a straightforward amendment to probe the regulations. We discussed the thorny problem of "shall" and "may" last week, and I have no hesitation in unleashing these words on the Grand Committee again today. The Government's regulations, entitled Implementing the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, apply to this clause, and we seek clarification on how they do so.
    Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 would ensure the use of qualified private social workers, independent of the local authority but approved and registered with them, who would be able to carry out home studies. We wish to ensure that this is on the face of the Bill.
    As a result of one appalling case, that of the Kilshaws, local authorities have on the whole stopped using these private social workers. There is a shortage of resources in many social services departments and a serious problem with recruitment. The important role that these private social workers have played should be recognised and encouraged in the future.
    Amendment No. 102 is another "may/shall" provision. Again, we feel that this should be compulsory.
    Finally, Amendment No. 118 is a tidying up amendment relating to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, Section 5. I beg to move.
    Earl Howe: If I may, I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Astor has said in relation to Amendment No. 118, which covers one of the most important omissions from this Bill in the context of intercountry adoption. I am referring to the absence of a service dedicated to facilitating the intercountry adoption process at the crucial linking-up stage.
    This is not the first time that I have raised this issue. I make no apology for that because the more I hear about the experiences of those who have been through the mill of trying to adopt a child from overseas, the
    CWH 308
    more horrified I am that we seem incapable in this country of providing such people with a service that will truly help them.
    If one decides to adopt from abroad, one first needs to go through a home study. It may say sound strange to say that that is the easy part. However, it is not easy at all for many people because, as we have said before in these debates, home studies for overseas adopters tend to be low priority. One often has to wait a very long time before being assessed. Nevertheless, let us suppose that one has obtained approval under the home study procedure. What does one do next? Well, one chooses the preferred country, and one somehow makes contact with the adoption authorities overseas. You may have a language barrier to overcome, and you have to get the home study package to the relevant place. At one time it used to take about six weeks for the home study bundle to be sent from the Department of Health to the overseas country. It is now taking around five months. You are then faced with negotiating all the elements of the overseas adoption yourself; being linked up with a child who is waiting; making sure that you fulfil all the legal requirements of the adoption laws in the overseas country; meeting all the UK immigration procedures; ensuring that all post-adoption procedures are correctly followed and so on.
    The problem is that many of the best organized countries overseas—the countries that are most scrupulously protective of their children—are reluctant to receive applications from people living in the UK. Why is that? It is because we in the UK do not have specialist, dedicated linking agencies, and as a result we are perceived by a number of countries as offering insufficient safeguards for the child, and insufficient safeguards for British families.
    I cannot stress strongly enough that this linking stage of the process is absolutely crucial. The Bill as it stands precludes the establishment of specialist agencies in England and Wales unless they are also approved to provide domestic adoption. Why on earth should there be this restriction? Of course, any linking agency must be subject to proper accreditation and inspection to ensure that it is providing a service of the correct quality. But if you want to set up an agency devoted exclusively to providing a comprehensive linking service for intercountry adopters, you can forget it because you will also have to bear the legal, financial, and regulatory burdens applicable to a domestic adoption agency as well. That is quite simply prohibitive.
    India is a prime example of the countries where these difficulties emerge. Indian adoption agencies will typically say that in the absence of a partner agency in the UK with whom they can co-operate, they cannot guarantee that the welfare of the child will be monitored, and proper post-adoption support provided over the time period required by Indian law. If by some means the would-be adoptive parents overcome this hurdle, their time and attention has to be devoted to navigating through the administrative aspects of the adoption. They will not be free to

    CWH 309
    concentrate on the far more important task of getting to know their child and ensuring that his or her needs are met.
    The Central Adoption Resource Agency in India, CARA, has been saying for years that the functions that the DoH performs as the central authority are, as far as it is concerned, quite distinct from the functions it expects of foreign accredited agencies. Detailed case linking is not in its opinion a function that a government department can or should perform.
    Very similar concerns have been raised by China, Colombia, Thailand and the Philippines, to name but a few. When I raised this matter in one of our earlier debates, the Minister as good as said that he and his department knew nothing about any specific problems and it was virtually the first they had heard of them. I am aware that the Department of Health does know about these problems. The Minister's officials have been told in terms by their opposite numbers overseas that these difficulties exist. I do not understand why the Department insists on burying its head in the sand in this way.
    This is a very important matter. I have expressed the view before that would-be adoptive parents who are looking to adopt a child from overseas are treated almost as though what they are doing is somehow reprehensible, so numerous are the practical and administrative hurdles placed in their path. It is time that we came out and said that intercountry adoption is not reprehensible. It is every bit as valid and valuable as any other kind of adoption. My amendment would open the way to making life for such people infinitely easier.
    Baroness Barker: I rise briefly to support the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. In some respects we repeat some of the arguments which we had in relation to Clause 12. It is important that we do not forget in this discussion the limitations of independent review. There is no independent review of the performance of the Department of Health in this respect.
    The noble Earl spoke of the number of different countries that are increasingly reluctant—and in some cases refuse—to deal with the Department of Health. I find myself in some difficulty here as I have evidence not only from the organisations involved in intercountry adoptions but also wholly independently from individuals documenting their own experience. Much of the discontent is of an operational nature.
    It is extremely difficult to criticise the performance of the department in a forum such as this. However, I draw to the Minister's attention one particular fact that I was not aware of. A person wrote to me outlining experiences of trying to adopt from China. That person mentioned the endless phone calls, letters and processing of papers which went on. In the midst of that the person revealed one thing which I believe is significant; namely, that UK international adoption is carried out through the Department of Health although it is not allowed to communicate directly with the Chinese Government department which deals with the CCAA. Our communication on those matters
    CWH 310
    goes via the Foreign Office, the embassy and finally to the Chinese authorities. That means that any contact of any kind takes a minimum of three months. In fact, in practice it takes a great deal longer than that. It seems to me that that is staggeringly inefficient.
    These issues came into sharp focus when China changed its rules and set new limits for the numbers of children it was willing to have adopted. The American adoption agencies got their skates on and got on with the cases that they had in line. We did not, with the result that we have an enormous backlog of applicants waiting for adoptions from that country to be processed.
    I echo the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about why it is necessary for the Department of Health to fulfil this function at all. I question whether a government department, staffed as it is by civil servants who inevitably change in the course of their work, is the best way to go about this. Would it not be preferable to have an independent body which could—as in many other fields of adoption—not only set itself up as a specialist agency, but could also over time develop continuity, skills and experience among its staff?
    I believe strongly that there is a role for the Department of Health in scrutinising intercountry adoptions. Perhaps if the Kilshaw ca se did nothing else it showed the very real need for there to be a very powerful scrutinising force within this country. I refer to those people who wish to adopt from overseas. I do not question why people wish to do that; I simply recognise that they will pursue that course if that is their wish. At the moment, in practice, anybody who finds themselves in that position has no alternative but to use the offices of a private American adoption agency. Those agencies are, by and large—-or compared to this country—unregulated. It is an absolute lottery whether the agency an individual selects is good or bad. It seems to rue that throughout this Bill there is set out a great deal for the Department of Health to do. I am not sure that as a priority it should be the body which is arranging intercountry adoptions, although I take the point that there is a role for it in scrutinising them. With that, I support the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
    5.45 p.m.
    Baroness Andrews: I shall start with Amendments No. 96 and 97 in relation to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. It also arose at Committee stage in another place. The amendments as proposed substitute the term "genetic" in place of the word "natural" in Clause 82(2)(a). We took account of the debate in another place, which was clearly raising some very sensitive issues about language that was potentially seen as offensive to adoptive parents and relatives, by implying that the relationship was unnatural—a word the noble Lord has used—and that there were complications and an absence of love.
    We looked closely at the possibility of using the term "genetic" in this context. The problem is that when tested, it is in fact imprecise itself. Part of the problem

