Sitting of 17 June 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

    Military Police (Aldermaston)
    Mr. David Rendel: If he will make a statement on levels of overtime working by military police officers at AWE Aldermaston in the last 12 months. [58670]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): There are no military police officers stationed at AWE Aldermaston. However, Ministry of Defence police are stationed there, and during the calendar month of May 2002, 9,837 overtime hours were worked.
    Mr. Rendel: I hope that the Minister agrees that an excessive amount of overtime seems to have been worked at Aldermaston in recent years. Given what happened on 11 September last year and the extra concerns that people living around Aldermaston have that a similar attack might be launched against the site, I hope that the hon.
    2
    Gentleman will also agree that it is important that we reduce the amount of overtime being worked. If not, some of the people there, who are working almost double time in the most excessive cases, will not be fit to do the job of carrying a gun and guarding such an important site.
    Dr. Moonie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that excessive overtime is undesirable. Overtime hours at AWE Aldermaston have traditionally been higher than the force average because of the underbearing of officers at that establishment. However, I am sure that he will pleased to know that I plan to post 31 recruits into that station, effective from 9 September 2002, joining four who were posted in recently. A further intake of recruits is scheduled for September 2002 and a number of those probationers are expected to be posted to AWE Aldermaston.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Has the Minister been able to make any assessment of the likely costs of overtime at the establishment if stories in The Observer yesterday are correct that a nuclear weapons factory is to be established at Aldermaston in the near future? If that is so, will there be a statement and debate in the House before such an important decision is taken?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to say that the statements were incorrect. Work is going on at Aldermaston, of which we have made no secret, to maintain the reliability of our nuclear deterrent, as we are faced with the fact that we no longer test these weapons. Anything else in the story was, I am afraid, entirely fanciful.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Given the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) about security at Aldermaston, can the Minister confirm that the reports raised in The Observer yesterday were not new but simply a rehash of what was already known? Given that the Government's current policy on the security of bases is to parcel out security away from the military police such as those who guard Aldermaston either to the military provost guard service

    3
    or private security companies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that policy is now untenable? Is it not the case that the British people might begin to question the commitment of troops overseas in the war against terrorism if we cannot guarantee security at our own nuclear installations?
    Dr. Moonie: It is interesting that a party that gave us precious little help when we were trying to extend the powers of the Ministry of Defence police should now attempt to criticise us—on entirely spurious grounds, I may add—for the way in which they work. We need no lessons from the Liberal Democrat party nor, for that matter, from Greenpeace on the level of security that we maintain at our establishments—which, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, are robust.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many Labour Members will be disappointed by his comment regarding Aldermaston and further developments of nuclear weapons? Does he also appreciate that this is hardly the right message to send to Pakistan and India at the moment?
    Dr. Moonie: I point out again that there is no new development of nuclear weapons going on at Aldermaston. We are ensuring that our nuclear deterrent is reliable and capable of being deployed. That involves a great deal of careful work to ensure that there is no chance of having to go back to testing the weapons physically. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would agree with us on that point.

    Nepal
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What discussions he had with the Prime Minister of Nepal on his recent visit to the UK on the question of military help to Nepal; and if he will make a statement. [58671]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Prime Minister Deuba of Nepal called on my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development and myself on 13 May. Mr. Deuba outlined the current situation in Nepal and said that poverty reduction was their overall priority, including health, education, and provision of water. He stated that Nepal needed assistance in three areas: economic development, security and the mobilisation of international support for Nepal. On the security front, it was acknowledged that Nepal needed help in logistics and communications.
    The Nepalese Prime Minister was advised that the United Kingdom will be hosting a conference in London this month, with the aim of bringing together the international community to agree a common strategy of support for Nepal. This will address security concerns as well as the political and developmental challenges facing Nepal.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Nepal is a good ally of the United Kingdom—for many years, the sons of Nepal have been recruited into the Gurkha regiment and are now recognised as the finest fighters in the world. Nepal re-established its democracy in 1990. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that
    4
    during his visit to the UK, Prime Minister Deuba outlined the internal problems that Nepal is having with the Maoist terrorists and requested help in the form of training their forces as well as providing helicopters and other technical equipment? Does my right hon. Friend accept that much more needs to be done if we are to help Nepal defend its villages from terrorists? What more help can we give to ensure that democracy and freedom apply in all the villages in Nepal?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to highlight the good support that we have received from Nepal and our good relationship with that country over many, many years. The Gurkha regiments have served with distinction in every theatre in which they have been involved, from the Falkland Islands to current operations in Bosnia.
    My hon. Friend asks what more can be done: in my answer, I set out the range of efforts that we are making. The intergovernmental and international conference later this month will consider additional ways in which we can give assistance to that troubled country in its efforts to take on the insurgents to whom he referred.
    Patrick Mercer: May I join the Minister in paying tribute to the record of Gurkha soldiers, in particular the Gurkha Rifles, especially in the light of the recent anniversaries of the triumphs in the Falklands? However, when Nepal is in such need of our help, will the Minister tell us why the first Gurkha reinforcement company has been disbanded, why the second one will be disbanded next year and why the third and final Gurkha reinforcement company will be disbanded the year after next?
    Mr. Ingram: I have set out all the areas in which we seek to give assistance to Nepal and, in terms of the strength of the British Army, they are kept constantly under review. I am happy to set out at length for the hon. Gentleman the reasons why those changes have taken place.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: In the Minister's discussions with the Prime Minister of Nepal about possible military assistance to help to defeat the Maoist guerrilla campaign that seeks to destroy democracy in Nepal, did the Government again raise the question of the welfare of ex-British Army Gurkhas in Nepal? For example, did the right hon. Gentleman discuss how Britain might help to end the intimidation and extortion to which some of those loyal former servants of the Crown have been subjected by the Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Association—a Marxist-Leninist organisation which speaks only for a small minority of former British Army soldiers and whose claim against the British Government for discrimination is being advocated by the wife of our Prime Minister?
    Mr. Ingram: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the way in which members of this country's legal profession are allocated work. If he is asking for a change in that, he should be raising the matter with a different Minister—if that is his point of view—although I suspect that some of his hon. Friends may be somewhat reluctant to make a change.

    5
    In respect of the kernel of the hon. Gentleman's argument, that point diminished a good question. There are serious and important issues that we have to address and, yes, in passing, some of them were touched on by the Prime Minister—in relation to the in-country issues in respect of the Gurkhas who served with us with distinction. In my earlier response, I set out the various ways in which we are taking forward those matters and they may, of course, be raised at the intergovernmental international conference later this month.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Chris Grayling: If he will make a statement on the replacement of the Royal Navy's carriers. [58672]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The CVF—carrier vessel (future)—project is progressing well and we remain fully committed to it as part of our extensive programme of new naval shipbuilding. It remains our plan to replace the existing Invincible class carriers with two new, larger and much more capable carriers that will enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively. Risk reduction and design work on CVF is well advanced. Early next year, we expect to be in a position to select a preferred prime contractor from the two consortiums currently competing, and to approve investment for the build programme at the end of 2003.
    Chris Grayling: Does the Minister plan to sell the current HMS Invincible—perhaps to India—to help pay the bill, and if so. when?
    Dr. Moonie: Under current plans, Invincible will remain in service until at least 2010. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no discussions have taken place with anybody about the sale of any of our carriers.
    David Cairns: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the bid by BAE Marine Systems to build the new carriers on the Clyde and, in particular, the envisaged use of Inch Green dry dock in Greenock? He will be aware that that is one of the most advanced dry docks and deep-water births in Europe and that it pioneered the welding together of mass hulls of ships in the early 1970s, with oil tankers. So may I tell him that, at Greenock, we have a readily available work force, the facilities and the experience, and all we need now are the orders?
    Dr. Moonie: My hon. Friend will know that I am well aware of the quality of shipbuilding available on the Clyde, particularly in his constituency. It is however still too early in the programme for us to assess the full impact that CVF will have on shipbuilding jobs; what I can say, of course, is that it remains a tremendous opportunity for shipyards throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. James Gray: The House will be very glad to hear the Minister's reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that he has no plans to sell. HMS Invincible to the Indians, or indeed to anyone else, but I am just a shade puzzled
    6
    by an article in The Sunday Times, dated 2 June. Under the headline "Aircraft carrier on sale to India", it went on to tell us that
    "the aircraft carrier, along with naval Sea Harrier jets to fly from it, is top of Delhi's…shopping list…
    MoD officials have discussed with their Indian counterparts the possibility of selling the ship, which would help to pay for Britain's two new replacement 'super-carriers'."
    That might just be a bit of froth were it not for the fact that it was written by none other than James Clark, the paper's defence correspondent, who, a few weeks previously, had been appointed as the new spin doctor in the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister now care to tell the House whether or not he is correct in saying that he has no plans to sell Invincible, or whether his spin doctor is correct in saying that the Government do?
    Dr. Moonie: I have already set out the Government's position very clearly, and I am not used to having my word questioned in the House. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman, to try to lighten the blow, is that I am often puzzled by some of the stories that appear in The Sunday Times.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister will be aware of the quality of the work force at the Clyde submarine base and the need to ensure the capacity of that base continues. Given that considerable changes have been taking place in the past few months and that the work force need to look forward to stability in the base's capacity, will he tell us how the contract for Astute class submarines will be awarded?
    Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in such issues, but I am unable at present to give him any further enlightenment on the basing of the Astute class submarines.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: What will the replacement carriers be carrying?
    Dr. Moonie: Oddly enough, things that fly. The primary aircraft will be the future joint combat aircraft. The Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter has been identified as the aircraft with the best potential to fill that role. The ships will also carry maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft and helicopters from all three services in a variety of roles.

    Pilot Recruitment
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent progress he has made with recruiting additional pilots. [58673]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram):Armed forces' recruitment of pilots is such that, in financial year 2001–02, the recruiting exceeded demanding targets. We are on course to meet fully the pilot recruitment target for this year.
    Mr. Swayne: Why have the Government reduced the trained requirement for the Royal Air Force from 54,530 to 49,990 since the strategic defence review?
    Mr. Ingram: Of course, manning and training requirements are constantly kept under review. We face a

    7
    number of issues, one of which is, of course, recruitment. I have said in answering the hon. Gentleman's specific question—in which I would have thought he had an interest, but clearly not—recruiting is very high for pilots. We are addressing retention with a wide range of measures, and already the indications are that they will prove successful, but only time will tell just how successful.
    Angus Robertson: Will the Minister consider using additional resources, possibly raised from the commercial use of RAF bases, to help in the retention and training of pilots? Will he perhaps consider instructing RAF Strike Command to widen its ongoing feasibility study into this issue to include RAF Kinloss in my constituency? That would not only offer a possible new revenue stream to help in the retention and training of pilots, but boost desperately needed commercial landing options in the north of Scotland.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are considering the use of such airfields, but the primacy would be in terms of strategic and military usage. It would be wrong to rule out any option that would enable best use of our existing assets, but that must not undermine or work against that which we ask our armed forces to deliver from those bases.

    A340 Air Tanker
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the A340 Air Tanker. [58674]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The future strategic tanker aircraft is planned to replace our current air-to-air refuelling fleet. Two consortiums have submitted bids for this prospective private finance initiative project: AirTanker Ltd., which has proposed the use of Airbus A330 aircraft; and the Tanker Transport Service Company Ltd., which has proposed Boeing 767 aircraft.
    I can also announce to the House that having considered the progress made with both consortiums in contract negotiations, it is clear that more time will be required to complete these complex discussions. As a result, we have decided to delay introduction of the PFI service from 2007 to 2008.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend will understand that these are uncertain times for the aerospace industry. May I therefore express regret on behalf of my constituents who work at Broughton, however understandable the reasons for the delay in going ahead with the project? Will my hon. Friend tell me when he expects to make an announcement on preferred bidder status? Will he assure me that, when he examines the bids, he will consider value for money over the whole PFI period and not just the initial capital costs?
    Dr. Moonie: We are committed to pursuing a PFI solution to the FSTA requirement as long as it provides the required operational capability at best value for money. The project is currently in a competitive assessment phase. This is one of the largest and most innovative PFIs currently being considered by my Department, and it is small wonder, given its complexity,
    8
    that it is taking the companies bidding longer than we first expected to come forward with detailed proposals. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we shall consider those very carefully, and that, whatever solution we arrive at to this requirement, we will ensure that it provides the best answer to our needs.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: May I point out to the Under-Secretary that new aircraft, in the form of the A330 200 series, would offer by far the best option, both industrially and technically, inasmuch as they would be new aeroplanes as opposed to refurbished old Boeing 767s? They are appropriate for the proven drogue system, with a drogue under each wing to refuel two aircraft at a time, and have a bigger fuel uplift, too. From every point of view, therefore, they would be the superior option.
    Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. What we are concerned with, however, is arriving at the best solution overall. The requirement will be intended to fly for something like 27 or 28 years. It is therefore absolutely crucial that we get it right before we embark on what, as I have said, will be one of the most expensive projects in which we have been involved.

    Sierra Leone
    Mike Gapes: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [58675]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The security situation in Sierra Leone since the holding of credible and peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections on 14 May has been encouraging. Our forces have played an important role in restoring stability, through their programme of advice, training and support to the Sierra Leone armed forces and Ministry of Defence. There is much work still to do, however, if we are to achieve our objectives of developing a professional, effective and accountable armed forces and MOD, which are sustainable without substantial external assistance. The UK-led international military advisory and training team will, therefore, continue to help build the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces and MOD over the longer term.
    Mike Gapes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the decisive action that our Government took two years ago to defend and secure democracy in Sierra Leone? May I also congratulate our armed forces on the work that they have been doing there? Will he indicate further how long it will take before we can be absolutely confident that this job is fully completed?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is right to give plaudits to our armed forces. The United Nations force—UNAMSIL—has 17,500 men in the country and it has also played a role.
    We are only a month away from the elections that took place on 14 May and we have to make a proper security assessment. That is currently being done. The best outcome would be for Sierra Leone to become safe enough for us to seek a reduction in the number of our

    9
    forces and then seek their withdrawal. However, as I said, IMATT, which is British led, will continue its work in the longer term. Clearly, it will play a role in the key issues of rebuilding the Sierra Leone army and providing back-up to the MOD in that country.
    Hugh Robertson: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of many of those who have served in Sierra Leone that there can be no long-term settlement to the troubles of that country until all the diamond mines are returned to Government control? Does he agree with that assessment? If so, what are the British Government doing about it?
    Mr. Ingram: That question moves away from the military role that our armed forces and the MOD will play in all that. There are key components in making that country whole again and gaining control of one of the key—perhaps the key—drivers of the economy is paramount. We have to consider the way in which that can be best achieved.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am bound to say that the diamond mines have an impact on the security situation in Sierra Leone. They underline the heavy commitment that we may have to make if the situation in Sierra Leone deteriorates again.
    The Army's commitments remain heavy and yet there is growing speculation that the Secretary of State will shortly announce cuts in the target size of the Army. Will the Government take this opportunity to end the speculation and reaffirm their commitment to a fully trained Army strength of 108,500, as set out in the 1998 strategic defence review, so that we can fulfil commitments such as that in Sierra Leone?
    Mr. Ingram: We fulfil our commitments everywhere our people are asked to be deployed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Conservative party—when he had the role that the hon. Gentleman now undertakes—criticised what we were doing in Macedonia. He said that it was a step too far and that we could not deliver our objectives in 30 days and get out within that time frame. We did that, because of the capabilities and the planning of the military chiefs who deploy our people. We are more than satisfied that we can continue to meet our commitments. Clearly all commitments and the capability in reaching strength have to be kept under review, because we have to seek to meet the targets that we set. That is our objective.
    In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I answered the question about the security element of the diamond areas—not diamond mines—and I said that that was a key component. He clearly did not listen to my answer.
    Mr. Jenkin: I remind the Minister that the original commitment to Sierra Leone was for a few months but, years later, we are still there. He also declined to recommit to the SDR target of 108,500 and, in fact, the figures published at the end of last month show an Army trained strength of only 100,900 and that the Government are working to a reduced target of 107,900. Why have the Government secretly abandoned the 108,500 target set in
    10
    1998 and how will he achieve any target given that Labour has managed to add a net total of merely 30 men to Army manpower over the past four years?
    Mr. Ingram: A number of points are raised within that question. I know that it is not the place of the hon. Gentleman to give answers at the Dispatch Box, but if he is suggesting that we should not have continued to deliver in Sierra Leone because of all the other elements that he brought into play—the implication of his question is that we should withdraw because of manning strengths or if the situation deteriorates—I would like to debate that matter with him. There is no SDR target with the figure that he quoted. He has got that wrong as well.
    Mr. Jenkin: The adjutant-general told the Select Committee on 1 November 2000:
    "The figure we are working to is 108,500".
    The Minister is saying that that figure has been abandoned. How can we maintain operations in places such as Sierra Leone when the Government are quietly abandoning their recruitment and retention targets?
    The 1998 strategic defence review said:
    "Overstretch is trying to do too much with too little manpower…additional pressures from persistent overstretch contribute to higher exit rates from the Armed Forces."
    It promised
    "to improve recruitment and retention so that our units are properly manned",
    boasting:
    "That era of decline is behind us."
    Is it not the truth that the Government have completely failed to deliver Labour's promises on recruitment and retention in the armed forces? Overall manning is being cut; defence equipment programmes are being delayed or cancelled; ships are being scrapped or sold; Tornado and Sea Harrier quadrons are being—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is too long.
    Mr. Ingram: I do not know which question the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."] Well, I shall try to do that, but certainly not at the Dispatch Box now.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Just answer the question on Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asked many questions; I am not sure, however, that there was one on Sierra Leone. He just kept dropping in those two words to demonstrate a relationship with his set question.
    The figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted on the SDR was a notional figure. It is not the figure on which the working assumption has been based. If he reads parliamentary answers to parliamentary questions, he will discover the precise figures. I cannot give them off the top of my head, but I shall write to him with all the information that is on the public record.
    The hon. Gentleman did not say—I never expected him to—what he would do in Sierra Leone. As I understand it, he is saying that there should be a very considerable increase in Tory defence expenditure. He has not given a figure, however, and perhaps he can help us on that.

    NBC Missile Threat
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: What recent assessment he has made of the threat to the UK of a missile strike containing (a) biological, (b) chemical and (c) nuclear warheads. [58678]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We take very seriously the ambitions of certain states to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We recognise that some states of concern may already be capable of targeting United Kingdom forces deployed in areas close to them and of targeting the territory of some of our friends and allies.
    However, we assess that there is currently no significant threat of a ballistic missile strike against the mainland of the United Kingdom delivering biological, chemical or nuclear warheads, but we do continue to monitor developments very closely, particularly as they might affect deployed British forces.
    Mr. Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the long-standing view of successive British Governments, both Conservative and Labour, that we would not use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike? Does he agree that as far as biological and chemical weapons go, the establishment of a proper control and inspection regime should be at the top of the world's agenda and that those countries, such as the United States, that sabotage that kind of regime put not only themselves at risk, but the rest of us as well?
    Mr. Hoon: I can confirm that there has been no change in the essential rules that we follow on the use of nuclear weapons. I have made it clear before how important it is to recognise that they would be used only in what are described as extreme conditions of self-defence. I want to emphasise that it does not help the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons to spell out precisely what those circumstances might be. I can stress, however, that nuclear weapons would be used proportionately and consistently with our obligations in international law.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Given the historic agreement between Russia and NATO, does the Secretary of State support the US decision to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty last December, or does he support the Labour Members who have been criticising it so much?
    Mr. Hoon: As I have consistently said to the House, the ABM treaty is a matter between the parties: the United States and, formerly, the Soviet Union, now its successor state, Russia. In those circumstances, it is not a matter for the British Government to make observations about the appropriateness or otherwise of that treaty having come to an end. However, the fact that there is now an agreement to effect a very substantial reduction in the offensive weapons systems available to both Russia and the US must be cause for congratulation, and it is a great success.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Both the MOD's White Paper and the national intelligence estimate to the US Senate conclude that the missile threat is very remote compared with the threat posed by smuggled
    12
    weapons of mass destruction. Our Chief of the Defence Staff and his predecessor are among the many experts who have expressed doubts about missile defence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise to base British defence policy on military intelligence, on intelligence in a broader sense and on British interests, and not on a desire to appease the obsessions of the US Republican hawks?
    Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend was referring, as I think he was, to the prospect of the United Kingdom becoming involved in missile defence, I am sure that he knows my answer better than I do. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat it: we have not been asked to participate in any such system, and unless and until we are, our position remains that we wait to see what system the US decides on.
    I do not think that my hon. Friend's initial analogy is appropriate. Even if I accepted his argument as being true, it is not appropriate to say that simply because there is a greater threat, we should avoid taking defensive measures against the lesser threat.
    David Burnside: The Secretary of State will agree that the assessment of any threat to the United Kingdom from any source depends heavily on the competence of our intelligence services—MI5, MI6 and our Army special forces. Is he aware that a deliberate black propaganda campaign is being carried out by a number of newspapers and by a television programme, to be shown later this week, to blacken the reputation of special forces who have served in Northern Ireland—the same special forces who served in Afghanistan? What is the Ministry of Defence doing in a proactive, positive way—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too wide.