    CWH 311
    is the possibility that, as with some scientific terms, it can be affected by the boundaries of knowledge as it moves on. Originally, the term "scientist" itself was in fact "natural philosopher". As scientific knowledge develops, terms become refined and the boundaries of what is termed "genetic" may also change as we become more familiar with the scope of the genetic code and its implications.
    For that reason, the term "natural parent" is preferable throughout the Bill, not least because it has an everyday, common meaning that can be understood. As regards the relationships we are dealing with and the vocabulary we have to use in order to give people confidence about the Bill and the regulations, it is the preferable term. We took the point up with legal advisers and they did not come forward with anything more suitable.
    Amendments Nos. 98 and 102 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring persons intending to bring—or cause another person to bring—a child into the United Kingdom under this section to apply to an adoption agency and to give the agency information it requires to carry out an assessment. Similarly, Amendment No. 102 would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring conditions to be met in respect of a child brought into the country under Section 82.
    We have already put in place the Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001 under the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. Regulation 3 makes it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or to a voluntary adoption agency to be assessed and approved through exactly the same procedures as those for domestic adoptions and therefore to get a certificate of eligibility. The regulations made under Clause 82 would replace with amendments the regulations made under the 1999 Act.
    It is our clear intention to make regulations under Clause 82(4) and (5). It is also our intention to consult—and it is important to stress this—widely on the requirements and conditions to be prescribed under these subsections. It is likely that they will be similar to the regulations made under the current Section 56A of the 1976 Act. Perhaps I may illustrate that. For example, the prospective adopters apply to and are assessed by an adoption agency in the UK. The prospective adopters provide as much information as requested. They agree to the carrying out of police and medical checks. The case is referred to the adoption panel. The home study assessment and such other information as is required by the overseas authority is sent to the central authority in the various countries so that it can be checked to ensure that all proper procedures are followed and all the relevant information is collected. Therefore, within 14 days of arrival in the UK with a child they intend to adopt, notice of intention to adopt is given to the local authority in whose area the prospective adopters reside. I hope with that background and that
    CWH 312
    framework, and my assurances about consultation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    I turn to Amendment No. 99. This amendment would enable social workers acting independently of any adoption agency to assess potential intercountry adopters. May I say at the outset that this is not the product of the Kilshaw case; this preceded the Kilshaw case. Section 13 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which amended the 1976 Act, clarified that private social workers could not undertake home study assessments. I will explain that in a moment. It was brought into force in January 2000, before the Kilshaw case.
    Linked to this amendment is Amendment No. 100, which would require potential intercountry adopters to provide social workers acting independently of an adoption agency with information for the purposes of an assessment. I take the point made by the noble Lord that we are looking at a lot of pressure on agencies, and this is potentially one way of expanding the workforce. The problem is that it may not do that and it may introduce a few more hazards, and I will explain that in a moment.
    When we amended Section 73 of the Adoption Act 1976, we did so through Section 13 of the 1999 Act, which puts beyond doubt that in intercountry cases a home study assessment report for the purposes of adoption must be prepared by or on behalf of an adoption agency and not by social workers acting independently. Clause 82(4) provides that regulations may require a person intending to bring a child into the UK for adoption purposes, or a child he has adopted within the past six months overseas, to apply to an adoption agency for an assessment.
    Prior to the implementation of Section 13 of the 1999 Act we believed it was not appropriate for social workers acting independently of an adoption agency to prepare home study assessments. Considerable concern has been expressed, for example, by the Association of Directors of Social Services. It has been concerned about the practice of employing social workers on a private scale outside the framework of the adoption agencies. Their members feel very strongly that the only people who should be permitted to provide home study reports are people who are directly employed or commissioned by adoption agencies.
    However, there was conflicting case law on the issue and the Government implemented Section 13 in January 2000 specifically in order to clarify the position. This week the ADSS has written to the Department of Health again in support of the continued need to prohibit privately commissioned home study reports for the purpose of intercountry adoption. I would be very happy to pass a copy of that letter to the noble Lord.
    We fear—and clearly these fears are shared by the ADSS—that allowing the assessment of adopters by independent social workers would risk compromising the impartiality of the assessment process. There is also a question of some vulnerability of the social

    CWH 313
    workers themselves in these situations to the pressure which may be put on them by unsuitable adopters in order to attract other applicants and to increase the number of applicants wishing to use their services. That could mean that applicants are approved when they might not pass the assessment which is carried out formally. The other problem is that there is no process for inspecting the private work of independent social workers, so one is never absolutely sure about quality and quality assessment.
    Given the problem of capacity which has been identified, we also ought to reflect on the fact that many agencies choose to contract with an independent social worker to undertake assessments. They can commission them to carry out a home study under supervision as long as that social worker meets the usual regulatory requirements on qualifications, and/or experience. We have a better world now; it may not be the best, but we have additional capacity and we have safety and security for the child. It means that all the necessary information can be obtained: the checks and balances are built in, and the social worker will have access to full medical and police checks. Therefore, social workers will basically be supervised, and there is a far greater guarantee of their general suitability. The agency adoption panel also provides an important, partial input, so other checks and balances come in there.
    We appreciate the concern that has been brought forward by these agencies and the pressure that they are under. However, the fundamental line is that we could not allow that to happen, or even take that risk if there were any possibility of unnecessary risk to the child.
    I turn to Amendment No. 118, which is more complex. It raises the issues that have been identified by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may begin by saying that I am sorry to hear of the perception of a reluctance—it is not a hostility—to work productively with countries overseas in terms of facilitating adoption. As an opening point and in the light of what has been said, I should like the department to write to Members of the Committee in relation to their response, especially on the question of delays and the perceptions that are held.
    In terms of the six-months' wait, we acknowledge that there has been an increase in the length of time that it has been taking to process papers. I am sure that this has been sorted out, but it would be sensible for me to write to the noble Baroness to point out some of the steps that may have been taken to improve the situation. Apparently, the situation came about as a result of a large number of applications, which seem to have bunched up during the early part of the year. That backlog has caused some problems.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. When she writes to me, I wonder if she could shed some light on the practice within the department for dealing with papers. I understand from a number of different correspondents that one of the biggest frustrations for people is that they send in their papers and a fault or question mark will appear, which means
    CWH 314
    that the papers are sent back to them. The latter are then sent back to the department, at which point another fault comes to light and the papers are returned. Instead of going through the application in one go, the correspondence goes back and forth continually. We can understand that that must be deeply frustrating, because it takes a great deal of time.
    Therefore, while dealing with those other points, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could shed some light on the practices of the department, and on how it deals with applications.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Andrews: I can certainly give the noble Baroness that assurance. It is essential to be thorough. When we deal with adoptions that have been generated overseas, we are not going to be very au fait with the detail, or the information in itself may not be as reliable or as accessible as we would wish for a range of reasons. However, there is a balance to be struck between being thorough and being efficient. I have the highest regard for officials in the Department of Health. I shall certainly ask for a sensible letter to be written to the noble Baroness in that respect.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised a point about CARA. I am also sure that we have never received any representations from CARA, or from any of the other countries to which reference has been made. We have been told by some of the Hague Convention countries that they will only deal with the United Kingdom after ratification—which, of course, will take place next year. Ratification, of course, is going to be next year.
    Again, I would feel more comfortable if I could write to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, on the point. A lot has been raised in this debate about these processes and exchanges. It would be good to have those on the record. It would also be good, if it is acceptable to him, to be able to reply in writing to some of the points that he raised.
    We are dealing with different perceptions. At this stage in policy development, however, when so much is in transition, and especially when dealing on an international scale, it can be quite difficult to fix the position. There are reasons why these matters sometimes slip.
    As I understand it, the purpose of Amendment No. 118 is to enable the establishment of specialist or full-service intercountry adoption agencies. It is understood, or believed by some of the stakeholder groups, that Section 10 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 precludes the establishment of such agencies unless they are also approved for domestic adoption. Two things need to be said about this. First, the amendment as drafted is unnecessary for reasons that I shall explain. Secondly, it is based on a misunderstanding which I hope to make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Astor.
    Section 10 of the 1999 Act amends Section 3 of the Adoption Act 1976 which provides that adoption agencies can be approved for either domestic adoption or domestic and intercountry adoption. The intention of that provision was to clarify that adoption agencies