    Form 680 Procedure
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the F680 procedure. [58679]
    The Parliamentary Under. Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The MOD form 680 procedure allows defence exporters voluntarily to seek preliminary Government advice at the marketing stage on the likely prospects for eventual approval of an export licence. The procedure is also the mechanism by which the MOD authorises the release of United Kingdom classified military information in support of marketing activity.
    Our export controls are greatly strengthened if our exporters market and promote their products responsibly and have the information necessary to do so. The procedure does not exempt industry from the need to apply for an export licence, but it does provide an indication of whether a licence is likely to be issued. It saves industry time, money and potential embarrassment in pursuing export prospects for which a licence is not likely to be issued. Licences are still decided on a case-by-case basis as each application is submitted.
    Norman Lamb: May I ask the Secretary of State about the use of this procedure in relation to the sale of the

    13
    air traffic control system to Tanzania? The preliminary clearance under the procedure was given in August 1997 without any consultation with, or even the knowledge of, the Department for International Development. On the basis of that preliminary clearance, BAE Systems entered a binding contract with the Tanzanian Government; Barclays provided a soft loan; approximately $15 million was paid over and most of the equipment was built, thereby presenting the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with a fait accompli when it came to deciding the export licence application. Is that how the F680 procedure is supposed to operate, and if so, is not there a need for urgent reform? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that preliminary clearance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Dr. Moonie: The assessment took place in July 1997, as the hon. Gentleman said. Sustainable development was not a specific factor to be taken into account when considering F680 applications, although the impact on the economy of the recipient country was. Anything else in his question is a matter between the company that sold the equipment and the Tanzanian Government who bought it, not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. As I said, we do not give clearance: we give guidance.

    Wind Farms
    Ms Julia Drown: If he will make a statement on the grounds on which his Department opposes wind farm planning applications. [58680]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Every proposal is considered individually. The criteria for that case-by-case consideration is that of the effect of the development on the ability to train our pilots safely, and on operational capability. The Ministry of Defence is also mindful of the potential impact on microwave link communication and Met Office radars.
    The presence of wind turbines in most areas of the United Kingdom would present no difficulty to low-flying aircraft, and those and other naturally tall structures are taken into account as part of routine planning. In certain circumstances, wind turbines have the potential to affect radar adversely. Research is currently under way with the Department of Trade and Industry into the impact of wind farms on radar.
    The three specially designated tactical training areas are located in central Wales, northern Scotland and the border area of northern England and southern Scotland. Within those areas, military fast jets may fly at 100 ft. There are clearly specific considerations to be taken into account in those areas.
    Ms Drown: I thank the Minister for that reply. Whereas the Ministry of Defence has objected to nearly half the applications for wind farms in this country, there are 6,000 wind farms in Denmark, none of which has been objected to on the ground that radar might be interfered with. Given that the Government need to increase renewable energy drastically if we are to meet our Kyoto
    14
    targets, will he try to learn lessons from the Danes so that the Ministry of Defence is not such an obstruction to the Government meeting their environmental targets?
    Dr. Moonie: I am not sure about lessons from the Danes. One lesson that I might take from them is that they build their windmills in flat areas similar to the countryside around Swindon rather than on hill crests in Scotland, where they would impinge on the environment in which I like to take my leisure.
    We give careful consideration to such developments and we do not object to proposals lightly. In fact, we are carrying out further research to see whether we might narrow the areas that give rise to objections. However, I repeat the truism that in low-flying tactical training areas, where aircraft fly as low as 100 ft, structures that may be 200 or 300 ft high are not likely to be welcome.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that aircraft, especially from RAF Marham, regularly fly very low over the north-west part of my constituency and across the Wash? Is he aware that there is a planning application for a number of wind turbines onshore, in the area around Hunstanton, and that another has been submitted for 60 turbines offshore in the Wash, very near the RAF bombing range? What is his view, especially on the latter application and its potential effect on the viability of that bombing range?
    Dr. Moonie: I cannot say that I have looked into the bombing range, although given the number of precision munitions that we buy nowadays, we might be able to build closer to it than we could in the past. Of the 18 offshore applications received so far, we have objected to five. That shows that we take seriously our role as a Government who are trying to support renewable energy.

    NATO-Russian Relations
    Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on the relationship between NATO and Russia. [58681]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Last month saw an historic transformation of the NATO-Russia relationship, with the first meeting at the Rome summit of the new NATO-Russia Council. That is a major step towards the alliance's long-standing goal of building a secure, co-operative and democratic Euro-Atlantic area. We welcome the very positive approach that has been adopted by Russia in establishing the NRC, and all allies look forward to working with Russian colleagues as equal partners in areas of common interest.
    Hugh Bayley: I welcome closer co-operation with Russia on security matters, but I have two questions for the Secretary of State. If Russia were to be attacked by another country, would the NRC be convened immediately, and what obligations, if any, would NATO have to go to Russia's defence?
    Mr. Hoon: There is no specific agreement to cover either of those eventualities; I can see no specific reason why it would be necessary to convene an NRC meeting in the event of Russia being attacked, but if the existing members of the council judge that useful and appropriate,

    15
    that could well occur in appropriate circumstances. Similarly, the article 5 guarantee only affects members of the NATO alliance, and so does not apply to the NATO-Russia Council.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Clearly, the warming of relations between Russia and NATO is critical at a time when we face the threat of international terrorism on an unprecedented scale. However, does the Secretary of State agree that it is also important to remember that NATO is first and foremost a military alliance? While welcoming former adversaries into association with NATO, we must also bear it in mind that, should democracy in Russia take a backward step, our arrangements should not compromise the ability of the original NATO countries to defend themselves.
    Mr. Hoon: That must be right. However, it is equally right to pursue the opportunity for closer co-operation between NATO and Russia, not least because it flowed from the appalling events of 11 September. Specifically, there is an agreement to discuss techniques and measures to deal with global terrorism, which must be welcome to all concerned.
    Mr. John Smith: Given the formation of the NATO-Russia Council and the likelihood of a large increase in NATO membership at the Prague summit at the end of the year, has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the need to change the decision-making structures of NATO in the interests of security and military efficiency?
    Mr. Hoon: NATO's specific decision-making structures must remain a consensus of all member states. However, the United Kingdom strongly supports the need to look again at the way in which NATO reaches its decisions and the alliance's bureaucratic supporting structure. That should follow any enlargement, should it occur at Prague.

    Defence Diversification Agency
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What opportunities he has examined for a future role for the Defence Diversification Agency at Aberporth. [58682]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Defence Diversification Agency has held a number of discussions about its role at Aberporth, where it currently provides a part-time technology diversification manager. The post is funded by the Welsh Development Agency, which recently invited us to make a proposal for expanding the service, as we shall now do.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know of the difficulties caused by the withdrawal of funding for MOD apprenticeships at Aberporth earlier this year, but he may not be aware of the threat to 450 jobs at Dewhurst in Cardigan. Does he therefore agree that the progression of the Aberporth scheme under the technology diversification manager is essential to realise its assets and that the appointment of a full-time manager would help enormously in that task? Will he work with
    16
    QinetiQ, the private company, and his colleagues in the Wales Office to realise the aim of diversification and new technology jobs at Aberporth?
    Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute to the interest and application that the hon. Gentleman has devoted to the issue as the local Member. An approach by the Welsh Development Agency to the Defence Diversification Agency indicates that the organisation is held in high regard locally. Although the DDA has not been operational for long, the signs are that it will be remarkably successful in bringing technology into the MOD and spreading it out. We will take every possible step to ensure that the proposal proceeds.

    Middle East
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What recent assessments he has received of the availability of UK ground forces for operations in the middle east. [58683]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We have long recognised that our national interests are directly affected by events right across the middle east. We therefore continue to place high priority on our ability to project and sustain power in the region. As part of its routine planning work, the Ministry of Defence keeps a range of military options under review. Exercise Saif Sareea 2 in Oman towards the end of last year, for example, clearly demonstrated our ability to deploy UK ground forces over long distances and to sustain them there.
    Mr. Stunell: May I direct the Secretary of State's attention to Iraq? Is he aware that US officials are now saying that the air strikes in the no-fly zone are no longer primarily aimed at humanitarian objectives, but are directed at opening up the capacity for more widespread bombing in Iraq? Bearing in mind the US President's policy of taking out Saddam Hussein, can the Secretary of State say whether UK forces are to be deployed in pursuit of that policy?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. The air strikes are self-defence against attacks on our aircraft and on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone, so their primary purpose is to defend aircrew and their aircraft against those attacks. The humanitarian purpose of having planes patrolling the no-fly zone continues.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: May I direct my right hon. Friend's mind to the situation in the middle east regarding Palestine and Israel? If British troops are to be used in some form of peacekeeping force in that situation, will he give an absolute assurance that they will go in only with a United Nations mandate and to uphold United Nations resolutions?
    Mr. Hoon: In order for there to be a peacekeeping force, there has to be peace. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom Government will continue their efforts to bring about a peaceful situation in that difficult part of the world, but until that situation arises, his question is somewhat premature
    Mr. Mark Prisk: In the event of a deployment in the middle east, would British troops, like our American allies, enjoy the protection of theatre missile defence systems?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman deliberately keeps his question as vague as possible. He refers to a deployment in the middle east, which is a very large region. Of course, as no theatre missile defence system is readily available to any forces deployed anywhere in that region, I can only say that that would not yet be available to the United Kingdom.

    Equal Opportunities
    Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on equal opportunities in the armed forces. [58684]
    The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): A new diversity policy has recently been agreed for the armed forces. The policy seeks to build on existing equal opportunities policies and practices. The aim is to create an organisational culture that values individuals from diverse backgrounds, treats all personnel fairly and with respect, and recognises the importance of their contribution to operational capability.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Did my right hon. Friend see any black faces during the trooping of the colour ceremony? I am afraid that I did not, which made me anxious that it is possible that the elite regiments of the British Army are failing to recruit from all the communities that make up Great Britain. If that is the case, what action will he take to ensure that every Briton has an equal chance to be a soldier in every regiment of our armed forces?
    Mr. Ingram: Unlike my hon. Friend, I did not see the trooping of the colour, but perhaps I should explain why: I was in the Falkland Islands representing Her Majesty's Government at the liberation day commemorative parade in Port Stanley, where the armed forces were given the freedom of the islands. I will try to seek a specific answer to her question and find out whether people from the ethnic communities were in the parade but not shown on television, but I think that the implication of that question is a slur on all the efforts that have been made not only by the Government, but by all armed forces representatives who seek strenuously to encourage an increase in recruitment from the ethnic communities in this country. Indeed, the targets that we have set are very challenging, and although we have not met them, the progress is very encouraging indeed.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: May I assure the Minister that there are black faces in all the regiments of the Foot Guards—or certainly most of them? I know because I have seen them. For the avoidance of doubt, will he reaffirm that the important thing about the armed forces is that they are good at defending this country, and not that somebody is ticking off the number of people with black faces or brown faces, or whatever other sort of people there might be?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's underlying view. I think that we should view the armed
    18
    forces in a holistic way, in terms of what they are asked to do and the way in which they deliver. We ask a lot of them and they deliver to a very high extent, irrespective of their ethnic background.

    Afghanistan
    Ann Clwyd: Whether the international security assistance force has helped with humanitarian aid missions in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [58685]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The primary role of the international security assistance force—ISAF—is to help the Interim Administration to maintain security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, but national contingents within ISAF have also been involved in a number of humanitarian projects. United Kingdom service personnel, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, have contributed to the rebuilding of Kabul's education system through helping with repairs to its schools. ISAF has also on occasion responded to critical emergencies to help to save lives. There has been no expansion in ISAF's mission as defined in the authorising United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, the security situation inside the country is worrying many people, especially as reports from Human Rights Watch and others say that troops attached to the warlords are running wild around the country, creating a climate of fear and instability. As peace is very tenuous in Afghanistan, many people believe that it is important that disarmament take place as soon as possible and that ISAF's capability be expanded. That was the view of the Government, and they argued in favour of it. Is it still possible that ISAF's role can be extended outside Kabul into the rest of the country so that the peace that exists there now, slight though it is, can be strengthened?
    Mr. Hoon: It is important to present a balanced picture of what is happening in Afghanistan. Although my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to tensions caused by the continuing existence of well-armed rival factions, it is equally important to put into the balance the fact that there is an extremely successful Loya Jirga process that has built on efforts right across the country—that is, regional meetings ultimately leading to the present meeting in Kabul. Informed observers tell me that that demonstrates the Afghan people's determination to rebuild their country and to take the opportunity that has been provided to them.
    I do not particularly recognise my hon. Friend's description of the situation around the country, but she is right to draw attention to the need to continue to have regard to it. I gave examples of where ISAF has, through its national contingents, operated outside Kabul, and I am sure that in such humanitarian circumstances that will continue.

    QinetiQ
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on progress on the privatisation of QinetiQ. [58686]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Since the vesting of QinetiQ

    19
    as a company on 1 July last year, work has concentrated on preparing the company for sale, options for which were through flotation or strategic partnership. Although flotation had always been our preferred route, following a comprehensive review of the available options for the transaction route and timing in conjunction with specialist advisers and QinetiQ's senior management, we decided that the strategic partner route offers the best potential for a transaction in 2002, offers value to the taxpayer and meets our objective of a successful public private partnership. I informed the House of that on 6 March.
    Mr. Luff: May I seek an assurance from the Minister that in the run-up to privatisation the Government are not seeking to maximise the short-term value of the company's property portfolio? Specifically, will he assure me that he is putting QinetiQ under no pressure whatsoever to sell land at Throckmorton to the Home Office for use as an asylum accommodation centre? That would be likely to prejudice the site's long-term value as it develops into a science park, following the great success of the science park at Malvern.
    Dr. Moonie: On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I assure him that a strategic partner such as we envisage would work closely with QinetiQ and contribute significantly to growing the overall value of its business, from which the taxpayer would benefit through the Ministry of Defence's initial retention of a significant financial interest in the company. The MOD will also retain a special share as a means of protecting United Kingdom defence and security interests.
    On property, the management of the property portfolio is a matter for QinetiQ. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no pressure from my office, nor, to my knowledge, from any other in the Ministry of Defence, as regards any sale prospect.

    Brigadier Roger Lane
    Mr. Harold Best: If he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Brigadier Roger Lane to other duties. [58687]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The decision that Brigadier Jim Dutton should succeed Brigadier Roger Lane as commander 3 Commando Brigade in April 2002 was taken by the First Sea Lord in July 2001, as part of the normal appointing process for senior officers in the naval service. Ministers were not involved and would not expect to be because it was a routine changeover at one-star level.
    Brigadier Lane was in command of operations in Afghanistan in April 2002, and the Chief of the Defence Staff and the First Sea Lord therefore decided that the planned handover should be delayed. It will now take place after the operations have been completed.
    I retain complete confidence in Brigadier Lane.
    Mr. Best: If the succession to Brigadier Lane was conducted in the manner described, why does my right hon. Friend believe that the media made such a fuss?
    Mr. Hoon: That is clearly a matter for them, but I was surprised by the story that began the so-called controversy. It suggested that I faced mounting pressure to sack the Royal Marines commander in Afghanistan. That could not have been true because there was no such pressure. At least, if it existed, I was not aware of it.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why did the Secretary of State tolerate a situation whereby officials in his Department were criticising a serving officer, who, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, has no opportunity to answer any criticism? Will he ensure that that never happens again while he is in charge?
    Mr. Hoon: Let me make it clear that no Minister in the Ministry of Defence tolerates any such briefings by officials in the Department. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific examples of such briefings, I assure him that I shall investigate them fully if he makes them known to me.
    Hugh Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to correct the misapprehension given by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot extend Question Time by raising points of order.

Orders of the Day
  Enterprise Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Schedule 13

        LISTED DIRECTIVES
        3.32 pm
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move amendment No. 380, in page 239, line 40, at end insert—
        '8A Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive on electronic commerce").'
        Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 195, in clause 204, page 147, line 4, after '(2)', add 'or (2A) or (2B)'.
        No. 196, in page 147, line 26, at end add—
        '(2A) An act or omission or course of conduct falls within this subsection if it amounts to the abuse by the person in question ("the supplier") of his superior knowledge or bargaining strength so that he:

        (a) unfairly induces consumers to enter into transactions which are not the result of free and informed decisions; or

        (b) unfairly hinders consumers from enforcing rights under any consumer transaction.

        (2B) In considering whether an act, omission or course of conduct amounts to an abuse under subsection 2A, the court shall take into account all the circumstances, including the nature of the goods or services in question, the nature and extent of any commitments undertaken by the consumers in question and any lack of good faith on the part of the supplier, and the court may have regard to:

        (a) any representation made by the supplier, or failure to disclose information, which unreasonably prevents consumers from making adequate price or value comparisons between competing suppliers;

        (b) any exploitation by the supplier of consumers' inability to make free and informed decisions, or to enforce rights under contracts, because of physical or mental infirmity, inability to understand the language of the transaction or other vulnerability;

        (c) any failure by the supplier to comply with a consumer code of practice (as defined in section 8(4) of this Act) which he claims to follow;

        (d) any act or omission by the supplier which causes any unreasonable expense of time or money by consumers pursuing legitimate complaints or rights under contracts entered into with the supplier; and

        (e) any failure to keep consumers reasonably informed about matters relating to a contract for supply of services, or which might affect a decision whether or not to change suppliers.'.

        Government amendment No. 375.
        Amendment No. 373, in clause 208, page 150, line 18, after 'a', insert 'domestic or a'.
        Government amendments Nos. 376 to 379.
        Miss Johnson: Consumer protection, apart from consumer safety in relation to goods, is a devolved matter
        22
        in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement gives the Northern Ireland Assembly the authority to pass primary legislation in Northern Ireland on devolved matters, subject to the Assembly's option to seek to include Northern Ireland provisions in United Kingdom-wide legislation, especially on devolved issues when parity is normally maintained.
        The option was discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 5 June when the Assembly agreed the motion:
        "That this Assembly endorses the principle of extending the consumer protection measures in the Enterprise Bill to Northern Ireland".
        The Assembly agreed that such an extension is the best way to ensure that Northern Ireland consumers are not disadvantaged through their standards of protection when compared with consumers in England, Scotland and Wales.
        Clause 273 means that part 8 already extends to Northern Ireland, but amendments Nos. 375, 376 and 379 are necessary to make appropriate provision.
        I shall not go into detail about the amendments unless hon. Members wish me to do so. Amendments Nos. 375, 376 and 379 apply to Northern Ireland. The others are much more technical, and I do not believe it is necessary to go through them unless hon. Members seek clarification.
        Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for the quick guide to Government amendments. I agree that they are either consequential and minor or have the effect that she described. Amendment No. 378 is significant because it updates the definition of an associate. She was good enough to write to me about that and explain the reason for it. We therefore have no difficulty with it. I shall leave Liberal Democrat Members to speak about amendment No. 373. I principally want to speak about amendments Nos. 195 and 196. Unless the Minister has a concession up her sleeve, I intend to press amendment No. 196 to a Division.
        Consumer protection is very much Tory territory. It was mapped out by the Conservative Government in the 1970s, and in particular by the then Sir Geoffrey Howe, in the fair trading legislation of that time. I even played a modest walk-on role, by helping to write a pamphlet, published in 1972, called "Square Deal for Consumers", when I was a very young, obscure, research assistant. Now I am an equally obscure middle-aged Front-Bench spokesman, and it is amazing to see what has happened in the intervening 30 years—except to my career, of course.
        The principle behind our legislation in the 1970s was clear, and the view of our party has not changed since then. It is that consumers do best when markets are working properly and fairly. Not even Adam Smith took the view—although it is often ascribed to him—that markets could be completely unregulated. That translates neatly into my party's current approach, which is to try to help the vulnerable, right across the policy spectrum. In this instance, the vulnerable are consumers. That is in contrast to this Government's actions, which are those of a party dedicated to helping not the vulnerable but its cronies and its donors. We dealt with that matter to a great extent on Thursday in the context of the Express Newspapers Group takeover, however, and I do not wish to reopen that discussion today.