    CWH 315
    may provide prospective adopters with intercountry adoption services. However, this provision has never been brought into force, and there is no intention to bring it into force before the implementation of the Bill. This is because the provisions in the section have been overtaken by the Care Standards Act 2000, and voluntary adoption agencies will be registered under the provisions of the Care Standards Act from 2003. So in fact the situation has moved forward.
    The Care Standards Act enables voluntary adoption agencies to register for adoption facilities unless it is a specific condition of its registration that it does not provide that facility. The effect is to allow the establishment of adoption agencies that can, for example, focus on intercountry adoption. I believe that that should deal with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Astor. I also reiterate that agencies can register under the Care Standards Act as specialist agencies focusing only on intercountry adoption. That will be done, as I said, under the conditions of registration imposed under Section 13 of the Care Standards Act.
    The Adoption and Children Bill repeals Section 3 of the 1976 Act, which Section 10 amends. Therefore, following implementation of our Bill, the provisions in Section 10 will not apply, and it will be removed from the statute book through Schedule 6 of the Care Standards Act. There is therefore no need to repeal it by means of this Bill.
    Earl Howe: I should like, just very briefly, to express my thanks to the Minister for taking us through that maze. It was extremely helpful. I am sure that there are adoption organisations out there that will be heartened by the Minister's comments, which appear to have addressed one of their major concerns in this important field.
    Lord Astor of Hever: On Amendment Nos. 96 and 97, I accept that there are problems with the word "genetic"; there is no doubt about that. I felt that the Minister made a very good case for keeping the wording as it is. I therefore anticipate that we shall not pursue that matter.
    I thank the Minister for her very full response on Amendments Nos. 98 and 102, the probing amendments on the regulations. I was very happy to hear that the Government will be consulting widely on that issue, which is clearly very important. Although we shall need to read Hansard very carefully, I expect to be happy with the Minister's answer.
    Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 concern approved private social workers. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying why these amendments might introduce further hazards. We clearly need to consider the matter in greater detail. I was grateful to the Minister for pointing out that the Government are planning to bring in additional capacity and additional safety and checks and balances. I should be very grateful to receive a copy of that letter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 97 to 102 not moved.]
    Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 103:
    Page 46, line 31, at end insert—
    "() A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament."
    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 103 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105.
    Clauses 82, 83 and 85 are very important clauses relating to restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom, on giving parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad, and overseas adoptions. Our amendments would ensure that no statutory instruments under these regulations were made until a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses. We cannot have important regulations such as these brought into play without proper scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, particularly as the personnel in adoption agencies often work scrupulously to the regulations, rather than to the Bill. I beg to move.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee may think that they give me only the easy bits. That is because when the difficult bits come along I disappear and my noble friend Lady Andrews has to do them for me. Thankfully, this is a relatively easy bit.
    I thought that the amendment's purpose was to get the Government to say more about what was in the regulations. However, my noble friend Lady Andrews said a good deal in her speech on the last group of amendments about what the regulations would contain, and I hope that that will be found to be helpful. Fundamentally, however, we go along with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which has said that the level of parliamentary scrutiny provided in the Bill is adequate. We do not see any reason to depart from that.
    If adoption agencies have any problems with the regulations when they appear—and after they have been consulted on, because that is an important area no doubt they will alert noble Lords opposite and a prayer will be produced that they should be debated before going forward. Even a prayer to annul them would be possible. As matters stand, however, we think that we should stick with our respected Committee's views.
    Lord Astor of Hever: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, did give a very full account of the regulations earlier. We shall consider the matter carefully and read Hansard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 82 agreed to.
    Clause 83 [Giving parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad]:
    [Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
    Clause 83 agreed to.
    Clause 84 agreed to.
    Clause 85 [Overseas adoptions]:
    [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
    Clause 85 agreed to.
    Clauses 86 to 95 agreed to.
    Clause 96 [Proceedings for offences]:
    Lord Hunt of KingsHeath moved Amendment No. 106:
    Page 53, leave out line 22 and insert "National Care Standards Commission or the Assembly"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    On Question, Whether Clause 96, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
    Baroness Noakes: In opposing the Question that Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill, I wish to raise the question of what role the Attorney-General has in relation to prosecution for offences under Clauses 9 and 58.
    This is, in a sense, a surreal debate. Clause 9, as we discussed earlier in Grand Committee, will allow wide-ranging regulations to be issued and will allow a breach of some of those regulations to be treated as an offence. We shall not know what will constitute an offence until we see the draft regulations, and the Minister has already told us that this House will not have the benefit of seeing the draft regulations during our consideration of the Bill. Similarly, Clause 58 creates an offence for adoption societies to disclose information in contravention of Clause 56. That in turn will depend on regulations, so we do not know what kind of offences we are talking about. However, for today, we must imagine that we know what offence is to be created under Clause 9 regulations and what disclosures will be permitted or allowed for the purposes of the Clause 58 offence.
    Enter the Attorney-General and the relevant authority. Clause 96 provides that either the relevant authority can institute proceedings or the Attorney-General has to agree. There is no explanation in the Explanatory Notes of why this scheme has been adopted, nor was a real reason given when the matters were discussed in the Special Standing Committee of another place. Will the Minister say why the relevant authority—the National Care Standards Commission or the National Assembly for Wales—should have a monopoly on prosecutions, and will she say why the Attorney-General should have to consent in other cases? What if an individual was aggrieved about the release of information? Let us suppose that the National Care Standards Commission chose to do nothing. Why should the individual have to go cap in hand to the Attorney-General?
    I hope that the Minister will say what public policy objective is served by confining access to redress against those who breach the rules to a limited number
    CWH 318
    of public servants. If there are no good reasons, the only conclusion is that this consent requirement is an unnecessarily onerous one.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I shall be more than happy to assist the noble Baroness in this regard. I understand entirely her anxiety and the need for clarity in relation to this provision.
    Clause 96, as amended, sets out that proceedings for offences under Clauses 9 and 58, are to be brought by the registration authority. The National Care Standards Commission will be the registration authority in England, and in Wales the National Assembly for Wales will be the registration authority.
    This issue was debated by Members of the Committee in relation to Amendment No. 106 on 24th June in relation to this clause, so that it will specifically refer to the National Care Standards Commission or the Assembly.
    Offences under Clauses 9 or 58 can he prosecuted by another body or person only with the written consent of the Attorney-General and the noble Baroness quite rightly asks why so.
    The National Care Standards Commission and the National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for monitoring adoption services provided, and these bodies will be able to provide specialist expertise when conducting prosecutions. This provision ensures that they will be able to do so. During debates on the Bill, the need for specialisation in dealing with delicate issues in relation to the care of children has been emphasised and the body that we have designated as having that responsibility will have that necessary expertise.
    Clause 96 mirrors Section 29 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in providing that proceedings for offences under certain clauses may not he brought other than by the registration authority without the written consent of the Attorney-General. The registration authority has been entrusted with the duty of maintaining and enforcing statutory requirement and that task was given by Parliament to the National Care Standards Commission under the Care Standards Act.
    The requirement for any individual to obtain the consent of the Attorney-General before seeking a private prosecution is there to avoid prosecutions being brought where no useful purpose will be served, either for the general public or for the individual. This would be where the registration authority had considered that another course of action would be more appropriate. For example, there could be circumstances where an individual wishes to bring a criminal prosecution against an adoption support agency and at the same time, the National Care Standards Commission may be considering what action to take against the registered provider.
    It will have the power to amend the conditions of the registration, impose new conditions or cancel the registration, as well as the power to prosecute. The commission may decide not to bring a prosecution but to apply other measures available to it—the most

    CWH 319
    appropriate measure. The Committee should remember that we will be talking about regulations systems and systemic change might be what is looked for as opposed to prosecution in relation to one matter. If the individual were then to proceed with his private prosecution, this may disturb the provision of services. That could be disproportionate, especially where the commission considers that its own measures are appropriate in the circumstances.
    Clause 96 ensures, therefore, that a body with expertise on agency compliance with regulations will be able to take action, including a criminal prosecution, especially as the registration authority will have the knowledge and expertise in determining whether a prosecution is viable. Thus, if for example the National Care Standards Commission uncovers a more serious offence than a contravention of the regulations, the Crown Prosecution Service would be able to pursue it. We think for example of the case where someone has committed a serious offence arranging a private adoption which is restricted by Clause 90, or preparing a private home study report, which is restricted by Clause 92. The noble Baroness said that there is a monopoly. There is not a monopoly; there is an opportunity for the most appropriate agency to undertake the prosecution.
    The noble Baroness also asks about what happens then. The Committee will know that if Clause 96 were to be removed and the Crown Prosecution Service took the decision not to prosecute, an individual could seek a judicial review of that decision. Under Clause 96, on the other hand, if the National Care Standards Commission decided not to prosecute, an individual could ask the Attorney-General for consent for an individual to prosecute. If the Attorney-General were to decline, and decline improperly, the individual could seek a judicial review of that decision. It merely sets certain gateways in order to ensure that the needs of children are met.
    Naturally, this provision does not preclude any person from seeking a civil claim for negligence against a registered provider. We are trying to work in a joined-up way, however, and to ensure that the most appropriate people undertake the prosecutions that can most appropriately be dealt with by them. We would certainly anticipate the Crown Prosecution Service working very closely where the need arose, where the case stepped outside the pure regulatory nature that we anticipate here. I hope that the noble Baroness will be content with that explanation.
    6.15 p.m.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply and indeed, welcome her to our proceedings in this Grand Committee. I understand what she is saying in terms of creating specialised bodies which will have the responsibility to oversee the operation of the matters governed by regulations and those people being in the best position to prosecute for any failures in that respect. That is no doubt a very good thing.
    CWH 320
    There remains a residual concern if one of those bodies chooses not to pursue an action that an individual felt particularly aggrieved about. The hurdles seem quite high for that individual to take action himself. Judicial review, for example, is not something that people would undertake lightly. I hear what the Minister has said, however, and I shall look forward to reading her words carefully in Hansard.
    Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 97 to 105 agreed to.
    Clause 106 [Avoiding delay]:
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 107:
    Page 57, line 15, at end insert—
    "(3) It shall be the duty of the Lord Chancellor's Department to monitor the proceedings referred to in subsection (1), to keep statistical information on them and to publish a summary of them annually."
    The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 107, which seeks to add a new subsection (3) to Clause 106. It is a modest amendment designed to keep a spotlight on one crucial aspect of the adoption process; namely, delay. Clause 106 will require a court to draw up a timetable for dealing with questions that arise during adoption or placement order proceedings. We welcome this measure.
    The new subsection would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor's Department to monitor those proceedings, to keep statistical information on them and, importantly, to publish a summary annually. At present, I understand that this information is not kept by the department.
    It is not entirely clear where the main delays arise in handling adoption cases. There is agreement that there is delay, but, from different ends of the telescope, there are different reasons ascribed to where those delays occur. Those in the legal system say that the delays arise outside the legal system: for example, in the making of reports or assessments. Those outside the system tend to suggest that the lawyers are to blame—whether the courts themselves, or the lawyers acting in the case. Keeping statistics and publishing them would be an important tool in unblocking any further causes of delay. As measurement and management go hand in hand, until we can measure the dimensions of the problem we cannot begin to manage it.
    I know that the Government are committed to eliminating delays in the adoption process. I am therefore confident that the Minister will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that her concern in this regard is unnecessary. I shall seek to explain exactly what the Government are currently doing in relation to these matters.
    When a court is dealing with a matter where a placement or adoption order might need to be considered, Clause 106 provides that it will be under an obligation to draw up a timetable and give any directions that are necessary to ensure that that timetable is adhered to. We certainly believe that this should make a material difference to the issue of delay.