        23
        The problem is that we have moved on since the 1970s. The need for consumer protection has moved on as well, and it keeps changing. That is why we are rightly revisiting the fair trading legislation, and why the Government are, sadly, missing this moving target. We heard many examples of this in Committee, but I shall resist the temptation to return to them on Report. I shall, however, cite just two which are indicative of the evidence that we have received from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and many other organisations, about the scams and abuses that our constituents are having to deal with in the early part of this century as opposed to the 1970s.
        One good example is so-called holiday clubs. The abuse of time-shares became apparent and was tackled some years ago. That is why many of the same personalities are now involved in so-called holiday clubs. As an observer of these matters, I find it difficult to see the difference between the two, although some of the current literature supporting holiday clubs carries a large disclaimer on the front saying, "This is not a time-share". But, of course, in many ways, they are.
        Many of the abuses and many of the personnel have been carried forward from the old time-share cons to the so-called holiday clubs. In the last few weeks alone, we have read of one fraudster involved in time-shares and holiday clubs who had to pay some £36 million in compensation to his victims, and of another who was recently brutally murdered—or committed suicide, depending on one's view of events—in Spain. In that example, the law has slowly caught up with time-shares, only to find that these activities are now carrying on under a different name, largely outside the scope of the law. Moreover, I do not believe that they will be affected by the provisions in the Bill.
        Another good example, of which we heard evidence in Committee, is high-pressure sales techniques in people's homes—often those of the elderly and frail. Age Concern produced an excellent report on this issue recently. The existing rules can easily be subverted by an individual being manoeuvred into inviting a salesman to visit them in their own home. In that way, the requirement for a seven-day cooling-off period and other regulations that would normally apply can be avoided. We heard an example of a lady who had had a salesman sitting in her home for five hours until she eventually signed on the dotted line to buy a very expensive orthopaedic chair that she probably did not need in the first place.
        There are various ways of approaching this matter to ensure that the Bill will bite on these and the many other abuses that we debated in Committee. In Committee I tabled amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which were subtly different from these amendments but were part of the attempt to establish a general duty not to trade unfairly. As I think I conceded at the time, the terms of those amendments were quite wide; that is why we have now tabled amendments Nos. 195 and 196.
        We must strike a balance between ensuring that there is some predictability, so that burdens are not placed on reputable businesses, and making the provisions flexible enough to catch the fraudsters and con artists who move on rapidly when the law is changed£as has happened in
        24
        the case of time-shares—to another scam that is subtly different but outside the law. If we continue along the road that the Government seem intent on taking, the law will always trail behind some of the cleverer fraudsters.
        In its briefing for the Bill, the Confederation of British Industry made clear its opposition to a clause providing a general duty in regard to unfair trading. It felt that such matters should be clearly identified and defined. It referred to discussions taking place in the European Union, with the aim of establishing a pan-European approach. It said:
        "This has been criticised by the CBI and other business associations across other Member States as raising many practical and legal issues. It is premature to be considering such a clause in the context of national legislation at this stage, when there is wide ranging debate on the issue in the EU."
        We rely very much on the views of the main consumer protection organisations, however—particularly the National Consumer Council, to which I pay tribute for its substantial efforts in briefing, I am sure, not just the Opposition but the Government at both ministerial and official levels, in an attempt to deal with the problem. If we do not deal with it, we shall be passing legislation—with the best intentions in the world; I do not question the Government's intentions for a moment, at least in regard to this part of the Bill—that will not make life any better for the victims of scams.
        The National Consumer Council thinks it important
        "to stress the need for some flexible legislation to deal with new unfair trading practices as they emerge, particularly as Part 2 of the Fair Trading Act is being repealed in Clause 10 of this Bill."
        It has taken on board some of the points made in Committee on the earlier, more broadly drafted amendments. I suppose that that is how the system should work, ideally. It wants the new amendments
        "to demonstrate that there is more than one way to produce a generally-worded, open textured approach to achieve a 'general duty'."
        It says that the amendments
        "use the concept of a disparity in bargaining position".
        The NCC says, with some justification, that that is not a novel idea in English law. There has been legislation of that kind for some time—for example, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which contains a different set of rules and a different burden of proof, depending on whether a transaction is between two businesses or between a business and a consumer.
        The NCC says that amendment No. 196
        "broadens the definition of a domestic infringement to include abuse of a bargaining position by a supplier in its dealings with a consumer, pursuing consumers to enter into transactions or hindering them from enforcing their consumer rights.
        2B elaborates on the definition of abuse and sets out the factors which a court shall take into account."
        It refers to good faith, the nature of goods and services being supplied, the
        "extent of any commitments to the consumer"
        and
        "any exploitation of the consumer's inability to make free and informed decisions or enforce his rights due to vulnerability".
        It gives the example of physical infirmity.
        I do not think that the NCC and I are saying for a moment that this is the ultimate set of amendments with which to deal with the problem. We are saying that we

        25
        have taken on board some of the criticisms made in Committee by the Minister and others and tried to produce a more rigorous definition. It is entirely open to her to concede the principle and say that the Government will consider carefully how to produce the same result in a way that is better drafted. That would avoid a Division.
        3.45 pm
        The NCC says that Kent county council is having a problem with itinerant tarmacadam merchants. I wondered where they had gone. They have tarmacadamed a large proportion of my constituency over the years, and now they have clearly moved on to Kent. This typical scam is especially serious in areas with a high proportion of elderly people. These characters turn up and talk people into having their drives tarmacadamed unnecessarily. They do the work shoddily and then demand more than they original contracted for. The NCC says that a general power would deal with that problem.
        The NCC also describes how these matters are approached in the European Union and the United States of America. Very recently, the Commission issued a communication outlining key issues for a framework directive based on the wider concept of fair commercial practices, rather than on misleading practices. It suggests four possible categories: a prohibition on businesses engaging in commercial practices that mislead or are likely to mislead the consumer; a duty to disclose to the consumer all material information that is likely to affect the consumer's decisions; a prohibition on the use of physical force, harassment, coercion or undue influence; and effective information disclosure and complaints handling in the after-sales period. It also proposes, as a side issue, that the framework directive would be covered by the injunctions directive, so that such practices could be tackled quickly and effectively.
        That approach may go too far for our purposes, and any solution that we come up with here will not simply be grafted on to a European directive; it must be properly bedded in English law. I repeat, however, that such concepts are not unfamiliar in legislation and regulations covering unfair contract terms, for example.
        The United States Federal Trade Commission takes a somewhat similar view. It has a double mandate, to ensure fairness in competition and fairness in commercial practices in the interests of the consumer. That is not dissimilar from the approach that we are suggesting. Recently, the FTC took a case against Budget, which was apparently renting out cars that had been subject to recall notices. Consumers were not adequately informed about the risks or how to avoid injury.
        Not surprisingly, the NCC argues that business should not he overly worried about these measures, because good businesses will benefit from measures that stamp out unfair competition from those who use unfair practices.
        Another part of the Bill scraps part II of the Fair Trading Act 1973, which has fallen into relative disuse, largely because of the procedural problems that it poses. In principle, and in its day, however, it allowed the Secretary of State to prohibit a novel unfair practice that harmed the interests of consumers. Certainly, we need to extend protection, not to reduce it. The NCC cites the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976, prohibiting notices misleading consumers about their rights under the Sale of Goods Acts, such as no returns or no refunds for sales goods.
        26
        That takes us back to the essential difficulty with what the Government are trying to do. Of course we welcome the extension of stop now orders and the provisions on enforcement, but the legislation has to make a difference and it is no earthly good simply making it easier to enforce existing legislation. There is a large body of malpractices, abuses and, frankly, scams out there, which form a regular part of all our mailbags. They simply will not be tackled by this legislation as it stands.
        I have given the example of the unsolicited visit versus the solicited one—a narrow distinction that can make all the difference. Those who invite a salesperson in are not covered; they do not enjoy protections such as the cooling-off period. That is a perfect example of how, over the years, tricksters and downright criminals have developed a fine ability to get round current law by making minor adjustments to the way they do their business.
        Unless the law can get ahead of such fraudsters, rather than constantly banging along in their wake, I cannot see how we can clamp down properly on what the NCC and other bodies call shark practices. Indeed, we can all commend and support its "shark practices" campaign. The NCC's latest press release states that, according to its research,
        "Fewer than one in…ten consumers think businesses do their best to treat customers fairly and a third"—
        a staggering figure—
        "say they have been treated unfairly in the last two years."
        As Deirdre Hutton, chairman of the NCC, states:
        "The Bill is very welcome and will do a great deal to increase consumer protection. But there will still be gaps in the coverage of the law that will allow shark practices to slip through."
        We agree, which is why we have tabled the amendments.
        I stress that the amendments are new. We and the NCC have taken the trouble to narrow their wording as much as possible, but we will in no way get upset if the Minister thinks that the drafting could be improved. All that we need is an assurance that she agrees with what we are trying to achieve, and that—perhaps in the Lords—the Government will produce specific amendments to deal with these precise issues. However, unless she gives clear undertakings and makes clear promises in response to these amendments, I intend to divide the House.
        Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Amendment No. 373, which is in my name and those of my colleagues, is short and technical, and deals with an issue on which we would not seek to divide the House. However, I would welcome the Minister's explanation as to why paragraph (b) refers to
        "conduct which constitutes a Community infringement",
        but not to conduct that constitutes a domestic infringement. That seems a simple point of consistency, and if the Government have chosen to be inconsistent, it is incumbent on them to explain why.
        The Liberal Democrats broadly support the thrust of amendments Nos. 195 and 196. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) comprehensively outlined the thinking behind them, and on this occasion I am pleased to associate myself with the bulk of his comments, particularly those relating to the NCC, which offered invaluable assistance to me and my colleagues in Standing Committee. The more I consider the consequences of

        27
        repealing part II of the Fair Trading Act 1973, the more I recognise the need for protections such as those offered in the amendments.
        My experiences as a solicitor in private practice and since becoming a Member of this House have shown me that, after a contract has been perfected, the struggle between the consumer and the supplier is very unequal. I have seen many examples of it causing great distress to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Elderly people, perhaps for reasons of politeness, are not prepared to show pushy salesmen the door. However, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne said, if they invite them in, they thereby forgo even the benefit of the small protection that the law currently offers.
        The fraudster will always stay one step ahead, no matter how inventive or ingenious we are in the protections that we seek to give the consumer. The fraudster will always try to find some way to negate the work that we do here. My experience is that two main types of fraudsters are operating. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the drive tarmacadamers. I am alarmed to hear that they have moved from Eastbourne to Kent, but I am somewhat comforted by the thought that if they are on a northward march we have some time to go before we have to suffer them north of the Pentland firth. In the meantime, I hope that we will be able to put the necessary protections in place.
        At the other end of the spectrum is the large commercial organisation that operates by sending a targeted sales force to people's homes and having them sign up on the spot to something that they subsequently are not able to honour. My experience of that was prior to the election, when I wished to install double glazing in my house in Aberdeenshire before selling it. The sales techniques of the double glazing companies were remarkable. I could not believe the number of salesmen who came to the house while I was away politicking in the northern isles and who told my wife that they could not enter into a contract unless her husband was home. That was all the more remarkable because anyone who knows the Carmichael household will know that the soft touch was the one in the northern isles, not the one who had to stay at home.
        I have given one small example of the techniques used by such companies. The most vulnerable individuals need some protection from the worst excesses. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that the necessary protections, which would be the teeth of the Bill, will be given serious consideration in the other place. The amendments tabled by the Conservatives have our support and the blessing of the NCC. Their acceptance would be an important signal from the Government that they are prepared to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals in their homes.
        Mr. Mark Field: I wish to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the amendments he has tabled. I hope that the Minister will consider the points that he made. When all is said and done, I suspect that we do not disagree on much. We had a robust debate on the issues in Committee, but it was also a friendly debate. I know that the Minister has received briefings similar to those we have had, both from consumer bodies and from business representatives
        28
        I am a little less idealistic than my hon. Friend about our ability to change the law for ever more. I fear that whatever changes are made, there are some who will always look for loopholes. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made it quite clear that there are a number of rogue traders who will abuse any loopholes in the law.
        4 pm
        My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred to the comments of the CBI, which acts on behalf of business organisations. It has opposed the concept of unfair trading on the basis that it is insufficiently well targeted and gives rise to a degree of legal uncertainty. Having crossed the Rubicon and decided to go ahead with some degree of unfair trading in the Bill, we should ensure that these provisions have some teeth. Our main concern is that we would quickly find that protection of the consumer under the Bill proved illusory. For that reason, we are keen to press amendments Nos. 195 and 196 to a Division.
        Reference was made earlier to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. It has worked very well for the past quarter of a century; under its terms, individuals are, by necessity, treated differently from businesses. The concept is that in any trading bargain there could be a disaggregation between the bargaining powers of a large or even a small business and an individual who may be subjected to a doorstep sale or one by mail.
        There has been no feeling that the 1977 Act should be repealed and no concerns about its provisions. There is, therefore, an acceptance of the potential inequality of bargaining power that needs to be entrenched within the law. Amendments Nos. 195 and 196 do not seem to go much further than the Government have been willing to go to date. They would ensure, as far as possible, a culture of fairness and fair trading between businesses that will also allow consumers a fair share of any resulting benefit, as the NCC has pointed out.
        The last thing that any Government want, when putting new legislation on the statute book, is many hundreds or thousands of claims. It has been made quite clear that the unfair practice envisaged in our amendments would have to affect a group of consumers before any action could be taken. In other words, an individual could not clog up the legal system.
        I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard. I agree with all Opposition Members who have spoken so far that the amendments require further buffing up. We would be comfortable with the Minister reconsidering the wording and finalising it before the Bill goes to another place. I hope that she will not only answer some of these points but go some way to ensuring that this very important procedural protection is included in the Bill.
        Mr. Michael Weir: I support amendment No. 196, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). If he cares to push it to a vote, we will support him in the Division Lobby.
        I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). If I were him, I would not be too sure about the tarmacadamers; they have reached from Eastbourne up to Angus. I have often

        29
        had them at my door, along with people wanting to cut my trees, install double glazing and paint my windows. I suppose that that may say more about the state of my house than anything else.
        The hon. Member for Eastbourne slightly undersold amendment No. 196. It seems to me that his amendment would lay down certain principles for deciding whether an action had been unfair. That is important because, as has already been pointed out, changes can occur rapidly—con men have a habit of getting around regulations quickly.
        Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I was a solicitor in private practice prior to my election to this place, and often came across the problems of victims—especially elderly people—of power salesmen who came to their door. One very elderly client of mine, sadly now deceased, was subject to periods of confusion and I was constantly having to extricate her from contracts that she had signed after the visits of salesmen who had persuaded her to buy all sorts of strange and wonderful things of which she had no need and which she would never have bought in normal circumstances.
        Some of the worst offenders were the privatised utility companies; salesmen constantly tried to persuade people—especially the elderly—to change their electricity and gas suppliers. Those salesmen often used methods involving extreme pressure. On one occasion, I went home from my office at lunchtime to find one of those people on my doorstep trying to convince my wife. In my brief conversation with him, he told me three things about the contract that he was trying to sell that I knew were untrue.
        That salesman was quickly shown the door, but many elderly people are not able to do that. The client to whom I referred earlier changed her electricity supplier and then became utterly confused about who she was getting her electricity from. Worse than that, however, because she had changed to a gas company, the electricity company salesman appeared at her door a couple of weeks later trying to persuade her to change to that supplier. The matter went on and on and the poor lady got into an utter fankle. I had to sort it out and get her back to suppliers that she could recognise and understand.
        That situation arose because people are allowed to engage in that type of doorstep selling. Although amendment No. 196 is not perfect, it would go some way towards laying down principles that a court could consider in dealing with such techniques. If we are too restrictive, it will be easier for con men to get around the regulations. General principles allow the courts more latitude to interpret actions as they occur.
        Mr. Tony McWalter: The general debate on amendment No. 196 was conducted in a fairly laid-back way by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who suggested that if there was general Labour support for the aims of his proposal, he would not divide the House. I hope that he does not do so, as his proposal could almost be described as a wrecking amendment.
        We all understand and accept that a number of people suffer from high-pressure salesmanship. There are a huge number of victims, so it is right to do what we can to protect people. However, once we make high-pressure
        30
        salesmanship illegal, we might begin to bring the process into disrepute—a law that applies almost all the time is difficult to apply at any particular time.
        Subsection (a) states that a person must not unfairly induce
        "consumers to enter into transactions which are not the result of free and informed decisions."
        Let us consider that in relation to decisions about purchasing a holiday on the basis of brochures which, as we all know, bear little relation to the actual circumstances that obtain at the holiday resort. It is understood that a certain distortion is part of holiday companies' modus operandi. That is a form of high-pressure salesmanship, but it does not typically result in people complaining bitterly when the resort turns out to be more overcrowded than expected, with fewer loungers, less clean water—or the sewage being used to water the plants, as was my experience at one holiday venue—and so on.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us all a sneak preview of his holiday plans, but how would he approach the case, raised in the NCC's briefing, of the holiday brochure that quite truthfully said that the holiday hotel was 25 metres from the beach, but sadly did not mention that there was a motorway in between?
        Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We could probably all exchange enjoyable anecdotes about these matters. Clearly, there is deception, but the issue is at what stage that deception becomes more than something that could be addressed by a compensatory payment from the holiday company if it were a member of the Association of British Travel Agents. At what stage do we move from an informal framework for resolving bitter disappointment at the quality of the venue to requiring the power to take strong legal action? That is my worry with amendment No. 196.
        One needs to understand what would count as an informed decision. There is an onus on consumers at least to conduct their proceedings as wisely as possible. I understand that the current framework could be much extended, and I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who made this point in Committee, that selling people products in their own homes is perhaps not so much high-pressure salesmanship as almost putting the seller in such a dominant position that gainsaying the transaction is not feasible. If we can somehow produce a form of words that would prevent that, we might perhaps have an amendment that would be worth pressing to a Division.
        Many decisions that people currently take are not fully informed, but informed enough, and many of them are not free, but free enough. If we try to elaborate too strongly in general terms on whether there is a legal right to take such matters to the Office of Fair Trading or others, there is a real danger that we could end up with a completely unworkable law. I suspect that the Opposition know that amendment No. 196, which they drafted, would be unworkable. However, the motives behind it are good and it would be sensible not to divide the House but to engage in what I hope would be constructive discussions.
        To revert to a theme to which I have referred several times in these discussions, one has to try to make clear to what extent we should seek to combat unfair trading under

        31
        the Bill and to what extent we should bear in mind the fact that there would be huge repercussions for the rest of the law, including the criminal law, in trying to tackle some of the other issues that result in people trading not just unfairly but viciously.
        I hear what hon. Members have said about the tarmacadam merchants. Funnily enough, they have even appeared in Hemel Hempstead. One of the things that I have been trying to do is to get the Treasury to break down the barriers between Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. It is clear that much of the activity that goes on is illegal under current tax law, but we have an absurd situation in which information is insufficiently shared between two departments of the Treasury. Consequently, just when it might become apparent that a driveway layer is in breach of his obligations under Customs and Excise regulations, corroboration is needed from the Inland Revenue—whose records are completely different—and nothing gets done.
        4.15 pm
        People who are quite sophisticated, at least in terms of having no fixed abode and having other mechanisms for evasion, end up not being brought to book even though there are laws which should bring them to book and which if implemented would result in their no longer being in business. We must therefore try to ensure that the framework of law outside this Bill—which, after all, is important in promoting and setting a framework for fair enterprise—also delivers an appropriate range of laws to combat various kinds of malpractice.
        Having spoken so far in favour of the Government's line, I want to conclude my remarks—this may not surprise those few Members who are present—by saying that I am reluctant to support Government amendment No. 380 as I understand it. I am worried about it on two grounds. First, it refers to directive 2000/31/EC. I have not been able to get hold of that document. It is not in the Vote Office, and I feel reluctant to nod such matters through. I should also be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether the directive—which I have not read, but which I have read about—says, for instance, that there is potential for considerable interference with what one might call domestic communications of an electronic character. Will the Minister reassure me that that is not involved in directive 2000/31/EC?
        Miss Melanie Johnson: If I may, I shall start in roughly reverse order, and deal with the two other amendments outside the issue of the general duty to trade fairly or not to trade unfairly, and the issues raised in the substantive part of the debate this afternoon.
        Amendment No. 373—as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the question—would enable an enforcer to make an application for an enforcement order against a person who it believed was likely to engage in conduct that would constitute a domestic infringement. That is already the case in respect of community infringements, as we believe that that is a requirement of the injunctions directive. Officials have discussed this matter with the Office of Fair Trading and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Regulatory Services—formerly the Local Authorities Co-ordinating
        32
        Body on Trading Standards. Although I fully understand the argument in favour, we have not yet been provided with sufficient convincing cases in which it might be used to merit extending the scope of domestic infringements in this way. A power to prevent infringements before they occur is likely to be the most useful in advertising, where a single misleading advertisement has the potential to harm a large number of consumers. That would be a community infringement. As I mentioned, the Bill gives enforcers the powers to take action to stop likely community infringements—if necessary, by applying for an interim enforcement order. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman's point.
        Before I deal with the wider issues, I shall deal with the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about amendment No. 380. The amendment seeks to add the e-commerce directive to schedule 13, which lists the individual EC directives to which the definition of a community infringement in clause 205 applies. This is required by the EC injunctions directive. My Department's consultation on the extension of the stop now regulations to cover the e-commerce directive ends on 5 July. Regulations implementing the other provisions of the directive will be made shortly. I am not sure what my hon. Friend's anxiety is, but I hope that my explanation will have allayed it.
        I now come to the substantive debate and to amendments Nos. 195 and 196. They would enable enforcement action to be taken against some conduct that may be unfair but that is not currently unlawful. We debated the issue at length in Committee, and the amendments that we debated then were modelled on the approach taken in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, and contained an indicative list of conduct that may be but is not necessarily held to be unfair.
        The amendments seek to achieve a similar result by preventing suppliers from unfairly taking advantage of their superior knowledge and bargaining strength vis-a-vis the consumer. We all recognise the imbalance in the relationship and several Members have referred to it. The nature of the conduct that would be covered by this wording would be fairly limited, but I appreciate that, as some Members have acknowledged, it is the principle of the general duty that they wish to debate. I shall therefore consider that point.
        I certainly agree that businesses should not abuse their superior bargaining position to take unfair advantage of consumers. Indeed, businesses that treat their customers honestly and fairly are much more likely to prosper by building up a loyal customer base. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made the point that he thought that there was not much between us on this issue, and he is entirely right. The question is how to achieve the goal that many of us share. Like the hon. Gentleman, I recognise that business has some concerns.
        I also accept that a small number of unscrupulous traders take a much more short-sighted view of their customers than do decent businesses. However, as I have told hon. Members before, I am not convinced that enshrining in the Bill a general duty not to trade unfairly is the best way of ensuring that consumers receive a fair deal. I shall explain why that is so and what I propose to do next.