    CWH 321
    This clause will ensure that the courts maintain a tighter control on adoption and placement proceedings and do not allow them to drift.
    Clause 106(2) also gives the power for rules to set out the time-scales in which certain processes should take place, and to make any other provision with respect to these proceedings to prevent delay.
    As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 107 would require the Lord Chancellor's Department to monitor proceedings relating to placement and adoption orders, to keep statistical information on them, and to publish an annual summary of them.
    We already have a considerable amount of data. Statistics relating to the operation of courts and adoption proceedings are published on a regular basis. The Office for National Statistics in its Population Trends series publishes information on adoption resulting from the analysis of adoption orders and adoption applications provided by the Court Service. Similar information is also published annually in the judicial statistics by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    The Government intend to enhance the collection of information on adoption. We have identified the key stages in the adoption court process. Cases issued in specialist centres in January 2002 are being tracked to monitor the time taken and to ascertain what barriers there may he to delivering an efficient service to all those involved in adoption cases. The noble Baroness is right to say that many reasons are given by different parties as to why this is happening. Some kind of empirical understanding of this issue would greatly assist everyone.
    At the same time, we are working to create a unified data collection system so that detailed and useful information on adoption is collected routinely. This will enable bench-mark time-scales for cases to be set. It is the first step to meeting the commitment made by the Government in the adoption White Paper to reduce delay and improve the level of service to people using the courts by designating specialist centres, issuing guidance to courts on case management and obtaining sample information on adoption. We will consider the best way in which this information should be made available.
    A range of statistical information is made available on a regular basis and a programme of work is currently underway to ensure there is a comprehensive data collection system on the courts' performance in relation to adoption. This work will ensure that we are in a position to make available on a regular basis the statistics Members of the Committee would like to see. Therefore, we hope the noble Baroness will accept that this amendment is unnecessary.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. From what she has said, the enhanced information should enable the sources of delay to be identified and therefore action taken, and that information would be published in some form or another. If that is the case, I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
    CWH 322
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 106 agreed to.
    Clauses 107 to 109 agreed to.
    6.30 p.m.
    Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 107ZZA:
    After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
    "REGULATIONS FOR SEPARATE REPRESENTATION OF CHILDREN
    In section 8 of the 1989 Act after subsection (4) there is inserted—
    "(5) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations providing for the separate representation of children in specified circumstances relating to any matter arising from proceedings under this section.""
    The noble Earl said: The "ZZs" give no suggestion of any soporific purpose in this. I must apologise to the Committee for having appeared, as it were, by parachute. If any Members had been watching the screen, they will have seen that I have been fairly busy in the Chamber and will be again later tonight. I regret that I have not been able to follow more of the proceedings of this Committee and I have been interested in those I have.
    We now come to a cluster of amendments which are all concerned with the problems of contact and especially of enforced contact. Amendment No. 107ZZA deals with independent representation of the child. Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 also deal with this.
    I do not believe that any Member here is quite so optimistic as to pretend that we have yet achieved gender equality, but I believe that we are making fairly steady, even if rather glacial, progress towards it. Occasionally one feels in gloomy moments moved to doubt it. What convinces me that that is the case is that when occasionally I am pulled up for having made a chauvinist or old-fashioned assumption, it is not women of my own generation who do so, it is my two sons. I have seen in my own family a steady advance in attitudes ever since my grandfather first converted my great-grandfather to a very reluctant support for votes for women in the 1860s.
    The progress is steady but it is necessarily a part of any such progress that, as we have been seeing women steadily wanting to involve themselves in what have been male spheres of operation, so also we must see men wanting to involve themselves in what have regularly been seen as female spheres of operation. The fact that now more than ever men want to be involved in child care is a development that we all welcome, and those who have listened to me at Question Time in the Chamber know that is a long-standing opinion of mine. That that should be encouraged is entirely good.
    However, the difficulty with law enforcement, and in particular the difficulty with law enforcement on the lower level, is that it seems to be only capable of getting one idea at a time. The idea that men have contact with their children is a good one, but that must be subject to two other provisos. The first, with which this amendment is concerned, is the consent of the child. The second, we shall come to in the next amendment

    CWH 323
    to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the one after that which is to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. As my name is also to it, I shall move it if she is not here. It deals with the question of safety because if the welfare of the child is to be taken as paramount, the child's safety must be the most paramount consideration of all. Where a contact order is at the expense of safety, there would be a case against it—I shall come to that later.
    The central contention of this amendment is that a child is not a chattel. A child has a mind, a will, passions, hopes and fears, and any policy for giving contact orders which does not take account of that will do good neither to the child nor to the parent with whom contact is sought.
    Before the council closed it—in circumstances with which I shall not detain Members of the Committee—there was a women's refuge extremely close to us. My wife used to visit it regularly. Normally, of course, they did not admit men, but just once they let in my son, then aged 18. He had been carrying a large bundle of clothes, books and other things for the refuge and was left standing outside on the wettest day of the year, so they very kindly took him in. He found, although he did not know it, that the boy of six he was first talking to was one who ran screaming in terror at the sight of any man who came anywhere near him. It is fairly obvious that that terror is itself evidence of something fairly traumatic that had happened to him.
    It turned out, on inquiry afterwards, that he had been regularly buggered by his grandfather with a knitting needle. One of the moments when I have been most proud of my son was when he was the first man with whom this boy of six condescended to play. He of course tried to wreck the game and my son told him, "If you want to stop you can, but if you are going to wreck the game we cannot go on", so he went on. In cases like that, the child's own state of mind must be taken as key evidence.
    It is a sad fact that, where parents separate, the father does not keep contact nearly as often as one would like. It is regularly said that the mother has poisoned the child's mind against the father. That, of course, is a very laden word. In some cases, it may be absolutely literally appropriate, while in others it may represent simply a value judgment. One does not know which, without knowing the particular family very well indeed.
    Suppose it to be literally true. For poison, the law is the wrong learned profession to call in. If the child feels that way, the feeling is a fact, whether justified or not, and the law cannot cure it. Enforced contact, in this situation, can be nothing but a cause of terror and it is likely to be an obstacle to the mending of the relationship between the father and the child—because, very often, it is the father who is involved. It may prevent what could, in other circumstances, have been a slow mending of trust between the two people, producing a real and deep friendship. If one destroys that by enforced contact, creating terror in the child, I
    CWH 324
    do not see that one is doing good to the child, or to the father, or to the interests of the family, or indeed to the interests of justice.
    The point about giving a child independent representation is that it allows the child to think for himself. It puts him down in a place where he can talk to someone with no axe to grind. Sometimes, it is simply a matter of getting away from the influence of the resident parent, or sometimes it is a matter of allowing him to think until the mind changes. Sometimes, it becomes clear that the mind is so deeply set that any chance of contact would be completely useless. Sometimes, indeed—though that brings us to the next amendment—it brings us to situations where contact would be so dangerous for the child that it is not to be advised.
    We have had a lot of discussion of the House of Lords judgment of In Re H & R—the one that said the more serious the allegation, the higher the standard of proof that was needed. This was a case in which a girl had accused her stepfather of raping her. The question here is not just whether that allegation was proved. Suppose it was false? That to me would indicate perhaps a situation as serious as if it were true because, if that allegation were falsely made, it would indicate a dislike of the stepfather so deep that that in itself would be an obstacle to contact.
    I did wonder, reading through the judgments in that case, whether their Lordships—who, in general, I regard as the highest intellects it has been my privilege to listen to in this Chamber—had perhaps got the wrong end of the stick. They were concerned only with the man's rights and those rights, naturally, might also depend on whether he had done something wrong. If, however, they had taken literally the proposition that the interests of the child should be paramount, they should have been considering whether the child's feelings about the stepfather for whatever reason were so deep and so hostile as to render all contact at best useless and at worst positively dangerous.
    Suppose I had been advocate for that child? These are questions about which I would have thought very hard; I have no idea what I would have said in court. Whatever it was, I hope it would have been something that the court might have found interesting to listen to. There is a whole realm of justice that begins from the recognition of the child as an independent person with rights, with hopes, with fears and with a will. I beg to move.
    The Earl of Listowel: I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier in the proceedings this afternoon. I strongly support the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Earl. There has long been grave concern at the gap in child protection measures that our private law arrangements allow. During proceedings on the Family Law Act 1996 my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said:
    "I believe there is a general consensus arising out of the committee proceedings that it would be desirable that the interests of children have representation in some way".

    CWH 325
    Earlier, Paul Boateng had strongly urged his concerns that the child's interests were not being well enough represented. Indeed, he called this matter very strongly to the attention of the House. This point was attended to in the Family Law Act 1996 under Section 64—an Act that unfortunately foundered, not for any reason to do with this particular amendment. The principle has already been agreed. It has been placed on statute which has only fallen through ill chance. Surely, there can be no case that this amendment is premature or that arrangements are required prior to legislation to see how it would be put into practice.
    Clearly, we are failing to protect our children adequately. To give an example: the children of a mother who was an alcoholic—the mother incapable of parenting—were left in her care while she sought to deny access to their father. On one occasion the 10 year-old daughter was left sitting on the stair by her mother who told her that she was going to the shops to buy food for their supper. Mother did not return and this was just one example of her inconsistent treatment of her daughter.
    The father in this situation kept quiet because he sought a reconciliation with the mother. It was only after a guardian was involved and a thorough report on the wishes and needs of the children was produced that it was decided to move the children in with their father and his extended family. The children then thrived in the new situation. This amendment seeks to address the gap that currently exists in our child protection system. It seeks to ensure that in certain circumstances the voice of the child is particularly well attended to. The example I have just cited is not an uncommon one of parents who are under pressure and children who are at risk but are not in a sufficiently critical situation for a care order to be introduced.
    A mechanism already exists to introduce a guardian and a child solicitor into this process. In Section 9.5 of an Act, the name of which I have forgotten, there already exists such a measure. However, this is seldom used, is difficult to invoke, causes long delay to proceedings and is inadequate to meet the needs of children.
    In another case a mother was threatened with imprisonment for failing to allow the father access to their three year-old daughter, whom I shall call Melanie. Christopher, the 14 year-old son, and Katie, the 18 year-old daughter, were not consulted or asked for their opinion on what was going on in their family. Following the intervention of the National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS), Christopher's concerns about the treatment of his three year-old sister were manifested to the court. He had experienced severe violence from his father and had heard from Melanie information which led him to be concerned that she might be being used sexually by their father. A full report by the guardian enabled a proper resolution of the case.
    The number of instances where mothers are being faced with imprisonment is increasing. Surely, there can be absolutely no excuse for not finding out the wishes and needs of children in these circumstances.
    CWH 326
    Our amendment would allow this while also permitting flexibility to the Lord Chancellor so as not to incur unnecessary expense to the public purse.
    Concern has been expressed that introduction of a right of children to representation in some circumstances in private law cases would slow down proceedings and add to costs. Currently, it is true that this can be the case under the Section 9.5 currently used. However, this amendment would allow timely involvement of advocate and guardian. A full report to the court on the wishes and needs of the children will often enable a speedy resolution of proceedings. The additional cost of a child's representation could be met by an increase in the divorce filing fee, which would enable a couple better to meet their parental responsibilities to their children and would be very much in line with the Government's desire to promote parental responsibility. I feel strongly that this amendment, or something similar to it, should be incorporated into the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
    6.45 p.m.
    Baroness Thornton: I rise to support the two noble Earls who propose the amendment. There is, indeed, a gap in legislation arising out of the non-implementation of Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996.
    During the passage of the Family Law Act 1996 through the House of Commons great emphasis was placed by the then Opposition on the need for the separate representation of children involved in private law proceedings. Indeed, as the noble Earl has said, such was the concern that Paul Boateng, leading in Committee, chose separate representation and domestic violence as the two items for a set piece debate at Report stage. At that time he researched the position of children involved in private law disputes as,
    "a neglected family justice issue" [Official Report, 17/6/96; col. 589.]
    Indeed, there was a consensus in both Houses on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, spoke on the Family Law Bill on 29th February 1996. The result was Section 64 of the Family Law Act, which has already been referred to.
    The failure to implement this provision does not diminish the need for it. Indeed, the intervening years have led to increased concerns about the vulnerability of children involved in situations of domestic violence, and the lack of capacity for the court to order separate representation for them within Section 8 of the private law proceedings. Also, as current experience is showing, without such provisions there are effectively few safeguards within the present system.
    A government briefing of 26th June refers to a "scoping exercise" before undertaking wider consultation on how children are represented in private Children Act proceedings. That indeed is welcome. However, I am bound to ask: how much more consultation is needed to add to a debate about which there was such cross party consensus which was agreed six years ago? The facts are very clear and

    CWH 327
    further delay will add only further young casualties to a list of those who have found themselves with no protection.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all Members of the Committee who have participated in this debate. The issue generates a great deal of concern and I understand why that is so. However, I hope that what I say will be reassuring to the Committee.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quite rightly says that the child is not a chattel, and that the child's state of mind is of real value and importance. He makes some telling points about the need to mend fences and to make sure that where a relationship has been fractured there are attempts to reconstruct that relationship in a constructive way, and to go at the child's pace, all of which is right.
    When the courts come to determine these issues in the exercise of their judicial discretion, those are precisely the issues that any judge dealing with these matters will have to take into account.
    I would also like to reassure the noble Earl that on many occasions where children have proven to be implacably hostile to contact, the courts have taken that implacable hostility into account, notwithstanding the fact it may not be soundly based, because the welfare and interests of the child determine that that is the criterion that the court gives weight to. I know that there is concern about these issues, but I hope I can reassure the noble Earl in relation to that matter.
    The noble Earl raised the issue of In Re H & R, which was a very specific case. It was a public law case where care proceedings were on foot and it had to be determined whether the step parent had or had not sexually abused the child. It was really dealing with the burden of proof in relation to those matters. Although it may be right that it settled the burden of proof, if I may respectfully say so, it does not detract at all from the court's determination of what is in the welfare of the child on any particular case.
    The most important issue is whether the child's voice is at present able to be heard, and what steps there are at the moment, if any, to make sure the child can be, or is represented in given circumstances. I hope that I will be able to reassure Members of the Committee about the current position. Amendment No. 107ZZA would allow my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to make regulations providing for the separate representation of children in specified circumstances arising from any proceedings under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
    Currently, children's views are generally put before the court in private law Section 8 proceedings, within the CAFCASS officer's report on matters relating to the welfare of the child. The Lord Chancellor may make regulations specifying matters to be dealt with in any report, and in addition the court can make particular directions as to matters to be included in the report. This matter is already dealt with quite extensively by the Family Proceedings Rules.
    CWH 328
    Rule 4.11B of the Family Proceedings Rules requires the CAFCASS officer, known as the child and family reporter, to notify the child of the contents of his report as he considers appropriate to the age and understanding of the child, including any reference to the child's own views on the application and recommendation of the CAFCASS officer. Rule 4.11B(5) also requires the child and family reporter to consider whether it is in the best interests of the child to be made a party to the proceedings. The Family Proceedings Rules 1991 already allow a child to be made a party to private law proceedings where the court considers it appropriate to do so; for example, where expert evidence has to be adduced by a guardian ad litem on behalf of the child or where the child is of sufficient age and understanding to instruct a solicitor. The court will make the child a respondent where it would be in the child's best interests, and CAFCASS has taken over the Official Solicitor's role in such cases.
    A child being separately represented would involve a lawyer being instructed to put evidence before the court on behalf of the child, and if there is a guardian ad litem—usually a CAFCASS officer—the guardian will instruct the solicitor. If the child is mature enough to instruct a solicitor directly, the court may allow her to do so. In those circumstances the court would consider very carefully whether it would be in the child's interests to listen to the evidence given by his or her parent in the case and give his or her own evidence. One should not under-estimate the potential for difficulty where a child becomes a full party in proceedings and takes up arms in terms of legal representation in relation to these issues.
    As many Members of the Committee will know, the Government are currently undertaking a scoping exercise about undertaking wider consultation on how children are represented in private law Children Act proceedings. My noble friend Lady Thornton asks how much more consultation we need. The most important thing is not simply that we allow children to be represented or participate in proceedings because they can already do that through the rules I have just set out. It is how we make that effective. How do we make sure that the child's voice is heard?
    The consultation process we are going through will be with those agencies which are intimately connected with children and more broadly to try to find the best conduit for that child's voice, so that the effect of what the child says will be heard in a more meaningful and effective way. We have to try to find the right mechanism to do that. We therefore believe that consultation is an important step to take. Our current plans anticipate a full consultation commencing later this year.
    This amendment is in similar terms to provision in Section 64 of the Family Law Act 1996. As Members of the Committee are aware, on 16th January 2001 the Lord Chancellor announced in a Written Answer that the Government were not satisfied that it would be right to proceed with the implementation of Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, within which Section 64 falls. The Government will invite Parliament to repeal

    CWH 329
    the relevant sections of the Act once a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. At that time, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that it would not be possible to cherry pick particular provisions of the Act and implement them separately, as the provisions of Part II were all procedurally linked.
    Having considered this matter very carefully, we do not believe that we need to replicate Section 64 of the Act in the Bill. There is already a wide rule-making power in Section 93 of the Children Act 1989 which allows the Lord Chancellor to make rules on a variety of matters which would include the representation of children.
    In addition, the rule-making powers under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 and other related statutes will also remain in place, so that rules on this issue will continue to be able to be made for divorce or children proceedings.
    This amendment, which I hope your Lordships will accept, is therefore not required in order for secondary legislation to set out where children should be separately represented in private law proceedings. We have that power now and the rules provide for this to occur.
    Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, can I try to clarify one thing that she said about the case of In Re H & R? Am I right in understanding that she was saying that, because it was a public law case, it therefore does not create a precedent in private law?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, I was not saying that. I was saying that the case of In Re H & R was in relation to a sexual abuse allegation made in a public law case where the judge at first instance had not clearly set out that he understood which burden of proof should be applied. That issue was thereafter clarified.
    I am saying that in considering whether there should or should not be contact—which was the issue on which the noble Earl concentrated in his remarks, and is something with which the courts are familiar—the whole issue of what is in the child's paramount and best interests is something that the courts have been able to take into account. Therefore, where there is implacable hostility towards the parent, the court can be seized of that fact and take appropriate action in order to protect the child. That is within judicial discretion.
    I was simply reminding noble Lords that In Re H & R referred to specific, public law circumstances where the balance of the burden of proof was under consideration.
    Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness. I might then possibly speculate—but I can do no more than speculate—that future such cases might not necessarily lead to the same decision. However, this is dangerous ground and I shall not venture any further on it.
    I appreciate very much indeed the whole tone of the Minister's reply. In fact, it was about as generous as a reply can be without doing what is asked. I
    CWH 330
    understand, of course, that the power to do what is asked already exists. I know that it is sometimes exercised. There was a case recently among people who are known personally to me where the decision to produce an independent advocate for the child saved what was threatening to turn into a very nasty situation and produced an entirely satisfactory resolution.
    However, the fact that it can be done does not prove that it always is done. What I should like to see is the idea that the child has a potentially separate interest is so much part of the air we breathe that it is automatically part of the representation that is before the court. Otherwise, I do not see how we can know in advance of a long, private conversation with the child, such as we are not likely to be vouchsafed, whether in fact this is one of the cases in which art independent advocate is needed or not. It is only when we have the independent advocate that he or she may find out whether they are or are not needed.
    I understand, of course, that the courts in divorce and subsequent proceedings allow the child to state a preference. I have actually been here myself, and looking back on it, I believe that I got it absolutely and entirely wrong. I stated my preference. I stated it, if I may say so, somewhat in the manner of a gramophone record, believing that I did so in all total sincerity. So far as I was capable of knowing at that time, that was the case. If anything could have opened my mind, it would have been the chance to listen over a fairly prolonged period to the sound of my own voice, making my own case, to somebody listening to me with no axe to grind whatsoever. That can be a very salutary experience, as many of us have found in the course of debate in your Lordship's House.
    I would have valued the chance to have that experience. I would like people who come after me and are in this situation to have that experience.
    So, I still think that the amendment would do something that is not being done at present. However, I do not think that this is a matter where Divisions are likely to be particularly useful. This is a culture change we are going through. What I deduced from the Minister's reply was that we are at present halfway across the channel. I look forward, therefore, to going a little further. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 110 agreed to.
    7.00 p.m.
    Baroness Thorntonmoved Amendment No. 107ZA:
    After Clause 110, insert the following new clause—
    "ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT MADE IN SECTION 8 PROCEEDINGS
    After section 8 of the 1989 Act there is inserted—
    "8A ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT MADE IN SECTION 8 PROCEEDINGS

    (1) Where it is alleged that a party to the proceedings has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the court shall, as soon as practicable, determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf' of the parties to the proceedings, whether the allegation of ill-treatment is proved.

    CWH 331

    (2) Where the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings (in this section referred to as the "abusive party") has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the court shall not—

    (a) make any order granting the abusive party residence of the child; or

    (b) make any order granting the abusive party contact (other than supervised contact) with that child,

    unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of, or contact with, the child.