        33
        We already have a well-established and comprehensive framework of consumer protection legislation which on the face of it would appear to cover many of the cases that hon. Members have mentioned. I cannot go through all of them because, although the Whip to whom I spoke was happy for me to speak for a few minutes, he was unhappy at the prospect of my going on for three hours. I have therefore eschewed that course of action.
        Mr. Waterson: I can assist the Under-Secretary. Presumably she wants to avoid spending a quarter of an hour or more having one or more Divisions. That consideration might weigh in her discussions with the Whip.
        Miss Johnson: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said earlier.
        Several big issues are involved, one of which is how we define fair or unfair. There is much work to be done on that and it is by no means obvious that enshrining such terms in the Bill is a straightforward process that would make the provision and the definitions of fair and unfair clear to all and sundry.
        We also face substantial considerations involving practicality. I shall touch on a few of the examples cited in which it is obvious that recourse is currently available, because that directly touches on the issue of practicality. Practicality involves enforcement, and many pieces of legislation impact on the cases about which Members have rightly said something should be done; I agree with them entirely on that. However, it can in practice be difficult to prove that pressured selling has taken place, for example, and in many cases it might be more sensible to improve the enforcement of existing legislation. We need to consider the evidence and the extent of the problems before we rush into legislating.
        The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred to the Kent county council itinerant tarmackers who have passed through everyone's constituency. Indeed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), my constituency in Hertfordshire is also plagued by such people.
        Mr. Mark Field: Perhaps I should point out that the streets of my constituency are paved with gold. There is no risk of tarmackers coming to Cities of London and Westminster.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: There are many opportunities for a riposte to that, but in the spirit of a more consensual debate, I will not take them.
        The doorstep selling regulations provide a seven-day cooling-off period if a visit is unsolicited. Builders are required to carry out work with reasonable care and skill under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Taking money for little or no work is covered by obtaining property by deception under the Theft Acts. We are also building up a quality mark scheme for reputable builders and tradesmen. There are a number of recourses. It is therefore a matter of what the consumer does to enforce legislation, and that would be the case were we to broaden the measure or not.
        On the Trade Commission case and the hiring out of unsafe cars, in the UK that would be a breach of a term of contract, implied by statute, that a car should be of a satisfactory quality and fit for its purpose. That problem would he covered by part 8.
        34
        I am trying to illustrate the difficulties with some cases before setting out our approach. In relation to the elderly lady cited by the hon. Member for Eastbourne—it could, of course, have been an elderly gentleman, but for some reason it never is, although I am sure they are just as frail—because the visit was unsolicited it would be covered by the doorstep selling regulations, with the statutory cooling-off period and cancellation rights. The same cooling-off period would apply if the consumer had agreed to a visit from a salesperson as a result of an unsolicited visit or call.
        Mr. Waterson: To save the Minister time, the point is that what typically happens is that the elderly lady—as she said, elderly gentlemen do not seem to feature in such stories—fills out and sends in a coupon in, say, Saga Magazine, a perfectly reputable publication, and that is construed as an invitation to the salesman to visit her. As the visit is not unsolicited, it is outside the protection to which the Minister referred.
        Miss Johnson: I do not want to give too much complicated legal advice from the Dispatch Box for fear of coming up against the lawyers when I leave the Chamber. Obviously issues arise if someone buys something that they have not requested or set out to buy in the first place. That was cited in a number of examples. If people request a home visit for one product but are sold something else, they are also covered by the doorstep selling regulations.
        Mr. Carmichael: I am listening to the Minister and wondering how anyone could possibly think that there is a problem, but we all know from our constituency experience and the experience of bodies such as the NCC that there is. I suggest that, rather than dealing with it through subordinate legislation such as that described by the Minister, it would be infinitely preferable to establish general broad principles capable of definition and enforcement by the courts, and that is what the Conservative amendments would do.
        4.30 pm
        Miss Johnson: I am not trying to suggest that there are no problems, and I shall go on to make points which will, hopefully, help the hon. Gentleman. I was illustrating the fact there are practical difficulties in some of these cases. Many of the problems faced by consumers are already covered in consumer protection legislation, and the difficulties arise in awareness of the law, in enforcement and in the empowerment of the consumer to secure enforcement through the appropriate route.
        I shall not take up the time of the House by going through all the examples given by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, but he mentioned the time-share directive, and asked whether time spent on a canal houseboat is covered. There are provisions covering such arrangements, and in further discussions with the European Commission we shall seek to extend the directive to time-shares of less than three years' duration and time on canal houseboats. Because many people spend their holidays abroad rather than in the UK—many in other EU member states or areas covered by EU legislation—it is important that we look to the European dimension of all these matters.

        35
        Having said all that, it is important that we look again at the question of what we should do next. Policies for any new laws should be founded in fact and on a robust evidence base to ensure that they address issues of significant consumer detriment in a way that existing legislation does not.
        It is important that new legislation should not create undue or unnecessary burdens on business, and I know that some hon. Members are concerned about that. For that reason, I have decided that the next step should be to invite key stakeholders from consumer groups, enforcers and business to a seminar with me in the summer. I want to use that occasion to look in more detail at the cases cited by consumer organisations in support of a general duty to trade fairly or not to trade unfairly—the very cases that hon. Members have raised in the House. Once I have a clearer picture of the problems, I shall consider what further action would be appropriate. At the moment, however, because many of the problems concern infringement and enforcement, we are in danger of simply legislating without giving consumers more effective recourse to the law.
        I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that there are issues that need to be addressed. We agree that the consumer needs to be protected, and we share the same ends. However, I also agree with the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster and for Orkney and Shetland that the law will never catch up with the fraudster. That, I am afraid, is almost bound to be the case, but it is incumbent on the Government to do our very best to make sure that the law works as effectively as possible for consumers. There is already a great deal of consumer protection legislation, and if we can identify genuine loopholes, where problems exist that do not arise from enforcement, and tackle them separately, I will be happy to have further meetings with all the interested parties to see what steps would be most appropriate.
        Mr. Waterson rose—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have a right of reply.
        Mr. Waterson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to indicate whether he will press amendment No. 196 to a vote, he may do so, but a speech would not conform to the convention of the House. I ask him to understand that if one Member who has tabled an amendment seeks the leave of the House to speak, other Members may feel that they have the same entitlement.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall speak strictly on the basis you set out, but I thought it might be worth outlining my approach to the amendments, especially amendment No. 196, on which I said that I might seek to divide the House.
        Our amendment is not a wrecking amendment, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) claimed it was. It is a genuine attempt—our second—to deal with a practical problem. Our aim is not to ban
        36
        high-pressure salesmen, as he put it, but to deal with situations in which there is an imbalance in the bargaining positions of the parties.
        The Minister was rather fatalistic. Rather like Stanley Baldwin, who said in the 1930s that the bomber would always get through, in her final remarks she seemed to suggest that the fraudster would always get away with it, no matter how much we tried.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has gained a mistaken impression. As I think the hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) would agree, although it is impossible to close for ever every possible avenue that fraudsters might find or invent for themselves, it is incumbent on the Government to give the consumer as much ready protection as possible. It is our intention to do that, and I believe that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) shares that intention.
        Mr. Waterson: Let me put it another way. This is not a situation in which the best should be the enemy of the good. If there are things the Minister can do that would cause an immediate improvement in the position of consumers, albeit without closing every conceivable loophole, those things should be welcomed and pressed forward with.
        Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the best way to deal with future loopholes—if I can put it like that—is to construct a framework that is based on principle? That principle can be applied to future cases, and the effect is simply to extend the principle. The alternative is a narrow, legalistic approach wherein the remedy precedes the right.
        Mr. Waterson: I agree, with one proviso, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman accepts, which is that that framework should be firmly bedded in the structure of our existing legal system.
        The Minister touched on the difficulties of defining fair and unfair, but I thought that I had explained where the concept of fairness had already appeared in legislation and had not caused any great difficulties. She talked about difficulties of definition and of practicality and enforcement, although she agreed that something should be done.
        The Minister appears to think that the matter is more one of improving enforcement of existing legislation—no one could disagree with her on the need for that—but the key point is that many of the scams are simply outside the scope of existing legislation. It does not matter how much effort is put into enforcing existing legislation if the scams are outside it. I commend to her the report by Age Concern on the sale of assistive products, which documents a great many cases—almost invariably involving elderly ladies—which arise almost daily.
        Finally, the hon. Lady said that she sought to extend the time share directive. My point is that by the time that directive has been extended, the tricksters and fraudsters will be doing something else just as damaging to consumers under a different label.
        What can the Minister offer us? An invitation to a seminar—at least I hope that I am included on the guest list. If the Minister invites me, I shall be delighted to

        37
        attend. In the meantime, the fact that all she has in mind is a seminar suggests that her Department's thinking has not moved on. On that basis, I shall press amendment No. 196 to a Division.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 204

        DOMESTIC INFRINGEMENTS
        Amendment proposed: No. 196, in page 147, line 26, at end add—
        '(2A) An act or omission or course of conduct falls within this subsection if it amounts to the abuse by the person in question ("the supplier") of his superior knowledge or bargaining strength so that he:

        (a) unfairly induces consumers to enter into transactions which are not the result of free and informed decisions; or

        (b) unfairly hinders consumers from enforcing rights under any consumer transaction.

        (2B)In considering whether an act, omission or course of conduct amounts to an abuse under subsection 2A, the court shall take into account all the circumstances, including the nature of the goods or services in question, the nature and extent of any commitments undertaken by the consumers in question and any lack of good faith on the part of the supplier, and the court may have regard to:

        (a) any representation made by the supplier, or failure to disclose information, which unreasonably prevents consumers from making adequate price or value comparisons between competing suppliers;

        (b) any exploitation by the supplier of consumers' inability to make free and informed decisions, or to enforce rights under contracts, because of physical or mental infirmity, inability to understand the language of the transaction or other vulnerability;

        (c) any failure by the supplier to comply with a consumer code of practice (as defined in section 8(4) of this Act) which he claims to follow;

        (d) any act or omission by the supplier which causes any unreasonable expense of time or money by consumers pursuing legitimate complaints or rights under contracts entered into with the supplier; and

        (e) any failure to keep consumers reasonably informed about matters relating to a contract for supply of services, or which might affect a decision whether or not to change suppliers.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 258.

        Division No. 275]

        [4.39 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Brady, Graham

        Amess, David

        Brazier, Julian

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Breed, Colin

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Bruce, Malcolm

        Bacon, Richard

        Burnett, John

        Baker, Norman

        Burns, Simon

        Baldry, Tony

        Burstow, Paul

        Barker, Gregory

        Butterfill, John

        Barrett, John

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Bellingham, Henry

        Cameron, David

        Bercow, John

        Carmichael, Alistair

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Chidgey, David

        Boswell, Tim

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

        Collins, Tim

        38

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Cotter, Brian

        Mercer, Patrick

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Moore, Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Murrison, Dr Andrew

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

        Ottaway, Richard

        Evans, Nigel

        Page, Richard

        Fallon, Michael

        Paice, James

        Field, Mark (Cities of London)

        Paterson, Owen

        Flight, Howard

        Pickles, Eric

        Flook, Adrian

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Prisk, Mark

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Pugh, Dr John

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Francois, Mark

        Rendel, David

        Gale, Roger

        Robathan, Andrew

        Garnier, Edward

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        Gibb, Nick

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Gray, James

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Grayling, Chris

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Greenway, John

        Sanders, Adrian

        Grieve, Dominic

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Simmonds, Mark

        Hammond, Philip

        Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Hayes, John

        Spink, Bob

        Heath, David

        Spring, Richard

        Hoban, Mark

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Streeter, Gary

        Horam, John

        Stunell, Andrew

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Swire, Hugo

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Syms, Robert

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Johnson, Boris (Henley)

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Keetch, Paul

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

        Thurso, John

        Tredinnick, David

        Key, Robert

        Trend, Michael

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Lamb, Norman

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Laws, David

        Walter, Robert

        Leigh, Edward

        Waterson, Nigel

        Letwin, Oliver

        Weir, Michael

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Whittingdale, John

        Lidington, David

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Wiggin, Bill

        Loughton, Tim

        Wilkinson, John

        Luff, Peter

        Willetts, David

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Malins, Humfrey

        Mr. Charles Hendry and

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Mr. Desmond Swayne.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Baird, Vera

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Banks, Tony

        Ainger, Nick

        Barnes, Harry

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Alexander, Douglas

        Benn, Hilary

        Allen, Graham

        Benton, Joe

        Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

        Best, Harold

        Blackman, Liz

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Blizzard, Bob

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Borrow, David

        Austin, John

        Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        39

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Havard, Dai

        Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

        Healey, John

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Burgon, Colin

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Heppell, John

        Cairns, David

        Hesford, Stephen

        Campbell. Alan (Tynemouth)

        Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hill, Keith

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Hoey, Kate

        Caplin, Ivor

        Hope, Phil

        Casale, Roger

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cawsey, Ian

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Challen, Colin

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hurst, Alan

        Clapham, Michael

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Illsley, Eric

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

        Clelland, David

        Irranca—Davies, Huw

        Clwyd, Ann

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

        Coaker, Vernon

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Jenkins, Brian

        Coleman, Iain

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Colman, Tony

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Cooper, Yvette

        Joyce, Eric

        Corston, Jean

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Cox, Tom

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Cranston, Ross

        Kelly, Ruth

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Kidney, David

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Davidson, Ian

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Lepper, David

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

        Leslie, Christopher

        Levitt, Tom

        Dawson, Hilton

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Linton, Martin

        Dowd, Jim

        Lloyd, Tony

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Love, Andrew

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Lucas, Ian

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Luke, Iain

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        McCabe, Stephen

        Edwards, Huw

        McCafferty, Chris

        Efford, Clive

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Ennis, Jeff

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Etherington, Bill

        McDonnell, John

        Farrelly, Paul

        McIsaac, Shona

        Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

        McKechin, Ann

        Fisher, Mark

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        McNamara, Kevin

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        MacShane, Denis

        Flint, Caroline

        McWalter, Tony

        Flynn, Paul

        McWilliam, John

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Mahmood, Khalid

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Foulkes, George

        Mallaber, Judy

        Gapes, Mike

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Gardiner, Barry

        Mann, John

        Gerrard, Neil

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Gilroy, Linda

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Goggins, Paul

        Martlew, Eric

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Merron, Gillian

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Miliband, David

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Miller, Andrew

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Moffatt, Laura

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Mole, Chris

        Hanson, David

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Moran, Margaret

        40

        Mountford, Kali

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mullin, Chris

        Soley, Clive

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Southworth, Helen

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Hara, Edward

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Olner, Bill

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Organ, Diana

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Stringer, Graham

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Picking, Anne

        Tami, Mark

        Pickthall, Colin

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Pike, Peter

        Thomas. Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Plaskitt, James

        Tipping, Paddy

        Pond, Chris

        Todd, Mark

        Pope, Greg

        Trickett, Jon

        Pound, Stephen

        Truswell, Paul

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Purchase, Ken

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Vaz, Keith

        Rammell, Bill

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Watson, Tom

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

        Watts, David

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        White, Brian

        Rooney, Terry

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Ryan, Joan

        Salter, Martin

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Wills, Michael

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Winnick, David

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wood, Mike

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Woodward, Shaun

        Sheerman, Barry

        Woolas, Phil

        Sheridan, Jim

        Worthington, Tony

        Simon, Siôn

        Wray, James

        Singh, Marsha

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

        Mr. Ian Pearson and

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Derek Twigg.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 206

        ENFORCERS
        Amendment made: No. 375, in page 148, line 27, at end insert—
        '(c) the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Northern Ireland.'—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Clause 208
        APPLICATIONS
        Amendment made: No. 376, in page 150, line 29, after "Wales" insert "or Northern Ireland".—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
      Clause 210

        ENFORCEMENT ORDERS
        Amendment made: No. 377, in page 151, line 32, leave out "that subsection" and insert—
        'subsection (3) of that section'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Clause 215

        BODIES CORPORATE: ACCESSORIES
        Amendment made: No. 378, in page 156, line 12, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
        '(10) A person is an associate of an individual if—

        (a) he is the spouse of the individual;

        (b) he is a relative of the individual;

        (c) he is a relative of the individual's spouse;

        (d) he is the spouse of a relative of the individual;

        (e) he is the spouse of a relative of the individual's spouse;

        (f) he lives in the same household as the individual otherwise than merely because he or the individual is the other's employer, tenant, lodger or boarder;

        (g) he is a relative of a person who is an associate of the individual by virtue of paragraph (f);

        (h) he has at some time in the past fallen within any of paragraphs (a) to (g).

        (11) A person is also an associate of—

        (a) an individual with whom he is in partnership;

        (b) an individual who is an associate of the individual mentioned in paragraph (a);

        (c) a body corporate if he is a controller of it or he is an associate of a person who is a controller of the body corporate.

        (12) A body corporate is an associate of another body corporate if—

        (a) the same person is a controller of both;

        (b) a person is a controller of one and persons who are his associates are controllers of the other;

        (c) a person is a controller of one and he and persons who are his associates are controllers of the other;

        (d) a group of two or more persons is a controller of each company and the groups consist of the same persons;

        (e) a group of two or more persons is a controller of each company and the groups may be regarded as consisting of the same persons by treating (in one or more cases) a member of either group as replaced by a person of whom he is an associate.

        (13) A relative is a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, lineal ancestor or lineal descendant.'—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Clause 221

        EVIDENCE
        Amendment made: No. 379, in page 158, line 25, at end insert—
        '(c) section 7 of the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (c. 36 (N.I.)) (corresponding provision in Northern Ireland).'—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      New clause 6

        BANKRUPT'S HOME
        '(1) The following shall be inserted after section 283 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (definition of bankrupt's estate)—
        "283A Bankrupt's home ceasing to form part of estate
        (1) This section applies where property comprised in the bankrupt's estate consists of an interest in a dwelling-house which at the date of the bankruptcy was the bankrupt's sole or principal residence.
        (2) At the end of the period of three years beginning with the date of the bankruptcy the interest mentioned in subsection (1) shall—

        (a) cease to be comprised in the bankrupt's estate, and

        (b) vest in the bankrupt (without conveyance, assignment or transfer).

        (3) Subsection (2) shall not apply if during the period mentioned in that subsection—

        (a) the trustee realises the interest mentioned in subsection (1),

        (b) the trustee applies for an order for sale in respect of the dwelling-house,

        (c) the trustee applies for an order for possession of the dwelling-house,

        (d) the trustee applies for an order under section 313 in Chapter IV in respect of that interest, or

        (e) the trustee and the bankrupt agree that the bankrupt shall incur a specified liability to his estate (with or without the addition of interest from the date of the agreement) in consideration of which the interest mentioned in subsection (1) shall cease to form part of the estate.

        (4) Where an application of a kind described in subsection (3)(b) to (d) is made during the period mentioned in subsection (2) and is dismissed, unless the court orders otherwise the interest to which the application relates shall on the dismissal of the application—

        (a) cease to be comprised in the bankrupt's estate, and

        (b) vest in the bankrupt (without conveyance, assignment or transfer).

        (5) If the bankrupt does not inform the trustee or the official receiver of his interest in a property before the end of the period of three months beginning with the date of the bankruptcy, the period of three years mentioned in subsection (2)—

        (a) shall not begin with the date of the bankruptcy, but

        (b) shall begin with the date on which the trustee or official receiver becomes aware of the bankrupt's interest.

        (6) The court may substitute for the period of three years mentioned in subsection (2) a longer period—

        (a) in prescribed circumstances, and

        (b) in such other circumstances as the court thinks appropriate.

        (7) The rules may make provision for this section to have effect with the substitution of a shorter period for the period of three years mentioned in subsection (2) in specified circumstances (which may be described by reference to action to be taken by a trustee in bankruptcy).
        (8) The rules may also, in particular. make provision—

        (a) requiring or enabling the trustee of a bankrupt's estate to give notice that this section applies or does not apply;

        (b) about the effect of a notice under paragraph (a);

        (c) requiring the trustee of a bankrupt's estate to make an application to the Chief Land Registrar.

        (9) Rules under subsection (8)(b) may, in particular—

        (a) disapply this section;

        (b) enable a court to disapply this section;

        (c) make provision in consequence of a disapplication of this section;

        (d) enable a court to make provision in consequence of a disapplication of this section;

        (e) make provision (which may include provision conferring jurisdiction on a court or tribunal) about compensation."

        (2) Section 313 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (charge on bankrupt's home) shall be amended as follows—

        (a) in subsection (2) for ", up to the value from time to time of the property secured," substitute ", up to the charged value from time to time,", and

        (b) after subsection (2) insert—

        "(2A) In subsection (2) the charged value means—

        43

        (a) the amount specified in the charging order as the value of the bankrupt's interest in the property at the date of the order, plus

        (b) interest on that amount from the date of the charging order at the prescribed rate.