    (3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where in any section 8 proceedings—

    (a) the court is unable to determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings whether or not an allegation of ill-treatment is proved; but

    (b) the court is satisfied that there is a risk of harm to the child,

    the court may make any order under this Act that it considers necessary to protect the child.""

    The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to explore what I appreciate would be a truly significant change in British law. I should like now to explore the possibility of making such a change, and at a later stage we may be able to consider the possibility of what might be achieved by such a change.
    When I was briefed about this amendment and had a discussion about it with an honourable friend in another place, she said that they did not get a chance to discuss it thoroughly because it came in at the tail end of their discussion in Committee. I assured her that that was not likely to happen in your Lordships' House and that there would be a full discussion in Committee.
    This amendment seeks to address the issue of ensuring that contact and residence arrangements are safe for children. In another place, the Government tabled amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill which will amend the Children Act to include witnessing domestic violence under the definition of harm and to require that the courts decide whether allegations of violence are proved before granting contact. I think that everyone will warmly welcome that move.
    However, the Government did not go so far as to require the courts to ensure that contact or residence orders are safe for children. Many of us feel that this is essential. In recent years, children have been killed in England and Wales as a result of contact arrangements. I need not go into detail about those cases now because many noble Lords mentioned them on Second Reading. However, since then, I have received evidence and reports of further cases to which I shall refer in these remarks.
    In these circumstances, we could perhaps learn from the experience of New Zealand. As noble Lords may recall, in 1994, New Zealand was shocked by the murder of Christine Bristol's three children by their violent father. What was particularly shocking in the case was that Alan Bristol, the father, had been granted residence of the children even though his wife had obtained a protection order against him. A ministerial inquiry was set up, and within five months
    CWH 332
    it concluded that this tragedy could not have been prevented under their family law as it was then. The New Zealand Guardianship Act 1968 was subsequently amended to provide greater protection for children.
    The key feature of this legislation is a rebuttable presumption. It is the presumption that residence and unsupervised contact will not be granted to a parent who is found to be violent. Clearly, the courts cannot be held accountable for the safety of a child in all circumstances, and the rebuttable assumption is not an absolute presumption. Orders for residence and unsupervised contact may be granted if the court is satisfied that this will be safe for the child. This lies at the heart of the amendment that I am proposing today.
    It is essential that our family law justice system does not place children in danger. When I have been describing to friends and acquaintances why I am exercised by this issue, they find it absolutely amazing that children are not offered the same protection in private law proceedings as they are in public law proceedings—that children can be placed in these kinds of danger. It is an issue that requires a remedy. That is one remedy; it may not be the right one, but there is no doubt in my mind that this issue requires a remedy.
    In conclusion, I shall refer to some of the cases that have been brought to my attention by Women's Aid. The organisation has written to me about seven new cases that have come to its attention. These are in addition to the 15 deaths that the Lord Chancellor's Department is at present examining. The letter from Women's Aid mentions four cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, which is notoriously difficult to prove legally. One mother could not provide the "higher standard of proof" required by the judgment In Re H & R (Child Sexual Abuse) [1995], which has already been referred to in this Committee.
    In three of these cases residence was granted to the father against the professional advice provided by child psychiatrists, child psychologists, and a doctor. In the fourth case, social services confirmed that a friend of the father was a known paedophile, and the senior social worker stated that he had no doubt that the mother was telling the truth when she alleged child sexual abuse. Another mother has refused to comply with a residence order, has terminated all contact with outside agencies, and has gone into hiding with her four children—frankly, that is what I would do in that situation.
    In three cases there was evidence of violence to the mother in terms of police records and non-molestation orders. In one case, the court applied the good practice guidelines, concluded that the father was sexually deviant, and had been very violent to the mother and granted him residence. Another father was granted residence despite acknowledging that he had been violent to the mother while she was holding the child. I could go on.
    There is a serious problem here and it is twofold. First, we have the culture that has—quite rightly—been encouraged by my Government; namely, that

    CWH 333
    parents should take responsibility jointly for their children, that fathers in particular should take responsibility for their child, and that contact is, by and large, a good thing. The problem is that this is leading our courts not to take the child's safety into consideration. It is a cultural issue about which the law is not necessarily required to do anything. However, it does require action by the Lord Chancellor's Department—a matter that I know those concerned are addressing. Secondly, this is such a serious issue that the Government need to address it by way of legal remedy. I beg to move.
    Earl Russell: I rise to support this amendment. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who was to have moved Amendment No. 107ZB, I shall speak also to that amendment.
    The real trouble with domestic violence is that people do not like the idea of it. They do not like thinking about it and, because they do not like thinking about it, they like to pretend that it does not happen. Alternatively, like Dickens, they like to think that it happens only among those mean persons in the lower classes from whom proper manners cannot be expected. That, of course, is very far from the case. It is by no means class-specific. However, because people do not like thinking about it, it is not part of the culture in a great many circles to take the care about it that would he taken about any other danger of equal severity.
    As recently as this morning, we read in newspaper reports of a case—about which it is far too early for us yet to know the rights and wrongs—regarding four children and their father who were found dead in a car, with a suicide note being left by the father. A case like this reminds us of one of the possibilities that must be considered; namely, that the father has in fact killed his own children. I will say no more. I hope that that is not in any way a prejudicial comment.
    Neglect and abuse are not entirely gender-specific, although obviously it is much easier for someone of superior force to do it. There is also a case that was reported in Community Care, since this amendment was tabled. This was a finding of the Ombudsman against Birmingham City Council. The father complained about his children being put temporarily into the care of his former partner. The report states that,
    "The ombudsman found that all three children experienced significant neglect and some of the ill-treatment could have been avoided if the children were removed sooner.
    The concerns expressed by the man and his children's school were 'largely ignored', no proper investigation was carried out and no social worker was assigned to the family, the ombudsman concluded".
    The ombudsman said that the attitude of staff towards the father who was complaining was "inexcusable" and ordered the council to pay £2,000 to the father and an undisclosed sum of damages to the children to be held in trust until they are 18. Birmingham City Council has better things than that to do with its money. That is from Community Care of 13–19 June 2002.
    CWH 334
    We need a greater and wider degree of awareness than we have at present. Women's Aid, after the new guidance from the Lord Chancellor's office, and after the publication of the consultation paper entitled Making Contact Work, conducted a survey among 127 refuges. In passing, let me say that I hope that one of the things that is happening out of the Chancellor's largesse this afternoon is the provision of a number of women's refuges rather closer to the already inadequate number asked for by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1975. That is something on which progress is needed.
    The survey asked whether court practice had generally improved since the consultation. Of 127 refuges, only 11 thought it had, 66 thought it had stayed the same, 11 thought it had become worse and 39 said they did not know. They were asked whether children who did not want contact with a violent parent were being listened to and taken seriously, and two in 127 said yes, 39 said sometimes, 40 said that the children were not being listened to in these circumstances, and 45 per cent said they did not know.
    The survey gets worse as it goes on. It is from an organisation with which I have done business many times, and I have learned that it is trustworthy. It found numerous cases of the children being pumped for information about the whereabouts of the mother. This is something that anyone who is used to this business comes to expect, whereas those who like to keep it under the carpet are taken by surprise every time.
    I do not know the number of cases there have been in the past 10 years of women murdered when they are traced by violent former husbands through contact, but I believe that it is quite a large number. There was one I remember a few years back that was quite widely publicised, which took place in the forecourt of New Street station in Birmingham. Publicity is no deterrent once a man gets desperate enough.
    Sixty of the 127 refuges said that they knew of cases in their area where a violent man had been able to use court proceedings to track down his former partner. I speak of cases since 19th June 2000. It is a fairly large number of cases. One case was reported in which a man followed his former partner home after a con tact visit, broke into her house and stabbed her. Fortunately she survived, but I gather that this was only just.
    I know that the Lord Chancellor's Department is familiar with the case of Georgina McCarthy, about which my honourable friend Mr George did a great deal of work. That is one where the tracing was done through letters from medical professionals who, if they are not thinking about the issue and not culturally awake to it, do not always take the sort of precaution that they would normally take if they knew what they were dealing with.
    Thirty refuge projects said they knew of cases of women who had been ordered to hand over their children for contact visits even though the woman had previously been warned by social services that the