        (2B) In determining the value of an interest for the purposes of this section the court shall disregard any matter which it is required to disregard by the rules."
        (3) The following shall be inserted after section 313 of that Act—
        "313A Low value home: application for sale, possession or charge
        (1) This section applies where—

        (a) property comprised in the bankrupt's estate consists of an interest in a dwelling-house which at the date of the bankruptcy was the bankrupt's sole or principal residence, and

        (b) the trustee applies for an order for the sale of the property, for an order for possession of the property or for an order under section 313 in respect of the property.

        (2) The court shall dismiss the application if the value of the interest is below the amount prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
        (3) In determining the value of an interest for the purposes of this section the court shall disregard any matter which it is required to disregard by the order which prescribes the amount for the purposes of subsection (2)."
        (4) The following shall be inserted after section 307(2)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (after-acquired property: exclusions)—
        "(aa) any property vesting in the bankrupt by virtue of section 283A in Chapter II,".
        (5) In section 384(2) of that Act (prescribed amounts) after "section 273;" insert—
        "section 313A;".
        (6) In section 418(1) of that Act (monetary limits in bankruptcy) after the entry for section 273 insert—
        section 313A (value of property below which application for sale, possession or charge to be dismissed):".
        (7) In subsection (8)—

        (a) "pre-commencement bankrupt" means an individual who is adjudged bankrupt on a petition presented before subsection (1) above comes into force, and

        (b) "the transitional period" is the period of three years beginning with the date on which subsection (1) above comes into force.

        (8) If a pre-commencement bankrupt's estate includes an interest in a dwelling-house which at the date of the bankruptcy was his sole or principal residence, at the end of the transitional period that interest shall—

        (a) cease to be comprised in the estate, and

        (b) vest in the bankrupt (without conveyance, assignment or transfer).

        (9) But subsection (8) shall not apply if before or during the transitional period—

        (a) any of the events mentioned in section 283A(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45) (inserted by subsection (1) above) occurs in relation to the interest or the dwelling-house, or

        the trustee obtains any order of a court, or makes any agreement with the bankrupt, in respect of the interest or the dwelling-house.

        (10) Section 283A(4) of that Act shall apply to an application made during the transitional period in relation to a pre-commencement bankrupt as it applies to an application made during the period mentioned in section 283A(2).'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 6 was tabled to fulfil a commitment made in Committee to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), who had tabled his own new clause to deal with situations where the bankrupt's family home remains liable for sale by the trustee, and indeed is sometimes sold by him, long after the bankrupt has been discharged. The current provisions can lead to some harsh outcomes and perceived unfairness, and my hon. Friend mentioned representations from a wide range of organizations—including the Insolvency Practices Council, the Bankruptcy Advisory Service and the Association of Business Recovery Professionals—seeking clarification and a change to the law. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) also spoke in Committee in favour of change.
        My hon. Friend accepted that his new clause may not have been perfectly drafted and withdrew it on our undertaking further to consider the issue of the family home. New clause 6 provides for more equitable treatment of the family home in bankruptcy. The home will continue to vest on bankruptcy in the bankrupt's estate, as it does now, but the clause provides a three-year period during which the trustee must act. If he does not do so, the family home reverts to the bankrupt at the end of that period. The clause provides for extending that period in special circumstances, but that will be the exception rather than the norm.
        We believe that all the relevant provisions will result in a much fairer regime. They will provide some certainty to the bankrupt, the trustee and the creditors about the time scale, which is currently open ended, for dealing with the family home. They will create a balance between the interests of the bankrupt and his or her family and the creditors. In a minority of cases, that balance can currently unfairly favour the interests of creditors, and the provisions will help lift the stigma of bankruptcy.
        In considering the matter further, we have concluded that those who are bankrupt when the new provisions come into force should also benefit. There seems no sound reason why that should not happen, especially since they feel the unfair effects of the current law. The new clause therefore contains transitional provisions.
        The provision is detailed because it deals with a complex subject. Nevertheless, we believe that it will create a reasonable balance between the interests of creditors, by providing ample time for the disposal by the trustee of the bankrupt's interest in his or her sole and principal residence in the most appropriate manner, and those of bankrupts and their dependents, by providing a degree of finality about the time scale in which their interests in their homes will be tackled.
        I ask hon. Members to support the new clause.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the thinking behind the new clause. As she rightly says, it is based on a similar amendment which the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) tabled in Committee. As she also said, a central reason for the new

        45
        clause is removing the stigma of bankruptcy. The Opposition and the Government differ sharply on the matter. As the Minister knows from our Committee proceedings, we have genuine anxieties about whether removing the stigma to the extent for which the Bill provides is commendable. We have examined in some detail experience in the USA, Hong Kong and Scotland to ascertain what has happened in other parts of the world where similar proposals pertain.
        Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman mentions removing the stigma on bankrupts. Does he accept that the new clause would remove it from some but possibly make it worse for those whom one might regard as maleficent bankrupts?
        Mr. Waterson: Clearly, it affects bankrupts who have a substantial asset in the form of a home in which they live. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister accept that the new clause is part of the general philosophy of the provisions that we are considering: removing the stigma of bankruptcy, and making it easier for people to become bankrupt and come out of bankruptcy. The argument for that is based on the unsustainable proposition of culpable and non-culpable bankrupts. We do not accept that, and we have argued for a third category: the pathological optimists, who do not mean any harm but leave a trail of debt and destruction.
        It is instructive to examine the Minister's initial reaction to what was new clause 12, which the hon. Member for South Ribble tabled in Committee. She did not greet it with special enthusiasm,
        "as it can lead to a certain rough justice in practice and is not entirely compatible with 'A Fresh Start'"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 May 2002; c. 714.]
        "A Fresh Start" is the title of the White Paper, and the Minister herself made those remarks.
        In Committee, we covered the point that English law makes no distinction between personal and corporate insolvency. We know that after the changes in the law in the USA, 1.5 million bankruptcies a year there have nothing to do with business. The vast proportion constitute consumers who are wiping out consumer—usually credit card—debt. We must be under no illusions about the provision being directed at individuals who run up personal credit bills. In many cases, the only asset available to their creditors will be the remaining equity in their homes. With the current explosion in consumer credit, this problem is likely to get worse rather than better.
        5 pm
        In addition, another part of the Bill contributes to the problem that will arise from new clause 6. That involves the more limited time that will be available to investigate bankrupts and their assets before they are discharged from bankruptcy. We shall investigate this matter in greater detail under the eighth group of amendments. The Bill sets out a period of 12 months, but makes it clear that, for many bankrupts, that will he the upper ceiling, and that they will come out of bankruptcy well within the 12-month period. One of the arguments against the three-year period relates to whether the ownership of a property comes to light in a reasonable time, and I shall come to that in a minute. We want to ensure that, in introducing these changes—which must all be taken together—we do not produce a kind of rogue's charter.
        46
        I am sure that the Minister will concede that excluding a bankrupt's home in certain circumstances is a major issue in this legislation, and the proposal has been introduced very much at the last minute. I concede that there was a discussion based on the new clause tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for South Ribble, although, as I recall, that came towards the end of the Committee's deliberations. The Minister, having promised to come back to us on this matter, has, indeed, produced the Government's own new clause. This has come at a very late stage in relation to our discussions on the Bill last Thursday and today.
        There are two aspects to the Government's rather detailed new clause. The first issue relates to a bankrupt's sole or principal residence being returned to them, in principle, after three years. The second issue—to which the Minister did not, perhaps, devote as much time as she should have—involves the provision about low-value homes. Subsection (3) of the new clause proposes that, when a bankrupt's sole or principal residence is involved, and a trustee applies for an order for the sale or possession of the property, or
        "for an order under section 313 in respect of the property",
        "The court shall dismiss the application if the value of the interest is below the amount prescribed for the purposes of this subsection."
        That is quite a dramatic departure, even from the debate that we had in Committee. As I read that paragraph, it seems to be saying that properties below a certain value will be exempt from the bankruptcy process in any event. Presumably, it leaves the fixing of the value—the so-called low value—to regulation. It would be interesting to hear more of the Minister's thinking about what kind of low value we are talking about.
        This measure has the potential to be extremely divisive across the country. How is this low value to be established? Judged by London standards, properties in some parts of the country have a very low value indeed, but only on a comparative basis. What attempts, if any, have been made to consult insolvency practitioners, consumer bodies or the credit industry on the effects of this and the earlier part of the new clause? What is the thinking behind this development concerning low-value properties? How is that term to be defined? What is the basis for it? This provision goes significantly beyond the debate that we had in Committee, and it would be interesting to know precisely what the departmental thinking behind it is.
        These major concerns are borne out by a letter that was sent to the Minister by an anonymous insolvency practitioner, a copy of which was also sent to me. This person has practised as an insolvency practitioner for many years, and used to work for the Insolvency Service. His first point was that he was unsure when the three-year period would begin to run. As I read the new clause, it would seem to begin when the bankruptcy starts. The gentleman to whom I refer, however, points out that it might make more sense if the three years ran from when the trustee became aware of the existence of the property.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Subsection (5) states that if the bankrupt does not notify the official receiver or the trustee of the property, the three-year period will be extended.
        Mr. Waterson: That is very helpful.

        47
        As I am sure the Minister will accept, it is not unknown for a bankrupt to hide his interest in a property. This is not a situation in which all or even most bankrupts rush to declare all their assets at the beginning of a bankruptcy.
        The gentleman I mentioned writes:
        "What the government appears to be saying to unscrupulous or feckless/reckless bankrupts… is that if you risk, in the main, other people's money and if you are lucky enough for the equity in your house to increase…that windfall benefit will be yours rather than your long suffering creditors', the government needless to say being one of the larger losers. This doesn't encourage enterprise, but a bunch of gamblers gambling recklessly with other people's money."
        Before proceeding, the Minister should at least ask the insolvency profession whether hers is a sensible approach.
        We are prepared to concede that, if there is some unfairness, it could be argued that it is experienced by the bankrupt's spouse rather than the bankrupt if he or she has not been kept fully informed. The hon. Member for South Ribble said, not unreasonably, that it was a shock for someone, having initially kept his home, to use it some years later during a bankruptcy; but I understand that that has been addressed for some years by the Insolvency Service itself.
        The bankrupt and/or his or her spouse is given the opportunity, in the event of negative or limited positive equity, to purchase the property for a nominal sum—usually £1—with legal costs of no more than £230. It is difficult to believe that the bankrupt or spouse could not raise that kind of money if the offer were made in the usual way. However, the gentleman's letter continues:
        "I have seen many cases working for an Insolvency Practitioner, where there are many unanswered letters on file from the Official Receiver, to the bankrupt offering to sell his interest in the property for a nominal sum. I have looked at the file of one bankrupt where there were no less than 6 letters on file from the Official Receiver commencing within weeks of the Bankruptcy".
        The problem seems, however, not to relate so much to the matrimonial home with negative or very limited equity. Any bankrupt with any sense should accept the terms routinely offered. I am told that the practical problem for trustees is dealing with cases in which the bankrupt's share of the equity is perhaps between £2,500 and £10,000, and it is beyond the ability of the bankrupt or his spouse to borrow that sum, but uneconomic for the trustee—in terms of his own fees—to pursue the matter through the courts.
        As for bargaining with the bankrupt, the trustee would not give up the potential right to sell the matrimonial home as a way of ensuring a more satisfactory result in terms of the bankruptcy overall. One of the aims of new clause 6 is to prevent such pressure from being exerted on a bankrupt who may be less than willing to volunteer assets or payments to satisfy creditors.
        One answer proposed by our anonymous correspondent is that the Insolvency Service should review its files far more regularly, not just when the assets fall into its lap—usually when the bankrupt wants to sell or remortgage his home. He says:
        "in my experience this is the most common way insolvency practitioners get appointed."
        He says, in conclusion:
        "There is a cheap and effective way for many bankrupts/spouses to protect their homes, the fact that the way has not been taken is normally the ostrich response of many bankrupts and the fact it takes
        48
        some years to discover is due at best to the under resourced and under trained Insolvency Service, at worst due to their inability to apply or understand their own procedures."
        On any view, this provision must shift the balance of power between creditors and debtors. It is bound to have a knock-on effect on the credit industry, quite apart from the effects, which we discussed at length in Committee and will discuss at length again today, of other provisions relating, in particular, to personal insolvency. It is important that Ministers and officials consult fully before proceeding with the proposals, because the ghost at the banquet—the law of unintended consequences—is bound to arise again here, as sure as eggs is eggs. As the Opposition, we must at least try to guard against that.
        With all due respect to the hon. Member for South Ribble, who advanced arguments that were sometimes simple and emotional, there is always another side to the question. It is important that the Government do not rush to try to right an apparent injustice, when the real injustice is often the one visited on creditors, who may be not banks or credit companies but simply other individuals, family or friends, who have advanced money to a bankrupt. All too often, the lender of last resort is a close family member or friend.
        Mr. David Borrow: I welcome the new clause. I am extremely grateful that the Minister delivered on the promise made in Committee. The new clause is long and complex, because this is a complex and difficult area of law, but the principles are simple, to echo the word used by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). When a person goes bankrupt, it is reasonable for the creditors to be able to get access to all the assets, but we are talking not about assets but about a family home in which there is no interest, or only marginal interest, at the time of bankruptcy.
        The new clause means that the creditors must, within three years, either take possession of the property and dispose of it or allow the bankrupt to continue to own it so that equity builds up, either by an increase in its value or by a lessening of the mortgage debt. If the house were a moveable chattel, it would be sold and the value would be distributed among the creditors, but at the time of bankruptcy there is nothing for the creditors to get hold of, because it does not exist.
        Under the current law, the value in the property that is built up, through hard work and paying off the mortgage and through changes in the property's value after the bankrupt is discharged, can end up being distributed to the creditors a decade or more later, when any other asset belonging to the bankrupt at the time of bankruptcy would already have been sold and distributed.
        In my view, it is important to be able to say that, once a bankrupt has been discharged, a line has been drawn under the matter and he can get on with his life, build up equity in the home and anticipate being able to retire with a property that has been bought and paid for. Under the current law, that may not happen. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked about what happens if the family home does not come to the attention of the trustee at the time of bankruptcy, but that point is adequately dealt with in new clause 6, which points out that the three-year period begins when the property's existence comes to the attention of the trustee.

        49
        5.15 pm
        This is a modest but important new clause for certain people. I welcome its introduction by my hon. Friend the Minister, and the fact that her officials have found time to ensure its correct drafting. I hope that the House will accept it.
        Mr. Mark Field: I accept the points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) today and in Committee. It seems unusual and perhaps unfair on a bankrupt to be left in limbo for such a period, particularly in cases where the matrimonial home is clearly part of the bankrupt's estate when proceedings begin, and the risk of needing to sell it off to pay the bankrupt's debts is therefore small or non-existent. Such uncertainty would be especially unfair on the bankrupt's spouse and children, for example. However, there are also concerns—articulated well by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—about stigma and the position of creditors. In tabling this and other provisions, the position of creditors has perhaps been forgotten, or at least downgraded somewhat.
        Although I appreciate that the same could be said of any arbitrary time limit, my concern about a strict three-year limit is that it might be deemed necessary to sell the bankrupt's home—to realise perhaps only a relatively small proportion of the equity—at a difficult time in the property market. I am a relatively new MP, with 12 and a half months' experience in this place, but those who were MPs during the mid-1990s will be familiar with stories of individuals who, on becoming bankrupt, had their property taken over by the mortgage company or building society, and sold for a very low value. Any arbitrary time limit such as that proposed involves the inevitable risk that the property will have to be sold at a time disadvantageous to the bankrupt. Notwithstanding the level of discretion provided by the clause, such risk remains.
        Mr. Waterson: Although the Minister rightly pointed out that a court can apply a period longer than three years, under subsection (7) it is possible, in principle, for a period of less than three years to be applied.
        Mr. Field: I fully appreciate that there is flexibility, but if the clause is too flexible, it risks going against the grain of the intended aim of achieving some certainty. Such certainty is necessary in the light of the concerns of the bankrupt, and particularly of the state, about housing any dependants.
        It seems that the new clause will ultimately be accepted, and instinctive support does indeed exist on both sides of the House for some of the aims of the hon. Member for South Ribble and the Government. I hope, however, that thought will be given to the underlying concern that it might be made far too easy to apply for individual bankruptcies. The real risk of this clause and other clauses is that the interests of creditors will be undermined.
        We will no doubt brandish statistics later in the debate, but newspapers have recently reported that significant numbers of graduates leave university with large personal debts. They may not have the benefit of owning property, but such debts could lead to less of a stigma for being bankrupt, and students with large debts may go into bankruptcy at an early stage in order to draw a line under
        50
        them. As I have said, the fear is that the interests of creditors—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne pointed out, the creditor of last resort is all too often friends and family—will be undermined by allowing further rights to those with debts.
        I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some assurances on the points that have been made. Given the debate that we had in Committee, we can understand why the new clause is considered a good idea, but we are worried that creditors' interests will be downgraded in some way and that the strict time limits—notwithstanding the potential for some flexibility—will cause grave injustices. Examples of such injustices will no doubt have a high profile press coverage, and that will not do any of us any credit. We may find that the good intentions behind the clause will be undermined by the reality.
        Mr. McWalter: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and the Minister on the new clause. It will significantly strengthen the Bill in terms of trying to promote a culture of enterprise. People will have greater opportunities to set up businesses—to implement a business idea—without risking all the assets that they have accumulated before setting out on a venture that will always be hazardous and difficult, no matter what the Government do. People who try to develop new businesses will always win the respect of Members of Parliament.
        The new clause exposes again the fault line between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition say that they do not support the idea that one can distinguish between bankrupts who are benign and those who are malign. Of course, the third category of serial optimist—or people who might be described as reckless—will come to the attention of the courts after the first or second reckless venture. In such cases, the courts would begin to think that such persons were malign.
        Mr. Field: The legislation on individual bankruptcy and, to an extent, corporate insolvency is predicated on the basis that some bankrupts and insolvent companies are good and some are bad. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are shades of grey? We are concerned that the Government's approach is naive. The issue therefore should be dealt with as a matter of fact, rather than of strict law.
        Mr. McWalter: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter of shades of grey and difficult decisions need to be made about whether somebody who has left a lot of creditors in the lurch is so culpable that they should face a long period of imprisonment or be banned from being a company director. In other cases, people might go bankrupt because someone defaulted on a large debt that was owed to them, so it was no fault of theirs—especially if the default was unforeseeable. There is a spectrum of cases and it is ultimately for the courts to decide some of them.
        Under the new clause, it must be decided whether someone is malign or benign. People heading for bankruptcy can do everything possible to salt away resources so that when they go bankrupt and default on their obligations to their creditors, they can live off the fat of the resources that they have salted away. I have come across a case in my constituency of someone making extraordinary payments into a pension plan which can be

        51
        drawn down early so that he can live high on the hog while the enterprises of many of his creditors are significantly diminished. That is a malign case.
        Similarly, people can vest in their property a significant amount of resources that they should have been paying out on the bills to those who supplied commodities and services to their companies. However, new clause 6 caters for that eventuality. Someone may develop a significant capital in a property that is in council tax band H, for example, at the same time as they have been defaulting on their obligations, and if the company and its directors fail to take account of the process of giving an early warning and indicating to the authorities that they will have difficulty in meeting their obligations, I am sure that when the trustee applies for an order for sale in respect of the dwelling house, it will be granted. That is the process envisaged by the new clause.
        Of course, much of the time, people genuinely have a single dwelling house—a principal residence—where not only they but their family and children live. Under the old regime, that asset is taken away and it falls to the state to house the family and children. These days, it is difficult for local authorities to respond positively in those circumstances. I agree with the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about grey areas, but if we assume that the person has built up an inordinate amount of capital as a result of malign activities, it is ultimately for the courts to decide on which side of the line they fall. Have they built up that capital while failing to co-operate with the authorities? Some cases might be difficult to decide. Sometimes the order for sale will be granted because it will be reasonable to expect the family to rehouse itself in a lower value property, paid for out of residual assets.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Waterson: Does the hon. Gentleman at least accept my concern that, in other parts of the Bill, the actual period for investigation and then discharge of a bankrupt could be much less even than 12 months? Given existing pressure on the relevant resources, that could mean that if the information that a property was not the sole, but could be the principal, residence, was not volunteered, that asset might not be available at all for the satisfaction of the creditors due to the dishonesty of the bankrupt and the lack of proper investigation by the trustee.
        Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Where there is non-disclosure, the person is automatically in danger of instantly being labelled a malign bankrupt; because of the failure to disclose, the kind of protection for the principal home envisaged in the new clause would not apply. Such behaviour would thus immediately constitute a prima facie case for the person not benefiting from the provision.
        Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way to me again. The point I was trying to make was that the non-disclosure might remain undiscovered—although the hon. Gentleman is right about the effects, if it was discovered.
        Mr. McWalter: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, although if it became clear at a later stage that
        52
        someone had failed to disclose, other statutes might be applicable, depending on the precise nature of the non-disclosure; for instance, the Proceeds of Crime Bill might apply.
        Mr. Ken Purchase: Although I have huge sympathy with the new clause in its widest sense because it will bring a little more justice in those situations, on the narrow point that my hon. Friend makes about malignity and non-malignity, does he agree that determining between the two would be an enormous task to give anyone? Within that narrow context, does he agree that a person who fails to keep themselves fully and properly informed of good business practice might as well be acting malignly if it leads to the difficulties that we are discussing?
        Mr. McWalter: As always, my hon. Friend makes a substantive point: someone might fail to co-operate in disclosing their difficulties meeting their obligations because they simply do not know that to do so could result in those difficulties being obviated. That raises interesting questions about the custodians of that process, although insolvency practitioners increasingly seek such changes in the law. When a person makes an initial approach to such a practitioner, they will rapidly be made aware of the arrangements whereby they could be assisted to discharge their obligations to their creditors.
        To return to the point that I was making, the procedure admits of coping with two very different kinds of case, and even with the slightly in-between grey cases on which Opposition Members are especially keen. The result of the change—for which I have already commended my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—would be that people could think about setting up a business without its threatening the welfare of their family. That would be a marvellous change for the business culture of this country and I sincerely hope that we can make the provision work.
        I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) that its implementation will require extremely good communication between the Government and business, hopefully, for instance, through the agency of the Small Business Service. We should try to ensure that it becomes a prime agency for helping businesses that experience the sort of difficulties to which he adverted.
        Mr. Carmichael: I shall not detain the House long. I have already given hon. Members the benefit of the Presbyterian perspective and stigma in Committee, and I do not intend to rehearse it again. However, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has said, this is a question of shades of grey, and even in the Church of Scotland, we recognise shades of grey.
        Mr. Purchase: Does the hon. Gentleman speak for the Wee Frees?
        Mr. Carmichael: I cannot speak for the Wee Frees; I am not one of them.
        The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said that he was aware of difficulties in other jurisdictions, including Scotland. I am not, in all honesty, aware of a great groundswell of opinion among insolvency

        53
        practitioners or others in Scotland seeking the sort of changes that he seeks to promote. Unless he can supply us with more concrete examples, I wonder about the extent to which he perhaps seeks to manufacture a problem that does not exist.
        I had some difficulty in reconciling the hon. Gentleman's remarks and, indeed, those of his colleague, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, with those made by those on the Government Benches. When all else fails on these occasions, my approach is always to read the amendment, and it seems to me that the new clause was being painted rather blacker than necessary.
        The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster says that the application should be a matter of fact, rather than of law. Indeed, if one has regard to the terms of the new clause, that is, in fact, the case. We are dealing with a number of instances in which discretion will be given to trustees, and we hope that that discretion will be excised responsibly and properly on the basis of the information available to them at any given time. Indeed, in the circumstances, I would go so far as to say that the trustees will be best qualified to judge the appropriate application.
        Discretion is the important aspect. As the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) said, where someone seeks to avoid disclosure, it is highly likely that the trustee will regard that as an act that would divest the individuals concerned of the protection provided under new clause 6. In other words, they would not be protected by it. On balance, the Government's approach is correct.
        I have only one concern, which has not yet been properly aired: low-value homes. I want to hear more from the Minister about how those proposals will work and how the variation in property prices will be accommodated. In certain parts of my constituency, two or three-bedroom cottages can still be bought for £10,000 or £15,000.
        Mr. Purchase: Are they in a nice part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency?
        Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that there are no nasty parts of Shetland. If he has learned nothing else in past eight weeks, I have surely taught him that much.
        The situation in Shetland is very different from that which pertains in other parts of the country, and I wonder just how that circle will be squared. I would want to hear rather greater assurance from the Government that those concerns have been met before we rush headlong into the difficulties that I have outlined.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: On a few occasions, I wonder whether all hon. Members have listened carefully to what is said in the opening remarks. I thought that I had sketched out very clearly the fact that there are two situations. I refer in particular to the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in his opening remarks. The new clause is intended to deal with uncertainty and variation and to achieve a balance. I thought that I had emphasised those points in my opening remarks, but I obviously failed in several regards and I shall endeavour to set the record straight.
        54
        First, let us be absolutely clear that the new clause does not exclude the family home in any sense. Were there to be a failure to disclose the existence of a family home, it would be an offence under the Insolvency Act 1986, and it would be taken into consideration by the courts. If there is equity in the property, the creditors will get the benefit of it. The effect of the new clause is that the trustee must act within three years. That is the core and central purpose of the new clause, albeit, as Members have recognised, a lengthy and complicated way of achieving it. It responds to a significant number of views that were expressed. Again, the hon. Member for Eastbourne questioned the views of the insolvency profession.
        Mr. Borrow: I am sure that my hon. Friend has received a great many representations on this matter. Is she in the same position as me, however, in that the only hostile representation that I have received was from the anonymous insolvency practitioner? Does she regard anonymous representations as I do, and give very little weight to them?
        Miss Johnson: Indeed. I have not seen the anonymous representation, as I suspect that it is hard to answer such an anonymous representation. It has not come to my attention, although the hon. Member for Eastbourne has raised it in his remarks.
        I should like to set the record straight. On the issue of the matrimonial home, the Insolvency Practices Council said:
        "It is accepted there are many different circumstances affecting the value of the equity and the potential value to the bankruptcy estate. When should a decision be taken on realisation? At present some of the variations do not seem to be soundly based."
        The Bankruptcy Advisory Service said:
        "We continue to hear from people who were bankrupt some years ago and who have not taken steps to secure their home from any action by their Official Receiver/Trustee in Bankruptcy. Now years later, they find that the property has increased in value and their regular mortgage repayments have reduced the borrowing, putting substantial equity in the property for the Official Receiver/Trustee to claim".
        Clearly, a balance must be struck, which is why the opportunity is provided of three years in which to take the property into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who cannot contribute to our debate, commented to me earlier that he has a constituent—the wife of a bankrupt—for whom this is an issue after 13 years of bankruptcy. Clearly, these issues can cause considerable distress when they crop up much later.
        The Association of Business Recovery Professionals also commented:
        "This is the concern, which has been identified…about variations in practice between trustees in bankruptcy in how they deal with the matrimonial home, and a perceived unfairness in selling the home many years after the bankrupt's discharge."
        As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) recognises, all those groups, unlike the single anonymous contributor, represent a wide range of practitioner views. Indeed, they recognise that there is a problem of exactly the kind that the Government seek to address with the new clause.
        Mr. Mark Field: I thank the Minister for clarifying the issue in part. To achieve the goal of certainty, which I

        55
        fully appreciate— many Members have constituents who have been left in limbo for 10 or 15 years with debt hanging over them and the worry of the matrimonial home being sold—was thought given to allowing the trustee to put a charge on the matrimonial home? That charge would be for a set amount of money after three years, five years or whatever period. That would not necessarily take the whole home outside the confines of bankruptcy but it would provide a second mortgage that could be reclaimed when the property was sold.
        5.45 pm
        Miss Johnson: Consideration was given to that and several other possibilities. We thought that there were considerable practical difficulties with such a suggestion and that it might have a downside for creditors. Although it is realistic to say that the home should be taken into consideration within the three-year period and that vesting should take place, it might be better for creditors if it is disposed of a year down the line. That seems perfectly reasonable. However, it is not reasonable for the issue to arise 10 or 15 years later or for the home not to be recognised as an asset earlier.
        We have tried to seek a balance. The distinctions between benign and malign or recklessness and bad luck do not come into play; it is a question of how the home is dealt with in the bankruptcy. We seek certainty while giving the trustees time to achieve a good realisation of the assets for the creditors. It is important that a time scale exists, which is why we have chosen the period of three years and tabled new clause 6.
        Mr. Waterson: May I urge the Under-Secretary not to be so quick to dismiss the comments of the anonymous correspondent? I could understand that if his comments were in capital letters and green ink and liberally sprinkled with four-letter words. However, they seem closely argued and based on long experience of how things work. Does she accept or reject the practical points that he makes? She cannot get away with merely saying that, because the comments are anonymous, she does not need to deal with them. Does she accept the central thesis that there are any number of reasons for a delay in a home becoming available as an asset in a bankruptcy?
        Miss Johnson: Of course there are a number of reasons for delay, but I have made it clear that the new clause already recognises that point. It is reflected in its drafting and in the provisions that will be made if it becomes a part of the Bill.
        The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said that the issue of low-value properties was of particular concern to him, and the hon. Member for Eastbourne said that it was among his list of concerns. It may be a high or low-value property, but the degree of equity in it is a separate matter. The provision will therefore deal with cases in which there is little or no equity in the property and the cost of disposal may be disproportionate in relation to the funds that could be realised for the estate by the property's sale. The provision will not apply in every case, only when there is an application for a charging order or an order for sale.
        56
        The value will be set in the light of extensive consultation with interested parties, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. There will be extensive consultation, and our intention is to make that clear in rules; it is not an appropriate matter for primary legislation, not least because of the changes that occur to the way in which the property market works. Equity in housing may or may not exist.
        Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that clarification, but the amount of equity in a property will largely depend on the health of the property market in a particular area. Although I appreciate the point that it is not necessarily a question of the value of the property itself, there will still be great disparities between different parts of the nation.
        Miss Johnson: I accept that. We are all aware of the huge disparities. Indeed, those hon. Members who are in the Chamber represent constituencies with wildly differing house prices. The important consideration, however, is that we tease out in discussion how the rule will work and what figure should be used. For that reason. we believe that it is not appropriate to include it in the Bill. Instead, we should return to it in more detail after consultation.
        The new clause does not encourage people to gamble with other people's money. I thought that that suggestion was beneath the hon. Member for Eastbourne. II is patently about providing a degree of certainty and balance that is currently missing. Many professionals in the insolvency sector recognise that it would be desirable to address that problem. It would make things fairer because a balance needs to be struck. The new clause will do that and it merits the support of the House.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 2

        FEES: FURTHER PROVISION
        '.—The following shall be inserted after section 415(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Fees orders (individual insolvency proceedings in England and Wales))—
        "(3A) An order under this section shall provide for:

        (a) exemption from any fees payable under this section by applicants who, at the time when a fee would otherwise be payable. are in receipt of income support, income-based jobseekers allowance, working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit (working tax credit and pension tax credit from April 2003) and any other benefit that the Secretary of State may by order specify;

        (b) remission of all or part of any fees payable under this section where the Secretary of State considers that the payment of any fees payable under this section would, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the particular case, cause undue financial hardship;

        (c) a reduction in the fees payable under this section where:

        (i) two or more people live in the same household petition for bankruptcy at the same time, and

        (ii) they are jointly and severally liable for at least one debt in both petitions;

        (d) payment of any fees payable under this section by instalments.".'—[Mr. Waterson.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

        57
        The subject of the new clause is, in part, a re-run of a debate in Committee. We did not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister then and I hope that our luck will be better today.
        The aims of the new clause are fairly straightforward. It is based on briefing material and a draft amendment produced by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has wide experience of advising people with debt problems. By the standards of some bankrupts whom we have vilified, some people have modest debts, but they still have no way of paying them off in a reasonable working life. It may not matter for our purposes whether they are benign or malign bankrupts or would-be bankrupts, to use the terminology of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter); what matters is that they simply cannot afford to go bankrupt, even if their citizens advice bureau or Member of Parliament advises them that that would be in their best interests. We are not claiming that bankruptcy should never happen and is not appropriate. In some cases, it is the best, if not the only, option.
        I hope that the new clause is clear. First, it would remove financial exclusion from bankruptcy for people on means-tested benefits and tax credits by exempting them from paying court and deposit fees. Secondly, it would help people on low incomes to pay those fees by allowing for remission of all or part of those fees and providing for payment by instalments. Thirdly, it attempts to deal with the situation when both people in a couple find it appropriate to apply for bankruptcy at the same time. All that is against the background of an enormous growth in the financial advice given by citizens advice bureaux. They have seen a 39 per cent. increase in consumer credit debt problems in the past four years alone. Last year, they advised on debt and equivalent problems totalling £1.2 billion, so they know what they are talking about.
        Almost by definition, citizens advice bureaux advise people who perhaps cannot afford to, or would not usually see, an accountant or an insolvency practitioner but who are at their wits' end because they cannot find a way through the debts that they have accumulated. For many people whom they advise, bankruptcy is the only way to obtain a fresh start. They also say that the administration order process in the county court does not apply if someone owes more than £5,000 or has debts that are not the subject of county court judgments.
        Typically, citizens advice bureaux advise people who have debts of £10,000 or more, and I gave one of their worst examples of that in Committee. A local authority tenant, who was employed, managed to run up debts of £33,000. She went to the CAB after considering committing suicide and being depressed about the problem. It advised her that bankruptcy was the best option because otherwise it would take her at least 20 years to repay the debts. The official receiver decided not to make an income payment order or to sell any of her goods. In that legitimate case, a weight was lifted off the shoulders of that lady who, for whatever reason, ran up debts that she had no way of repaying. Another CAB in Sussex dealt with a case in which a £5,000 loan grew to more than £18,000. That caused enormous stress and again the person involved was advised to go bankrupt.
        NACAB makes the point that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—as opposed to Scotland, where it is much cheaper—it costs £370 to go bankrupt. We are in cloud cuckoo land if we think that the people we are
        58
        talking about can find that amount of available cash. NACAB gives examples of people who have had to borrow money from family or friends simply to pay the fee to go bankrupt. A recent legal case of R v. Lord Chancellor ex parte Lightfoot attempted to deal with that problem in the courts, although it was unsuccessful.
        The Minister gave part of the answer in Committee. She said that some debtors can seek a waiver or reduction of the £120 court fee. As the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I made clear, that still leaves £250 that is not covered by the waiver provisions. The Minister was uncharacteristically unsympathetic to the proposal. She stated that waiving all the fees in hardship cases would not be justified and
        "that all the costs of case administration would have to be met from other sources."
        I am not clear how the fees are decided. Are they meant to represent the costs of administering the average case? The Minister might not know off the top of her head, but presumably there is some attempt to relate one to the other.
        The hon. Lady went on to say:
        "we do not believe that general taxation should pay for people to enter bankruptcy when they may have taken on debts irresponsibly."
        They might have taken on debts irresponsibly, but they might also be part of the benign category of bankrupts or would-be bankrupts who got into that state through no fault of their own. She dismissed the entire group of potential bankrupts a little too lightly.
        The Minister also said that
        "a person's entry into bankruptcy is not a right, and should be considered very much a last resort."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 May 2002; c. 693.]
        It is a last resort for the people we are talking about, but there may be much more serious consequences for them if it is not available simply because they cannot afford the fees and court costs.
        My final suggestion in Committee, before giving up and promising to raise the matter on Report, was that there may be some merit in reconsidering the £5,000 limit for the county court provisions. The Minister was good enough to say that she would reflect on that point, so let us hope that she has done so and that she has proposals to change the situation.
        I stress once more that we are talking about a not insignificant number of people who are excluded from the bankruptcy process for one reason—they simply cannot raise the money to pay the costs necessary to start bankruptcy proceedings, even when they have been advised by organisations such as citizens advice bureaux that it is the appropriate course of action and, in some cases, the only way out of their debt problems. We were disappointed when the Minister was somewhat unsympathetic in Committee; I hope that she will be more sympathetic today.
        6 pm
        Mr. Carmichael: I am pleased to support the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I am aware from my casework experience that this is a problem, even north of the border, where, as he says, the fees are more lenient. It seems absurd that, for lack of ready money, people cannot afford to make themselves bankrupt when it is manifestly the only course

        59
        of action open to them. The Government's attitude on this point strikes me as being not only less than helpful but inconsistent with their approach to the rest of the Bill. We have just acknowledged that in some circumstances it is right that creditors should be left unsatisfied, but in the next breath we seem to be saying that the Government must always get their pound of flesh in the form of administrative fees.
        The new clause is tightly drawn and it would mean that people could get to the starting gate. The hon. Gentleman referred to the remarks made by the Minister in Committee to the effect that bankruptcy is not a right. That question is ultimately determined by the courts, and it is wrong that access to that determination should be based on one's ability to come up with ready cash.
        Mr. Mark Field: I want to say a few words in support of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). It strikes me as odd that when we are trying to diminish the stigma of bankruptcy—the Minister will appreciate that there are, at least among Members on this side of the House, shades of opinion about the desirability of that aim—we are also making it ever more difficult for people to go into bankruptcy if they lack the relatively modest sums required.
        I hope that the Minister will think twice. The new clause is tightly drawn and there is no great risk of its being abused. The advice that many hon. Members have received from citizens advice bureaux throughout the country is that the measure would not cost the Treasury huge sums, but it would be a sensible move, given the plan to ease the bankruptcy procedure. I hope that the Minister will have given some thought to the comments made in Committee and here today, and that she will be able to give us some comfort about the concerns that we have expressed.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Our debate has clearly shown the importance with which hon. Members regard the issues raised by new clause 2. The costs of entry into bankruptcy were also raised on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), and a new clause identical to this one was tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in Committee. In addition, NACAB has briefed extensively on this point, as a result of which the Government have received a number of letters from hon. Members. I therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue and the points covered by the new clause.
        Before I do so, however, I must say that I am bemused by the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne in support of the new clause, especially in light of his arguments about new clause 6. On the one hand, he argued on Second Reading and in Committee that we are being too soft on bankrupts and opening the floodgates to more consumer bankruptcy. Indeed, he was hot on that trail only moments ago. On the other hand, he has tabled this new clause, so that those who are unable to make any contribution to creditors will be able to enter bankruptcy and wipe the slate clean.
        As the House will be aware, bankruptcy is not the only method of dealing with debts; nor, depending on the circumstances of the case, does bankruptcy necessarily
        60
        provide the best outcomes for both the debtor and the creditor. I point out also that the courts have found that a person's entry into bankruptcy is not a right. The hon. Gentleman referred to the case of R v. Lord Chancellor ex parte Lightfoot, saying that the law would not help on this point, but the Court of Appeal held that the requirement to pay a deposit did not unlawfully restrict any fundamental right of access to the courts. Bankruptcy should be considered as a last resort; indeed, I thought that that was what Conservative Members were arguing. On this occasion they seem to be arguing that bankruptcy is too difficult for many people, and should be made easier, even though they may have no resources for creditors to access.
        There are several other routes available to individuals with financial problems, many of which do not require a deposit. Many individuals can, and do, apply to the county court for administration orders and discharge their liabilities through monthly payments, which are set at a level that the individual can afford. More than 7,500 debtors took advantage of that route in 2001. Additionally, growing numbers of individuals with debt problems seek advice and assistance from organisations in the voluntary sector such as the Consumer Credit Counselling Service and Paylink. Those organisations will administer debt repayment plans on behalf of debtors at no cost to the debtor, the administration cost being met by creditors who agree to forgo a proportion of new debt. Several of them offer repayment plans of as little as £1 per week.
        In considering changes to the arrangements for bankruptcy, account must be taken of the impact on creditors' interests, and that is my concern in considering the new clause. That point is particularly important in considering any proposal to reduce or waive entry costs in hardship cases. The bankruptcy entry deposit defrays part of the costs of administering the case. The deposit does not cover the full economic costs of administering the case, and any reduction in the deposit would mean that a greater proportion of the costs of case administration would have to be met from elsewhere, which would lead to lower returns to creditors.
        The level of the deposit and fees are set through secondary legislation. It is therefore unnecessary and unduly inflexible to deal with the matter in the Bill. We recognise that this is an issue of concern, but it is also a complex matter. In considering the need for changes, it would be necessary to ensure that there is a continuing balance between the interests of the debtors and creditors. We believe that the current arrangements strike the correct balance, whereas the new clause would not.
        To answer the specific point on deposits raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), none of the individual insolvency provisions, nor those on fees and deposits, applies north of the border. I hope that that helps him.
        The current arrangements strike the right balance, and I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the motion. If he does not, and in view of the fairly fundamental inconsistency in the Opposition's approach to these matters, I shall ask the House to oppose the new clause.
        Mr. Waterson: The Minister has scored a spectacular own goal. I might as easily describe her extremely tough

        61
        and Gradgrind-like attitude to the new clause as wholly inconsistent with her attitude to the new clause relating to bankrupts' homes. She takes a stern line now—although perhaps I should be grateful that she has not invited me to a seminar on the issue. I thought I had made it clear that I was talking about people for whom bankruptcy is indeed the last resort, and that the only thing that keeps them from it is an inability to raise the money for the fees that have to be paid if they are to become bankrupt.
        There is a way forward that does not involve the complication from which the hon. Lady shies away. I raised it in Committee and the Minister promised to reflect on it; I repeated it in my speech moving the new clause, but the Minister signally failed to touch on it in her reply. That way forward is to do something about the £5,000 limit that applies in the county court, which may have become outdated.
        Miss Johnson: I should have addressed that point and I apologise for not doing so. The hon. Gentleman asked in Committee whether there might be some merit in reconsidering the upper limit of £5,000 of total debts that currently applies for the purpose of qualifying for a county court administration order, and I said that I would reflect on it.
        Such matters are for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to decide. His review of the enforcement of civil court judgments includes reform of county court administration orders. The Government are considering a range of options, both court based and non-court based. We do not intend to take any interim measures such as increasing the scope of the existing county court administration orders scheme, including increasing the limit, before we have considered the options for reform in that wider context. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is the sensible setting for further consideration of the issues.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that, and I suppose it does make sense that the matter is to be considered in a broader context. I am moderately delighted that it has not been lost sight of altogether.
        The Minister is taking an unnecessarily stern line. We know the sort of people that the provision covers—they are the sort of people described in NACAB's extensive briefing. I am sorry that the Government are not prepared to be more flexible; despite that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      Schedule 16