    CWH 335
    children could be taken into care if she did not separate from the man concerned. That sounds like a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
    Eight refuges said they knew of women who had been ordered to hand over their children for contact visits although the father or stepfather was a Schedule 1 offender, convicted of cruelty to that particular child. Here again, the left hand does not seem to know what the right is doing.
    Forty-five knew of cases where an abused woman had been threatened with sanctions to force her to comply with a contact order. It really is no use threatening the woman, even if it were morally justifiable, because there are plenty of cases, some of them known to me, where however many times you threaten the mother, even if you imprisoned her, the child would not go. In fact, if you imprisoned the mother, all the more the child would not go; the child would probably never go.
    Punishing people for other people's actions is in all cases judicially wrong; this is something that must stop. Forty-nine abused women were threatened that residence would be granted to their ex-partners and 36 were threatened with imprisonment. Between 45 refuge projects, they were aware of 128 abused women and 259 children who had been forced to comply with a contact order since 19th June 2000. That surely establishes that the scale of the problem is considerable. It also establishes that not all authorities that deal with it are awake to it and, further, that it is a real danger to the safety of those involved.
    What the precaution against it needs to be is not something on which I would wish to be dogmatic. There must, however, be a culture in which it is recognised that you do not hand people over into danger without, at the very least, their own consent. That is something that could be taken on board.
    This does not mean that every man who has been violent is necessarily always a danger. There are such things as cure and treatment, though they are not common. I am, however, saying that where there is a known danger, that danger must be weighed up and assessed, very much in the way demanded by Amendment No. 107ZB, before the child and the mother are left to the tender mercies of somebody they have no reason to trust. I hope that something is going to be done about this because it has gone on long enough.
    7.15 p.m.
    Baroness Noakes: I rise to support these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in particular made a powerful case for Amendment No. 107ZA. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will doubtless tell us about the court procedures that exist or may be amended following consultation. I was grateful for her letter of 25th June which set out much of this in very helpful detail.
    However, I am far from convinced that leaving the law unamended and resting merely on guidelines is an adequate solution. We know that guidelines are not
    CWH 336
    always enough to protect children, which is why, for example, the Government have introduced the welfare principle into the Education Bill, where there is to be a duty on schools to report abuse. That is because the Government knew that guidelines would not be enough.
    I am particularly concerned to see that subsection (3) of Amendment No. 107ZA is enacted. We know that, especially where very young children are involved, it is difficult to prove ill treatment or abuse. We also know that domestic violence predominantly affects women with very young children. I am not going to enter the debate on the precise effects of In Re H & R, which has already been discussed. It is my understanding that that has raised the evidential burden too high and we have to take this legislative opportunity to put the child's welfare at the forefront of proceedings. I hope the Government will look favourably on these amendments.
    The Earl of Listowel: I support Amendments Nos. 107ZA and 107ZB. Listening to the noble Earl, I am reminded of something TS Elliott said: that man cannot bear too much reality. Sometimes some things are too hard to think about and reading about the performance of the judiciary in this area, I have concerns that sometimes the reality has not been properly acknowledged and has not been addressed. Having said that, I feel very reassured that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is managing this area. I know how well respected she is with her experience in child protection, which I find helpful, and I was grateful for her earlier full reply.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the circumstances in which some women are threatened with prison sentences for not allowing contact to their children. Surely in those circumstances, can there be any reason why there should not be a full report by a guardian and representation for the children in at least those particular cases? We would then know what was in the best interests of the child, whatever the mother or the father wished.
    I wonder whether the noble Baroness might furnish us with a date for the publication of the report into the inquiry on the 15 deaths through contact, perhaps not now but some time in the course of our proceedings.
    I am sure that it would be very helpful in our deliberations at the next stage of the Bill to have access to that report.
    Baroness Thornton: If my noble friend the Minister replies to both of these amendments, perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 107ZB, which is a partner amendment to the one I proposed. It is based on the definition of domestic violence contained within the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act 1885. In its report to the Lord Chancellor on the question of parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence, the Children Act sub-committee commented that in its view Section 3 of the New Zealand Domestic Violence Act provides a very useful, comprehensive, gender-neutral definition, which I would urge upon the Government.

    CWH 337
    This amendment suggests that court professionals who do not always understand the nature of domestic violence—as many Members of the Committee have already commented—are likely to make decisions which put abused women and children in danger.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have obviously listened very carefully to what all Members of the Committee have said in relation to this issue. We take on board very clearly the need to recognise the interests of children in this regard and to put their safety as paramount. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made reference to my own experience. In the 22 years that I operated in this field, from 1977 to 1999, we had extensive opportunity to discuss these matters with the judiciary, both at the Bar and otherwise. These issues have been trammelled for many years, and the importance of keeping a balance between the need to preserve contact while ensuring that the provisions one is making for the children are safe, has exercised judicial minds throughout this whole period.
    The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke of a change in culture in relation to domestic violence. It is right that in the 1960s and 1970s, there was, perhaps, a reluctance to acknowledge the part that domestic violence played, and also a tendency to see it occurring only in certain strata of society.
    We know that abuse, whether it is verbal, physical or sexual, occurs in all parts of society and is no respecter of persons, race, culture, income, or anything else. I could not let the Committee go away with the feeling that we have not moved forward. We have moved forward considerably in this area in trying to take the steps which are necessary to keep children safe.
    Therefore, it is no longer the case that domestic violence is an issue that we like to think about. Certainly, the professionals and courts dealing with it, regrettably, have to think of these issues all too often and they are taken seriously. Members of the Committee will know that provision is now being made that all judicial officers who undertake work in this area must have specific training in relation to child care issues before they are allowed to have a "family law ticket" which enables them to hear cases of this sort.
    It is concerning to hear the comments made by my noble friend Lady Thornton, and noble Earls in relation to some of these cases. I would like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that, at present we are consulting with those in relation to the specific cases. There is no date as far as I am aware in relation to the outcome. The Government have been made aware that a number of organisations have stated that they have details of cases in which it appears that contact has been ordered and where there has been a history of violence and a child has subsequently been harmed or even killed. We are working with these agencies to identify the cases concerned, to investigate whether or not these allegations are substantiated and, if so, what we can learn from the future. I cannot give the noble
    CWH 338
    Earl a timescale in relation to that, but if and when I am able to I will certainly communicate with him about that issue.
    A point was raised by several Members of the Committee and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the enforcement of contact and what we do with it. Enforcement of contact is a very sensitive area. CASC (the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Advisory Board on the Family Law) is chaired by Mr Justice Ward, who is a member of the Family Division and has a specific expertise in this area. The report Making Contact Work, published on 8th February 2002, contains a large number of detailed recommendations, and the Government need to consider and will consider those very carefully.
    The most important thing for us to do is to get this right. There are no quick fixes in this area. If we have learnt one thing by looking at the past 50 years, we know that. We must put children first, as Members of the Committee have said, and we must ensure that contact is safe. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the report and will publish a response in due course.
    The New Zealand model has been much vaunted in this debate. Not surprisingly, the New Zealand situation is slightly different from our own; namely, the New Zealand model has a general presumption in favour of contact. New Zealand has therefore legislated to provide a rebuttal of that presumption; that the courts shall not make an order for contact or residence in favour of a violent parent, unless it is satisfied that the child will be safe.
    We have no such presumption in favour. All we have, which we would suggest to noble Lords is a better way forward, is that the welfare of the child is to be the final determinant of what we do or do not do. Members of the Committee will know that we have to make those judgments on a case-by-case basis. What is good for child A may not be good for child B, and the court has to fashion and craft a solution which best fits the needs of that child in that family at that time. 'That is difficult to legislate in a confined way. We believe that the welfare of the child is the best test as opposed to having a presumption for or a presumption against. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the child is not a chattel. One does not receive the child as a gift; one is not refused contact as a punishment—the child has its own right to have contact if that inures to the child's benefit.
    Amendments Nos. 107ZA and 107ZB deal with the extremely important issue of protecting children from harm in the context of private law Children Act proceedings. As many Members of the Committee will know, private law proceedings under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 are between individuals, often following separation or divorce, and include settling the arrangements for where a child lives or with whom a child has contact.
    This is an area in which the Government have already shown that we have listened to stakeholders and Members in another place in order to improve protection for children. I thank my noble friend Lady

    CWH 339
    Thornton for the complimentary remarks that she made about that. During the passage of this Bill in the other place the Government tabled two amendments which were accepted on Report. The first, included as Clause 116 of your Lordships' version of the Bill, amends the Children Act to clarify the definition of harm in the Act to make clear that harm includes any harm a child may suffer or is at risk of suffering as a result of witnessing the ill-treatment of another person.
    I can reassure Members of the Committee that the current definition of harm in the Children Act already includes direct harm, violence to or abuse of a child. This amended definition of harm builds on that to put beyond doubt the fact that it also includes harm sustained by indirect means, by witnessing either domestic violence or violence which may not be domestic but which may nevertheless have affected the child, for example because he or she has seen a parent continually involved in brawls or intimidating neighbours or others.
    The Government's second amendment to Clause 1(4)(e) applied the same definition of harm to proceedings under the Adoption and Children Bill. At present a court, when deciding whether or not to grant contact between a parent and child, is under a duty to have regard to the welfare checklist in the Children Act. This includes whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm.
    During the Special Standing Committee in the other place, a number of children's charities and organisations representing the victims of violence expressed concern that not enough account was being taken of the impact on children of domestic violence. Clause 116 therefore makes absolutely clear that when a court is deciding whether or not to grant contact between a parent and a child, the court will be obliged to decide whether domestic violence has taken place and, if so, its present and possible future impact on the child.
    Amendment No. 107ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Thornton, would impose a requirement on the court to determine whether an allegation of ill-treatment on the child or on another person is proved as soon as practicable. Such a requirement already exists in Section 1(2) of the Children Act and is also addressed by the guidelines on parental contact with children where there is domestic violence produced by the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law. The guidelines provide direction to courts and CAFCASS officers on the key considerations when dealing with contact cases in which allegations of domestic violence have been made. The guidelines are for courts and CAFCASS and all those involved in contact cases where domestic violence is an issue.
    Guideline 1.5 stresses the importance of the court making a finding of fact as to whether domestic violence has occurred and, if so, the impact on the child. The court will then need to consider whether any contact ordered must be subject to conditions, for example, that it should be supervised.
    CWH 340
    The guidelines have been partially incorporated into case law through the court of Court of Appeal case of In Re L and others, in June 2000. The guidelines have been distributed and are being incorporated into judicial training and evaluated through monitoring and research.
    In endorsing the guidelines on 6th March, the Government undertook to carry out regular surveys to gauge their usage and effectiveness. The first survey on the use and effectiveness of guidelines was carried out last November. An analysis was laid in Parliament on 13th March 2002. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, looked at that research.
    That was a very important opportunity for us as it gave some very useful information. It indicated that use and awareness of the guidelines was patchy, which was an important thing for us to know. We are working with all those in the family justice system to ensure that the guidelines are brought to as wide an audience as possible—for example, through exercises such as the launch, on 7th March 2002, of the Law Society's family law protocol, and as part of the Government's work to tighten up the court rules in this area—and to ensure consistency of practice both in terms of findings of fact and of conditions to ensure safety.
    The Government are seeking to address many of the criticisms that the noble Earl, Lord Russell raised. For example, in partnership with the President of the Family Division, and with other stakeholder groups such as the WAFE and the NSPCC, we are reviewing 1.3 of the guidelines, which deals with the findings of fact. We are also working in partnership with the voluntary sector to develop a national network for child contact centres.
    Moreover, a second survey on the guidelines is currently under way. I can tell the Committee that we are already getting much more positive messages in the second survey than we did in the first. So the guidelines seem to be seeping their way through the system. As I have outlined, the main findings of the survey are that, where the guidelines are being used, they are judged as being effective. However, distribution of the guidelines has not been as thorough as the Government would like.
    The judiciary and the legal profession, and organisations representing children and victims of violence, are currently been consulted on amendments to the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 which would strengthen the court rules to give additional force to the guidelines. This would give greater flexibility to add to, or amend, the obligation on the court. Subsection (2) of this amendment labels the person who has inflicted ill treatment on a child, or another person, as an abusive party, and then seeks to preclude the court from making an order for residence, or unsupervised contact, in favour of an abusive party unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe.
    The Children Act is already underpinned by the fundamental principle that the welfare of the child is paramount, and presumptions which gloss or interfere with this will simply create confusion. There is no