        SCHEDULE B1 TO INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 243, line 13, after "company", insert—
        'and the whole or part of its business'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 80, in page 243, line 14, after "not", insert "in his opinion".
        No. 81, in page 243, line 18, after "not", insert "in his opinion".
        No. 82, in page 256, line 22, leave out "28 days" and insert "three months".
        62
        No. 410, in page 264, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 13 on page 265.
        Mr. Waterson: It is fair to say that the amendments—with one exception, or perhaps with none—were tabled at the relevant points of Committee proceedings. However, we continue to feel strongly about the issues with which they deal.
        Amendment No. 79—in Committee, amendment No. 403—is supported by the CBI. The CBI makes the point, which was repeated by Opposition Members throughout Committee stage—much good it did us—that we should not be in the business of rescuing empty vessels, or companies as such; rather, we should be in the business of rescuing businesses. The distinction is subtle, but important. If a company has ceased trading, there is little point in rescuing it just for the sake of it. The Minister will recognise that the amendment echoes section 8 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It would make it abundantly clear that preserving and protecting businesses and enabling them to survive is the first priority.
        6.15 pm
        Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, which go together, would ensure that what matters at the end of the day is a judgment based on the professional knowledge and experience of the insolvency practitioner. As I said in Committee, although I do not want to labour the point, the aim is to avoid unhelpful disputes. I could not understand why the Minister in the Committee was not prepared to accept the relevant amendment, although I think it was another Minister who dealt with that part of the Bill; perhaps we shall be able to sneak it past the Minister here today.
        Amendment No. 82 is somewhat symbolic. It is part of our effort to get it across to the Government that those who practise in insolvency are extremely nervous about—if not downright dismissive of—the time limits set out in the Bill. We were assured that the Bill in all its detail, including the provisions on insolvency, was widely consulted on before it saw the light of day. However, as the shoals of briefings and proposed amendments came pouring in from insolvency practitioners and others involved in insolvency, it became clear that either the consultation had not been clear or comprehensive enough, or the views expressed had not been heeded.
        In Committee, I quoted one organisation that described the time limits as "preposterous". We do not believe that the time limits can be adhered to. It is all very well to say that extensions can be applied for, so it does not really matter, but that process will itself clog up the system. We did not have a satisfactory answer to that amendment in Committee, but that might again be attributable to the fact that it was another Minister who dealt with it there—a Minister who has now gone on to glory elsewhere in the Government.
        Amendment No. 410 is supported by the CBI. The CBI feels strongly—strongly enough to ask us to press the amendment again on Report after doing so in Committee—that there should be no restriction on the length of time an administration can last; hence the CBI would have us remove paragraphs 75 to 77 in their entirety from schedule 16. Paragraph 78 will ensure that administrators will remain, as they are now, duty bound to seek orders terminating the administration in the event

        63
        either that the purpose is fully achieved, or that it becomes clear that the purpose cannot be achieved. Paragraph 78 is perfectly acceptable both to the Opposition and to the CBI. If creditors believe that an administrator is delaying matters—something which I suspect happens only rarely—the creditors have plentiful remedies available to them. However, once the administration procedure has started, it should continue for as long as it needs to. Any attempt to cap its duration is bound to be arbitrary, and may well lead to lots of applications for extensions.
        I doubt that the provisions in the Bill have a friend in the world. The CBI is not the only organisation to have condemned them—they have been condemned by just about everybody who has any practical experience of handling trading insolvency. If the Government are intent on imposing a cap, we and the CBI urge them to allow a period of at least one year, but it would be better if there were no cap at all. After Committee stage, we remain far from convinced that a cap is needed. There is none at the moment, and the system seems to work satisfactorily in that respect. I urge the House to accept the amendments.
        Mr. Carmichael: It is unfortunate that we are again rehearsing a debate that we had in Committee, but the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on the need for the amendments is a good one. I hope that the Government will take on board the force of that argument.
        I can see no particular reason why we are so desperate to rescue companies when, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is a fairly meaningless term. That seems to run contrary to the Government's approach in much of the Bill, where they speak about wanting to keep or foster the culture of enterprise and avoid unnecessary administration or bankruptcy. We should look at the business itself rather than the legal entity. On amendment No. 80, we should rely on the administrator's exercise of professional judgment and not encourage a rush to litigation, which is the inevitable consequence of the clause as currently framed. Amendment No. 82 deals with the problem of indecent haste. I am sure that administrators will not drag their heels, so we are putting unnecessary pressure on them by setting a time limit of 28 days. A similar argument applies to the ending of time limits in amendment No. 410. The CBI and others have made good sound arguments which reflect experience, or the practicalities, to use the Minister's own words. The Government should give greater weight to them than appears to have been the case.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendment No. 79 specifies that the first objective of administration is to rescue a company and all or part of its business. As the Minister of State, Cabinet Office made clear in Committee—I am sure that he did so and assure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that I am aware of what was said in Committee—that is the clear intention behind the new purpose. The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement that there is no sense in the administrator trying to rescue companies that are empty shells, particularly if he or she could get a better deal for creditors by selling its constituent businesses as going concerns. To "rescue the company" self-evidently means to rescue it as a going concern, with all or much of its business intact.
        64
        The courts will take a practical line in interpreting the purpose. I draw hon. Members' attention to the explanatory notes, which say that
        "company rescue in the context of the clause means the company continuing as a going concern with all or a significant part of its business…For the purpose of these clauses, a proposal that would result in a shell company remaining would not be considered a rescue."
        Mr. Carmichael: When the Minister makes such statements about the courts' interpretation, she is almost inviting the judiciary to make a contrary interpretation. We are dealing with common purpose, so does she not accept that that is better expressed in the amendments' wording?
        Miss Johnson: The Bill was drafted by draftsmen who are familiar with what the courts are likely to do with the Bill's wording. Our aim is exactly the same as Opposition Members', so the amendment is not necessary. I hope that they understand the Government's position, as they allege they did not before. I hope that they realise that we agree utterly about the meaning of the provision; we believe it means what it says. but they would like more specific wording.
        Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 deal with the test of what is "reasonably practicable", which governs the administrator's choice of objectives. They seek to qualify that test by specifying that it means "reasonably practicable" in the opinion of the administrator. Again, there is no disagreement between Opposition Members and the Government about that principle, but we diverge about the way in which the Bill will work in practice. The administrator is the person on the ground who is in possession of all the facts and is best placed to determine whether a particular course of action is reasonably practicable or not on the basis of his or her experience and professional judgment. It is not the courts' practice to second-guess administrators' commercial judgment in such cases, so we do not expect the provisions to be interpreted in that way; my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office said so in Committee. I therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
        Amendment No. 82 deals with one of the new time scales introduced in the revised administration procedure. The Bill requires the administrator to send a copy of proposals to creditors within 28 days' of his or her appointment; the amendment would extend that period to three months. Again, the issue was debated extensively in Committee, when we explained that the new time limits for administration would provide greater certainty to creditors and would help to make the procedure more accessible to small firms, for which the costs of running a lengthy administration can be a considerable barrier against entering the administration procedure. In conjunction with changes introduced elsewhere in the legislation, administration will become more accessible and attractive. Cases going into administration will become smaller and more straightforward, and the new time scales will prove more than adequate for them.
        For larger and more complex cases for which the administrator needs more time, there are provisions to enable him or her to extend the time periods either by creditor consent for specified periods or with the permission of the court for whatever period the court thinks fit. The time limits in the Bill are rightly stringent

        65
        to increase certainty and accessibility for companies and creditors, but the process is sufficiently flexible, particularly because of the provisions for extension, to ensure that it can be adapted to meet the needs of particular cases. I therefore hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw his amendment.
        Mr. Waterson: I am not wholly convinced, but in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Miss Johnson: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in page 243, line 34, after "96", insert "and 99 to 101A".
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101, 324 to 326, 102 to 104, 327 and 105, 106 to 124, 328, 125, 329, 126, 330, 331 and 127, 332 to 345, 128, 346, 129 and 347, 130 to 133, 348 and 134, 349 to 353, 140, 354 and 355.
        Miss Johnson: It will be a relief to everyone in the Chamber, not least yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these amendments are mostly technical and consequential. They do not deal with fundamental policy, so I do not propose to deal with them one by one. They will, however, ensure that the revised administration procedure works effectively. They are consequential amendments to the existing provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 and other measures, and are necessary as a result of the proposed changes to the administration procedure. I do not propose to speak about them in detail, but if hon. Members would like me to address a particular amendment, I am happy to do so.
        A number of Government amendments have been tabled in response to points raised by hon. Members in Committee. Having listened to what they said, we agreed to go away and consider certain matters further. I am pleased to say that a number of the amendments were tabled as a result of that discussion, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that they make useful improvements and support them accordingly.
        I should like briefly to address Government amendment No. 101, which will ensure that the special insolvency provisions that apply to financial services businesses, including banks and insurance companies, under part XXIV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, continue to have affect. I think that that is probably the only amendment that is worth mentioning at this early stage.
        I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Waterson: You will be relieved to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I certainly do not want the Minister to deal with the amendments in any detail. I am grateful to her for acknowledging that a number of them arose from points made by the official Opposition in Committee. It would be positively churlish of us to speak at any length to the amendments, let alone press them to a Division.
        Mr. Mark Field: I, too, should like to express my support for many of the amendments that have been tabled as a result of the various Committee discussions. In particular, given the importance of the insurance sector in my constituency, I welcome Government amendment No. 101, to which the Minister specifically referred.
        I want to make a few brief comments, partly in relation to a briefing that may bring to light one or two slight concerns about administration. I apologise to the Minister for not mentioning the matter to her already, but as I received the briefing earlier today, I have not had an opportunity to do so. She may wish to return to the subject at a later stage. Indeed, I would be happy to deal with it in that spirit.
        More generally, before we consign the concept of administrative receivership to the annals of insolvency and company law history, I point out that it has been improved as a very quick, cheap and often effective means of allowing a business to be sold without interference from either companies or creditors. Many of us have recognised that the potentially unfettered power of secured creditors to appoint receivers has sometimes made them insufficiently accountable to other creditors. Such concern was expressed in Committee and is addressed by one or two of the amendments. It seemed to us that such appointments could put paid to other potential rescue plans. Clearly, the Bill seeks to water down some of those powers in an insolvency situation. One of the anxieties in Committee was to ensure for all creditors and classes of creditors as great a degree of certainty as possible as to replacement.
        As I said, I should like to address a specific concern to which I have been alerted by a constituent, an international bank, in relation to the commercial property market. The briefing that I received states that there has been some anxiety about the
        "potential knock on effects to the UK property market",
        which is at a tentative stage in the economic cycle as it is,
        "of the changes proposed in the Enterprise Bill and particularly the proposal to dispense with the concept of administrative receivership."
        I hope that the Minister and other hon. Members will forgive me if I now quote a little more extensively from the briefing, which obviously deals with a somewhat technical matter. It goes on to state:
        "The vast majority of commercial property refurbishment/ regeneration and development finance is structured nowadays using as a borrowing vehicle a special purpose company, the only assets of which are the project being financed."
        That runs slightly counter to the concerns expressed in the debate about the previous clause, when we wanted to stress that it is all too often forgotten that it is not a company, but a business, that is being maintained. In this case, however, it is a special purpose vehicle company that may run the risk of insolvency procedure and it will wish to ensure proper safeguards. The special purpose vehicles typically have no employees.
        The briefing goes on to state:
        "It is important from a funder's point of view to be able to have step in rights and to be able to appoint an administrative receiver",
        which must be done rapidly where there are potential difficulties. It also states:
        "This enables the lender, in the event of financial difficulty, quickly to take control of the project, retain contractors and sub-contractors before they walk away"—

        67
        under the doubtless fairly stringent terms of their own agreement—
        "and ultimately to build out the project to completion. Invariably this is the only way to maximise the benefit to the general creditors of the company."
        The concern is that the abolition of administrative receivership runs the risk of increasing the level of commercial uncertainty. In a slightly more uncertain property market—I suspect that the entire property sector will face such a market during the next few years—the abolition will
        "inevitably lead to an increase in cost for borrowers".
        Even more catastrophically, in relation to some of the projects that are being put into place, the abolition will also lead to a withdrawal of funding by the banking system. Of course, that would especially affect more marginal projects. That is a concern for me in central London, but I am sure that my concern is shared in all corners of the United Kingdom. It is feared that the consequences will be a reduction of refurbishment and regeneration, as well as in development funding, in the commercial property sector. That is especially important in relation to various central Government proposals to ensure substantial development on brownfield sites. Clearly, all of us who represent urban or suburban seats are keen to encourage such development.
        The briefing also states:
        "We understand the reasons for the introduction of the Enterprise Bill and believe that the commercial property market will suffer, even though the intentions of the Bill are not aimed particularly at commercial property."
        I understand that the Department has been lobbied for
        "a carve out in the proposals for commercial property finance transactions that would otherwise fall within the definition of project finance."
        Again, that was discussed at some length when we considered some of the schedules in Committee. As the Minister will know, an exception has been created for projects where the debt is in excess of £50 million. As I have indicated, however, the difficulty with that provision in relation to specific property finance is that the threshold is way too high for the small special purpose vehicles that are being created. In relation to certain property finance transactions, might it be possible to introduce a lower threshold of, say, £5 million to £10 million? I know that that proposal was discussed tangentially in Committee, but it strikes me that a major area of Government policy is involved, especially in relation to regeneration and refurbishment projects. We run the risk of causing such projects to fall outside the protection that would otherwise be provided in the proposed administration procedure.
        I appreciate that the Minister may not have had full notice of those issues, although I suspect that the Department has been subject to various lobbying in recent weeks and months. I would be happy for her to deal with the matter in a written response, if that is necessary, but I wanted to put it on record and felt that now was the most appropriate stage in today's discussions at which to raise it.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Indeed, those subjects have been much discussed and there has been considerable liaison between Departments and with interested parties about appropriate provisions in respect of property
        68
        development. I do not believe that a bespoke exception is necessary. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) remarked, the definition in the Bill is wide enough to include any project company that incurs a debt of at least £50 million and over which there are step-in rights. That is the case regardless of the reason why the project in question has been set up.
        I heard what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about special purpose vehicles of £10 million in value, but it seems a little unusual, especially in the context of our earlier remarks about property values in central London. I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I should be grateful if he would furnish me with some further details about the background. I shall certainly consider the matter further, but I do not currently believe that it necessary to introduce any further provision. I shall undertake to look further at any evidence that he submits to me.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 100, in page 243, line 34, leave out "the replacement of" and insert "replacement and additional".
        No. 101, in page 243, line 41, at end insert—
        '7A (1) A person may not be appointed as administrator of a company which—

        (a) has a liability in respect of a deposit which it accepted in accordance with the Banking Act 1979 (c. 37) or 1987 (c. 22), but

        (b) is not an authorised deposit taker.

        (2) A person may not be appointed as administrator of a company which effects or carries out contracts of insurance.
        (3) But sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to a company which—

        (a) is exempt from the general prohibition in relation to effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance, or

        (b) is an authorised deposit taker effecting or carrying out contracts of insurance in the course of a banking business.

        (4) In this paragraph—
        "authorised deposit taker" means a person with permission under Part IV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8) to accept deposits, and
        "the general prohibition" has the meaning given by section 19 of that Act.
        (5) This paragraph shall be construed in accordance with—

        (a) section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (classes of regulated activity and categories of investment),

        (b) any relevant order under that section, and

        (c) Schedule 2 to that Act (regulated activities).'.

        No. 324, in page 245, line 36, after "unless", insert—

        '(a)'.

        No. 325, in page 245, line 38, at end insert—
        ',or

        (b) the holder of any prior floating charge which satisfies paragraph 12(2) has consented in writing to the making of the appointment.'.

        No. 326, in page 253, line 31, at end insert—
        '(1A) This paragraph also applies from the time when a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator under paragraph 12 is filed with the court until—

        (a) the appointment of the administrator takes effect, or

        (b) the period of five business days beginning with the date of filing expires without an administrator having been appointed.

        (1B) Sub-paragraph (1A) has effect in relation to a notice of intention to appoint only if it is in the prescribed form.'.
        No. 102, in page 254, line 20, at end insert "and".
        No. 103, in page 254, line 21, leave out from "letter," to end of line 23.
        No. 104, in page 261, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
        '(2) If the court gives directions to the administrator of a company in connection with any aspect of his management of the company's affairs, business or property, the administrator shall comply with the directions.'.
        No. 327, in page 261, line 34, leave out "charge" and insert "security".
        No. 105, in page 263, line 26, leave out "section 4" and insert "Part I".
        No. 106, in page 264, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

        '(b) if the company has unsecured debts, creditors whose debts amount to more than 50% of the company's unsecured debts, disregarding debts of any creditor who does not respond to an invitation to give or withhold consent.'.

        No. 107, in page 264, line 42, after first "of", insert—
        '(i)'.
        No. 108, in page 264, line 43, leave out "and of" and insert", and
        (ii)'.
        No. 109, in page 264, line 43, leave out "at least" and insert "more than".
        No. 110, in page 264, line 44, leave out "total".
        No. 111, in page 264, line 44, at end insert—
        ',disregarding debts of any creditor who does not respond to an invitation to give or withhold consent.'.
        No. 112, in page 267, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

        '(a) that the total amount which each secured creditor of the company is likely to receive has been paid to him or set aside for him,'.

        No. 113, in page 267, line 9, leave out "has been or".
        No. 114, in page 267, line 28, leave out "98" and insert "84".
        No. 115, in page 269, line 35, after "where", insert—
        '(a)'.
        No. 116, in page 269, line 35, at end insert—

        '(b) the court is satisfied that the creditors' committee or a remaining administrator is not taking reasonable steps to make a replacement, or

        (c) the court is satisfied that for another reason it is right for the application to be made.'.

        No. 117, in page 269, line 36, leave out—
        'by the holder of a qualifying floating charge he'
        and insert—
        'the holder of the floating charge by virtue of which the appointment was made'.
        No. 118, in page 271, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

        '(a) in the case of an administrator who dies, on the filing with the court of notice of his death,

        (b) in the case of an administrator appointed under paragraph 12 or 20, at a time appointed by resolution of the creditors' committee or, if there is no committee, by resolution of the creditors, or

        (c) in any case, at a time specified by the court.

        () For the purpose of the application of sub-paragraph (2)(b) in a case where the administrator has made a statement under paragraph 50(1)(b), a resolution shall be taken as passed if (and only if) passed with the approval of—

        (a) each secured creditor of the company, or

        (b) if the administrator has made a distribution to preferential creditors or thinks that a distribution may be made to preferential creditors—

        (i) each secured creditor of the company, and

        (ii) preferential creditors whose debts amount to more than 50% of the preferential debts of the company, disregarding debts of any creditor who does not respond to an invitation to give or withhold approval.'.

        No. 119, in page 272, line 43, at end insert—
        '101A (1) Where a company is in administration, a person may be appointed to act as administrator jointly or concurrently with the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.
        (2) Where a company entered administration by administration order, an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made by the court on the application of—

        (a) a person or group listed in paragraph 10(1)(a) to (e), or

        (b) the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.

        (3) Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 12, an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made by—

        (a) the holder of the floating charge by virtue of which the appointment was made, or

        (b) the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.

        (4) Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 20(1), an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) above must be made either by the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company or—

        (a) by the company, and

        (b) with the consent of each person who is the holder of a qualifying floating charge in respect of the company's property or, where consent is withheld, with the permission of the court.

        (5) Where a company entered administration by virtue of an appointment under paragraph 20(2), an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) must be made either by the court on the application of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company or—

        (a) by the directors of the company, and

        (b) with the consent of each person who is the holder of a qualifying floating charge in respect of the company's property or, where consent is withheld, with the permission of the court.

        (6) An appointment under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only with the consent of the person or persons acting as the administrator of the company.'.
        No. 120, in page 274, line 3, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

        '(b) if the company has unsecured debts, creditors whose debts amount to more than 50% of the company's unsecured debts, disregarding debts of any creditor who does not respond to an invitation to give or withhold consent.'.

        No. 121, in page 274, line 9, after first "of", insert—
        '(i)'.
        No. 123, in page 274, line 10, leave out "at least" and insert "more than".
        No. 122, in page 274, line 10, leave out "and of" and insert", and
        (ii)'.
        No. 124, in page 274, line 11, at end insert—
        ',disregarding debts of any creditor who does not respond to an invitation to give or withhold consent.'.
        No. 328, in page 274, line 37, at end insert—
        '"company" includes a company which may enter administration by virtue of Article 3 of the EC Regulation,"'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Schedule 17
        ADMINISTRATION: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 125, in page 276, line 17, at end insert—
        ADMINISTRATION: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

          'General
          A1 In any instrument made before section 242(1) to (3) of this Act comes into force—

          (a) a reference to the making of an administration order shall be treated as including a reference to the appointment of an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (inserted by section 242(2) of this Act), and

          a reference to making an application for an administration order by petition shall be treated as including a reference to making an administration application under that Schedule, appointing an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of that Schedule or giving notice under paragraph 13 or 24 of that Schedule.'.