    CWH 341
    presumption in primary legislation in favour or against contact, and the welfare principle guides the courts in the individual case. I see no reason to undermine or amend this fundamental principle.
    The amendment also specifies that the court shall not make an order for residence or contact in favour of a n abusive party unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. This is the obligation already imposed by the Children Act. Section 1(3) of the Act requires the court to consider not only the harm a child has suffered, but the harm that he is at risk of suffering before it makes an order for contact or residence. The court has the power under Section 11(3) of the Children Act to attach conditions to orders, such as that the contact should be supervised. In addition, it would make orders for the protection of a child or a parent even if no application had been made, such as the non-molestation order.
    Subsection (3) of the amendment states that where in Section 8 of the Children Act proceedings a court is unable to determine whether an allegation is proved, but the court is satisfied that there was a risk of harm, the court is permitted to make an order under the Children Act 1989 when that is considered necessary to protect the child. Again, this provision is unnecessary as Section 1 of the Children Act already mandates the courts to consider the range of powers available to them under the Act.
    I turn to Amendment No. 107ZB, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This amendment would require a court to have regard to a checklist whenever it is determining whether a child would be safe if contact or residence is granted. As I said earlier, when deciding whether to grant contact between a parent and a child, or to make a residence order, the court is already under a duty to have regard to the welfare checklist in the Children Act, which includes whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm. The Children Act makes the welfare of the child the court's paramount concern.
    This amendment seeks to set out criteria which the court is required to consider whenever allegations of ill treatment are made in an application for a contact or residence order. While I understand the principle of what is proposed, the fact is that the Children Act 1989 already provides the court with the statutory powers it needs to protect children at risk.
    The Government understand all these concerns. As I am conscious of the time, I should like to state a shortened version of our position. We understand the concerns of noble Lords and what they are trying to achieve. The short answer is that all those concerns are already covered in current legislation and in the guidance provided by the rules. What the Committee is really exercised about is not so much the law—the Sections—hut how it is practised, how it is exercised and the exercise of judicial discretion. To speak boldly, if we amended the law exactly as the Committee would like—reiterating what is already there in statute—one would have to ask: how would that change in practice what is happening on the ground?
    CWH 342
    Bearing in mind that we already have the necessary provisions on the statute book, what is important is to improve the practice. Thus, the steps that we have taken are to ensure that every judge, every magistrate and every person who will have to exercise this discretion will have the appropriate training to enable him to discharge his duty responsibly, so that there is joined-up working between the agencies to create an appropriate safety net for the children. Those are what are going to make the real difference.
    I do not decry for a moment the impulse that causes noble Lords to seek to make these amendments. However, if we studied them line by line, which I would be very happy to do, we would find that almost everything that noble Lords seek is already enshrined in legislation.
    I can certainly empathise with the concerns expressed. We shall look into the important issues raised by noble Lords. We shall look as creatively as we can at how better to enhance practice. However, if everyone was doing that which the statute currently exhorts, then many of the concerns that we have today expressed would not have had to be expressed as they would already be covered.
    I can certainly reassure the Committee, therefore, that both the Department of Health and the Lord Chancellor's Department take these matters extremely seriously. We shall take every opportunity to ensure that the safety of children is not only preserved but greatly enhanced.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Earl of Listowel: On a point of clarification, as I understand it, one of the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is unwilling to accept the proposed amendments is that she wants to look at the welfare needs of the child in each case and respond appropriately to those welfare needs. If I have understood the noble Baroness correctly, she does not wish to believe that this mechanism is too awkward to achieve that aim. I shall give her an opportunity to correct me in a moment.
    There is a great deal of concern about the specific instance in which a mother is in threat of being put in prison for not allowing contact with her child. I should be grateful to the Minister if she could give some further guidance in that area as to what she would expect the courts to do in that situation. In such circumstances, would the noble Baroness expect a guardian to be appointed and a solicitor to be called in for the child so that the interests of the child were made very clear? I suppose it is a question of the good practice about which the noble Baroness was speaking earlier. However, it would be most helpful if she could offer some further information at this point.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was hoping to make clear, first, that the guiding principle for our court is what is in the best interests of the child; in other words, the welfare of the child. That will take into account a multiplicity of issues—for example, the harm that might be caused to a child, the risk of harm, the child's views, and the conditions in which the child may be

    CWH 343
    looked after either by the mother or the father. These are all issues that the court has to balance as regards what is in the overall best interests of the child. It has to consider whether contact will be possible, and whether it can be undertaken safely.
    What I am saying is that one cannot have a presumption in favour of one or a presumption in favour of the other, because these are matters which the court will have to weigh on a case-by-case basis. There is already opportunity, if the court deems it appropriate, to have a CAFCASS officer report. The CAFCASS officer, in exercising his or her duty, will not only have to take into account what the child has to say but will also have to consider whether this is an appropriate case for the child to be separately represented, bearing in mind the child's age, maturity, and the other circumstances. So all of those issues will be balanced.
    That imposes a duty on the CAFCASS officer. All the issues in relation to the importance of domestic violence, as well as those that have been raised in Committee about the possible consequences for the child, are issues that the CAFCASS officer should take into account before and during making the report. Therefore, when the report is presented to the court, it will outline the circumstances that the CAFCASS officer found to be proven—the circumstances regarding the mother's home and the father's home, what the child said when interviewed, what his or her feelings and views were—and an expression as to whether the child should or should not be separately represented.
    On reading a CAFCASS officer's report, it is always possible for the court to say, of its own volition, "We think that this is a case that would merit some form of other intervention"—that is to say, one that would merit legal representation, or separate representation, for the child. This is an interactive process. The court is not just simply a repository for the information that the CAFCASS officer gives. If something in that report needs further interrogation, the court has an opportunity to ask for that further interrogation to take place, and/or to ask for the child to be separately represented as the need arises.
    It has to be the appropriate case, because many private law cases do not involve abuse of the children; they do not involve issues of this sort. Regrettably, however, a small percentage do and those cases cause acute difficulty and much anguish. On behalf of the members of the judiciary who do this work, I should point out that they take this very seriously. Members of the Committee should be left in no doubt about the distress that is occasioned when mistakes are made. For all those occasions when fathers or mothers behave in a wholly inappropriate and sometimes heinous way, one has to balance it against the thousands of cases that the same judge may have heard
    CWH 344
    and made judicial decisions upon which have not had such an unhappy outcome. It is a difficult balance and it is a tragedy when that balance goes wrong.
    Baroness Thornton: At the outset I thank the Minister for the enormously thoughtful and detailed way she has responded to this amendment. I am very grateful indeed for everything she said and the detail in which she has chosen to approach the different issues that have been raised during the debate. Indeed, the debate, although taken at the tail end of the Committee, has done credit to the issue about which we feel so strongly.
    I want to make only one or two brief comments. I have written down a few issues which cause me concern and we shall probably need to pursue them at a later stage. One is about the balance referred to by my noble friend. We do not believe that the balance is right, and that is why these amendments have been tabled and why we want to have this discussion with the Government. We believe the balance is not right because case law is not helping to resolve these issues in the courts. Furthermore, as the Minister explained, the guidelines are not being followed in a thorough and a proper fashion throughout.
    The second issue relates to guidelines. At present, those of us who are concerned about this very important issue believe that the guidelines are not sufficient in themselves because they are guidelines. That is the other issue we may well need to follow up.
    My final point relates to a word used by the Minister; she spoke of the guidelines "seeping" through the system. That is not an adequate or satisfactory expression for what is such an important issue, because children's lives are at risk here and. indeed, may have been lost.
    The Minister placed great emphasis on the guidelines and I have looked at them and at their monitoring. However, they are not doing their job. It is not because they are inadequate—they are very good but could probably be improved—but because they are not being implemented. That is the problem and that is the crux of what we will need to return to, but I am grateful to everyone who took part in the debate, not least the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 107ZB not moved.]
    Clause 111 agreed to.
    Baroness Andrews: This would seem an appropriate moment to move the adjournment of the Committee until 4 p.m. on Thursday.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday at four o'clock.
    The Committee adjourned at eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  Act of Settlement 1701
  Act of Settlement 1701
  Devolved Assemblies: Funding Arrangements
  Devolved Assemblies: Funding Arrangements
  G8 Summit: Terrorism
  G8 Summit: Terrorism
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  TSE Regulations: Value of Animals Slaughtered
  TSE Regulations: Value of Animals Slaughtered
  National Park Authorities Review
  National Park Authorities Review
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Reorganisation: Redundancy Costs
  Reorganisation: Redundancy Costs
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Trinity College, Dublin: UK Copyright Library
  Trinity College, Dublin: UK Copyright Library
  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  NEPAD: Zimbabwe
  NEPAD: Zimbabwe
  Operation Lancet
  Operation Lancet