          No. 329, in page 276, line 35, at end insert—
          '5A In section 652B(3) (duty when applying to strike off defunct company) for paragraph (c) substitute—

          "(c) the company is in administration under Part II of that Act;

          (ca) an application to the court for an administration order in respect of the company has been made and not finally dealt with or withdrawn;

          (cb) a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator of the company under paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 to that Act has been filed with the court and neither of the events mentioned in paragraph 42(1A)(a) and (b) of that Schedule has occurred;

          (cc) a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator of the company under paragraph 20 of that Schedule has been filed with the court and neither of the events mentioned in paragraph 42(2)(a) and (b) of that Schedule has occurred;"'.

          5B In section 652C(4) (director's duty following application to strike off defunct company) for paragraph (d) substitute—

          "(d) an application to the court for an administration order in respect of the company is made under paragraph 10 of Schedule B1 to that Act;

          (da) an administrator is appointed in respect of the company under paragraph 12 or 20 of that Schedule;

          (db) a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator of the company under paragraph 12 or 20 of that Schedule is filed with the court;"'.

          No. 126, in page 277, line 29, at end insert—
          '12A After section 129(1) (commencement of winding up) insert—
          "(1A) Where the court makes a winding-up order by virtue of paragraph 11(1)(e) of Schedule B1, the winding up is deemed to commence on the making of the order."'.
          No. 330, in page 278, line 24, at end insert "copy of a".
          No. 331, in page 278, line 26, after "paragraph", insert "12 or".
          No. 127, in page 278, line 29, after "(3)(a)", insert", (aa)".
          No. 332, in page 278, line 36, after "paragraph", insert "12 or".
          No. 333, in page 278, line 37, leave out from first "of" to "the" in line 38 and insert—
          'a copy of a notice of intention to appoint under that paragraph, the date on which the copy of'.
          No. 334, in page 278, line 44, after "liquidation", insert—
          'either following conversion of administration into winding up by virtue of Article 37 of the EC Regulation or'.
          No. 335, in page 279, line 1, after "or", insert "a copy of the".
          No. 336, in page 279, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

          "(c) a copy of a notice of intention to appoint an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 has been filed,"'.

          No. 337, in page 279, line 24, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

          "(c) a copy of a notice of intention to appoint an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 has been filed,"'.

          No. 338, in page 280, line 4, at end insert "copy of".
          No. 339, in page 280, line 6, after "paragraph", insert "12 or".
          No. 340, in page 280, line 15, after "paragraph", insert "12 or".
          No. 341, in page 280, line 16, leave out from first "of" to "the" in line 17 and insert—
          'a copy of notice of intention to appoint under that paragraph, the date on which the copy of'.
          No. 342, in page 280, line 32, leave out "After subsection (2) add" and insert "For subsection (3) substitute".
          No. 343, in page 280, line 35, after first "of", insert—
          '(a)'.
          No. 344, in page 280, line 35, at end insert—
          ', or

          (b) an order made following conversion of administration or a voluntary arrangement into winding up by virtue of Article 37 of the EC Regulation.'.

          No. 345, in page 280, leave out line 36 and insert—
          '(1) Section 387 (preferential debts: "the relevant date") shall be amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (2) for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—

          "(a) if the company is in administration, the date on which it entered administration, and

          (b) if the company is not in administration, the date of the approval of the voluntary arrangement."

          (3) In subsection (3)—

          (a) in paragraphs (aa) and (ab) for "the date of the making of the administration order" substitute "the date on which the company entered administration",

          (b) after paragraph (b) insert—

          "(ba) if the case does not fall within paragraph (a), (aa), (ab) or (b) and the company is being wound up following administration pursuant to paragraph 82 of Schedule B 1, the relevant date is the date on which the company entered administration;", and

          (c) in paragraph (c) for "paragraph (a), (aa), (ab) or (b)" substitute "paragraph (a), (aa), (ab), (b) or (ba)".

          After subsection (3)'.
          No. 128, in page 280, line 40, at end insert—
          '30A In section 422 (power to apply first Group of Parts to banks, &c.) for subsection (1) substitute—
          "(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with the concurrence of the Treasury and after consultation with the Financial Services Authority provide that specified provisions in the first Group of Parts shall apply with specified modifications in relation to any person who—

          (a) has a liability in respect of a deposit which he accepted in accordance with the Banking Act 1979 (c. 37) or 1987 (c. 22), but

          (b) does not have permission under Part IV of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8) (administration) to accept deposits.

          (1A) Subsection (1)(b) shall be construed in accordance with—

          (a) section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (classes of regulated activity and categories of investment),

          (b) any relevant order under that section, and

          (c) Schedule 2 to that Act (regulated activities)."'.

          No. 346, in page 283, line 26, at end insert—
          '38A In section 158 (modification of insolvency law)—

          (a) in subsection (3) for paragraph (b) substitute—

          "(b) the application for an administration order or the presentation of a winding-up petition or the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding up,", and

          (b) after subsection (3) insert—

          "(3A) In subsection (3)(b) the reference to an application for an administration order shall be taken to include a reference to—

          (a) in a case where an administrator is appointed under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (appointment by floating charge holder, company or directors) following filing with the court of a copy of a notice of intention to appoint under that paragraph, the filing of the copy of the notice, and

          (b) in a case where an administrator is appointed under either of those paragraphs without a copy of a notice of intention to appoint having been filed with the court, the appointment of the administrator."'.

          No. 129, in page 283, line 29, leave out "41(6) (including" and insert—
          '40 or 41 (including paragraph 41(6)'.
          No. 347, in page 283, line 30, at end insert—
          '39A After section 167(1) (application by exchange or clearing house to Secretary of State about taking default proceedings) insert—
          "(1A) In subsection (1) a reference to an administration order shall be taken to include a reference to the appointment of an administrator under—

          (a) paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (appointment by holder of qualifying floating charge), or

          (b) paragraph 20 of that Schedule (appointment by company or directors)."'.

          No. 130, in page 283, line 35, after "41(2)" insert "and (3)".
          No. 131, in page 283, line 35, at end insert "or repossession of goods)".
          No. 132, in page 283, line 38, leave out "and 70" and insert", 70 and 71".
          No. 133, in page 283, line 39, after "charged", insert "or hire-purchase".
          No. 348, in page 283, line 42, at end insert—
          '(3) In subsection (2) for "an administration order has been made or a petition for an administration order has been presented" substitute "the occurrence of an event to which subsection (2A) applies".
          (4) After subsection (2) insert—
          "(2A) This subsection applies to—

          (a) making an administration application under paragraph 10 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986,

          (b) appointing an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of that Schedule (appointment by floating charge holder, company or directors),

          (c) filing with the court a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator under either of those paragraphs."'.

          No. 134, in page 284, line 12, at end insert—

          'Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
          41A (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
          (2) In section 166(7) (application by employee for payment by Secretary of State)—

          (a) in paragraph (a) omit "or an administration order", and

          (b) after paragraph (a) insert—

          "(aa) if the company is in administration for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986,".

          (3) In section 183(3)(a) (insolvency of employer)—

          (a) in paragraph (a) omit "or an administration order", and

          (b) after paragraph (a) insert—

          "(aa) if the company is in administration for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986,".

          (4) Omit section 189(4) (transfer to Secretary of State of rights and remedies: priority of preferential debts).'.
          No. 349, in page 284, leave out lines 17 to 24 and insert—
          '(7) Subsections (8) and (9) apply in relation to the reference in subsection (3) to applying for an administration order.
          (8) In a case where an administrator is appointed under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (appointment by floating charge holder, company or directors)—

          (a) the reference includes a reference to appointing an administrator under that paragraph, and

          (b) in respect of an appointment under either of those paragraphs the reference to the applicant shall be taken as a reference to the person making the appointment.

          (9) In a case where a copy of a notice of intention to appoint an administrator under either of those paragraphs is filed with the court—

          (a) the reference shall be taken to include a reference to the filing of the copy of the notice, and

          (b) in respect of the filing of a copy of a notice of intention to appoint under either of those paragraphs the reference to the applicant shall be taken as a reference to the person giving the notice.'.

          No. 350, in page 284, line 28, leave out "applying for" and insert "the making of".
          No. 351, in page 284, line 37, leave out "In section 215(3)" and insert "Section 215".
          No. 352, in page 284, line 38, after "insolvency)", insert—
          'shall be amended as follows.
          (2) In subsection (3)'.
          No. 353, in page 284, line 41, at end insert—
          '(3) After subsection (3) insert—
          "(3A) In subsection (3) the reference to making an administration application includes a reference to—

          (a) appointing an administrator under paragraph 12 or 20 of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act, or

          (b) filing with the court a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator under either of those paragraphs."'.

          No. 140, in page 284, line 41, at end insert—
          '46A For section 359 (administration order) substitute—
          "359 Administration order
          (1) The Authority may make an administration application under Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act (or present a petition under Article 22 of the 1989 Order) in relation to a company or insolvent partnership which—

          (a) is or has been an authorised person,

          (b) is or has been an appointed representative, or

          (c) is carrying on or has carried on a regulated activity in contravention of the general prohibition.

          (2) Subsection (3) applies in relation to an administration application made (or a petition presented) by the Authority by virtue of this section.
          (3) Any of the following shall be treated for the purpose of paragraph 9(a) of Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act (or Article 21(1)(a) of the 1989 Order) as unable to pay its debts—

          (a) a company or partnership in default on an obligation to pay a sum due and payable under an agreement, and

          (b) an authorised deposit taker in default on an obligation to pay a sum due and payable in respect of a relevant deposit.

          (4) In this section—
          "agreement" means an agreement the making or performance of which constitutes or is part of a regulated activity carried on by the company or partnership,
          "authorised deposit taker" means a person with a Part IV permission to accept deposits (but not a person who has a Part IV permission to accept deposits only for the purpose of carrying on another regulated activity in accordance with that permission),
          "company" means a company—

          (a) in respect of which an administrator may be appointed under Schedule B1 to the 1986 Act, or

          (b) to which Article 21 of the 1989 Order applies, and

          "relevant deposit" shall, ignoring any restriction on the meaning of deposit arising from the identity of the person making the deposit, be construed in accordance with—

          (a) section 22,

          (b) any relevant order under that section, and

          (c) Schedule 2.

          (5) The definition of "authorised deposit taker" in subsection (4) shall be construed in accordance with—

          (a) section 22,

          (b) any relevant order under that section, and

          (c) Schedule 2."'.

          No. 354, in page 285, line 21, after "to", insert—
          '(a)'.
          No. 355, in page 285, line 24, after "(c).",", insert "or

          (b) the filing with the court of a copy of notice of intention to appoint an administrator under either of those paragraphs."'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Clause 244

        PROHIBITION OF APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECEIVER
        Amendments made: No. 321, in page 169, line 10, leave out—
        'or is expected to incur'
        and insert—
        ', or when the agreement was entered into was expected to incur,'.
        No. 322, in page 170, line 11, leave out—
        'a project company incurs or is expected to incur'
        and insert—
        'under an agreement relating to the project a project company incurs, or when the agreement is entered into is expected to incur,'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 170, line 27, at end insert—
        '72FA Sixth exception: Registered Social Landlords
        1. Section 72A does not prevent the appointment of an administrative receiver of a company which is a registered social landlord at the time of the appointment.
        2. Section 72A does not prevent the appointment of an administrative receiver of a company which, at the time of the creation of the relevant qualifying floating charge, was either:

        (a) a registered social landlord; or

        (b) a housing association registered as such in the register previously maintained pursuant to Part I of the Housing Associations Act 1985.

        3. In subsections (1) and (2) "registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord pursuant to section 3 of the Housing Act 1985 or, as the case may be, section 57 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 318, in clause 249, page 173, line 25, at the end insert—
        'other than a society which is, or at any time has been, a registered social landlord or a housing association registered as such in the register previously maintained pursuant to Part 1 of the Housing Associations Act 1985.'.
        No. 319, in page 173, line 37, at the end insert—
        '(2A) In sub-section (1) "registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord pursuant to section 3 of the Housing Act 1996 or, as the case may be, section 57 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001.'.
        Mr. Waterson: The amendments involve serious issues affecting the social housing sector. They were initially proposed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has been working closely on the matter with the National Housing Federation. Let me say immediately that there is a typographical error in amendment No. 13, which should read, "Housing Act 1996", not "Housing Act 1985". If the Minister were to accept the amendment, I am sure that it would not be beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsmen to correct that minor error.
        All three amendments concern registered social landlords, 85 per cent. of which, according to the National Housing Federation, are also industrial and provident societies. Amendment No. 13 would exempt lenders to registered social landlords—RSLs—that are companies from the prohibition on appointing an administrative receiver. It would amend the clause, giving the Secretary

        77
        of State power by order to provide for administration to apply to industrial and provident societies. In a nutshell, it would preserve the current position.
        Some £25 billion has been lent to RSLs—mainly housing associations—for new build, repair and improvement to social housing. As I said, the vast majority of RSLs are also I and Ps—I hope that this will come out all right in Hansard. There is a trend for newer RSLs to be established as companies, especially those involved in large-scale voluntary stock transfers. Unsurprisingly, the availability of competitively priced private loan finance is crucial to the Government's target of achieving the decent homes standard within 10 years. I can speak with a little authority about that, having been a shadow housing Minister in a previous incarnation. If the Minister is in favour of joined-up Government, I am sure that she will want to listen carefully to the rationale behind the amendments.
        6.45 pm
        The briefing from the Council of Mortgage Lenders states:
        "The proposals in the Enterprise Bill strike a serious blow at the social housing finance market at a time when it is already under pressure."
        It continues:
        "Under the 1996 Housing Act, the Housing Corporation has the power to create a 28-day moratorium for all creditors that will allow the opportunity to rescue the RSL if possible and to protect the interests of tenants."
        On that basis, the impetus towards company rescue offered by administration already exists in the sector in a different form and should not be duplicated. The briefing goes on to say:
        "The Bill as it stands creates a serious anomaly in that clause 244(1) 72B exempts the capital markets from the abolition of administrative receivership. The capital markets are significant lenders to the RSL sector and this exemption thus creates a situation where different secured lenders to the same RSL can have different rights, a situation likely to cause significant uncertainty and to make retail mortgage lenders more cautious about assisting higher risk or ailing RSLs."
        The CML believes that there will be three major consequences of abolishing the right to appoint an administrative receiver to an RSL that is a company—first, the cost of borrowing will go up because lenders will re-evaluate the risk and insist on more security; secondly, some projects may become unfundable because of their higher risk profile; and thirdly, retail lenders' present willingness to work with the Housing Corporation to assist RSLs in difficulties will be curtailed owing to the possibility that the capital markets will still be able to appoint an administrative receiver and thus be in a stronger position to realise their security in the event of default.
        Amendment No. 318 would amend clause 249, which was added to the Bill in Committee and gives the Secretary of State power to bring in an administration regime for industrial and provident societies. At present, 85 per cent. of registered social landlords are in that category. The Council of Mortgage Lenders observes that
        "this proposal potentially presents a significantly larger threat than those measures relating to companies."
        It also points out that variations on these proposals were suggested on no fewer than three occasions during the 1990s but were abandoned after proper consultation because of their likely effect on the social housing finance market.
        78
        At present, there is no power to appoint an administrative receiver in respect of an industrial and provident society, but lenders can, using their status as fixed charge holders, appoint a receiver under contract offering similar advantages. The introduction of administration to I and Ps will cut across that right. The CML says:
        "The effects of this proposal will be similar to those for companies, though on a larger scale"—
        that is, more expensive borrowing, projects less fundable and a less sympathetic approach to the rescue of RSLs. It continues:
        "An additional important consequence however will be that lenders will be forced to secure all loans via floating charges…in order to gain the right to an administrator. This will cause major and ongoing disruption and expense to RSLs and lenders alike."
        The National Housing Federation issued a briefing on similar terms. It represents about 1,400 not-for-profit housing organisations, which between them own or manage about 1.8 million homes in England alone. Of the change to the Bill made in Committee, it states that
        "this amendment could have an immediate and extremely damaging impact on the provision of decent, affordable housing."
        The briefing refers to the suggestion that has been made, following consultation, that RSLs might be exempted from clause 249 provisions by order. However,
        "there is significant concern that just the possibility of these changes to insolvency law will be enough to damage lender confidence."
        It asks for support for the amendments and states:
        "The Government must not wait for secondary legislation".
        Yet again, it has fallen to the official Opposition to raise the genuine concerns of bodies out there in the real world. In this case, they are perhaps more significant than any, given their responsibility for a vast amount of social housing. From the point of view of the National Housing Federation, the amendments are necessary and helpful. It is difficult to understand how the Government could resist them. Indeed, it appears that we have already amended the Bill too much by including clause 249. I commend the amendments to the House.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendment No. 13 would provide a general exemption from the prohibition on the appointment of an administrative receiver over a registered social landlord. That would apply to RSLs that are companies and industrial and provident societies—the large majority—which can technically be subject to a floating charge. However, lenders do not insist on making such charges since the property is entirely land, and industrial and provident societies cannot be subject to administration.
        The arguments for a special exemption seem to be based on the cost and availability of finance. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) emphasised that. We have listened carefully to the arguments, but we are not persuaded that there is a case for exemption for that group of lenders.
        Our proposals for prohibiting administrative receivership in favour of a streamlined administration procedure will strike a fair balance between creditors and debtors. They will not affect the rights of lenders to make a floating charge, but will simply provide for its exercise through a fairer, collective framework. The new administration procedure offers flexibility, speed and adequate safeguards for the interests of floating charge

        79
        holders. Lenders to RSLs that are companies and already subject to administration and administrative receivership through their charges have nothing to fear from the proposals.
        Let me consider amendments Nos. 318 and 319. They would remove RSLs that are industrial and provident societies from the power in clause 249 to extend administration to industrial and provident societies. I know that representatives and advisers of RSLs in that sector are worried that the power in clause 249 to extend administration to industrial and provident societies in the social housing sector could, if exercised, have an adverse impact on it. They fear that the administration moratorium may interfere with the existing arrangements under the Housing Act 1996, which already provides for a moratorium in the case of a registered social landlord in financial difficulties.
        The Government would not wish to use the enabling power to extend administration to parts of the industrial and provident sector where it would be contrary to its interests to do so. Equally, we want to seek a broad range of views and do not want to rush into any decisions. Any exercise of the power will be made following full consultation, when that important issue will be examined with others that affect the whole industrial and provident sector. I assure the Opposition that we appreciate the subject's importance.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Miss Johnson: I shall indeed give way to my hon. Friend, who had something to do with clause 249.
        Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for listening so sympathetically to the anxieties that were raised with her and her officials and with me, as the mover of clause 249. Although full consultation is clearly necessary, I urge her not to draw back from using clause 249 to extend the Bill's insolvency law provisions to industrial and provident societies. In the past, such societies have had to go into liquidation because the measure's sensible powers were not available to them. The last thing we want is to deprive industrial and provident societies of that power.
        Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and for his continuing interest in and support for the clause that he originally tabled in Committee. I am sure that he appreciates that we do not want to take action that is contrary to the interests of any part of the industrial and provident sector. I know that his purpose in tabling the clause was to help parts of that sector in the way he mentioned. We need to maintain his objective and the overall aim of doing nothing to damage the sector; I know that he is sympathetic to that. I simply emphasise that we shall consult and examine the matter and that we will not rush into decisions. We do not want to do anything that is contrary to the sector's interests.
        Dr. John Pugh: If we are to take the assurance of full consultation seriously, and it happened now, interested parties would clearly say, "Accept the Opposition amendment." They have examined and
        80
        understood what is before them; they are reasonably good judges of their interests. If full consultation means anything, we should harken to the amendment.
        Miss Johnson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but he is not right. As a member of the Committee, he appreciates that clause 249 was included in the Bill relatively late. There has not therefore been the same opportunity for dialogue with the social housing sector and bodies that represent its interests. We believe that further consideration of the issues that the sector raises will give it an opportunity of making its views known at an appropriate time to the appropriate Department. I understand that certain matters may need to be tackled and I accept that we may need to consider that, but the amendments would not ensure that we reached the right answer by the quickest route. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve that when he urges us to accept the amendment.
        In the light of my comments and assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she appreciates the seriousness that the social housing sector attaches to the issues that we are considering and for her comment that she wants to consult. Given that she appreciates the seriousness of the matter, I hope that we can assume that the consultation will proceed briskly and that action will ensue if the result is the one predicted by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh). I am sure that he is right.
        The subject is serious, and I do not want to divide the House on it. I simply emphasise the comments of the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the National Housing Federation, which feel strongly about the matter because it could cause them major problems.
        Mr. Mark Field: I am sure that my hon. Friend has it in mind that the availability of competitively priced private loan finance is crucial to the sector, especially in central London. I do not say that with purely constituency interests at heart. If we run the risk, there may be further unintended consequences. The Mayor of London has already insisted on a minimum of 50 per cent. social housing in new developments. That will drive developers away from developments in much of London. In the worst-case scenario that my hon. Friend has portrayed, we run a risk of unintended consequences for a sector that will go through some difficult times in the next couple of years—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is rather lengthy. I call Mr. Waterson.
        Mr. Waterson: I get my hon. Friend's drift. If I have not, I am sure that the Minister has. It is possible to square the circle by satisfying the social housing organisations and not undermining the amendment that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) tabled in Committee. That has attractions for the main stream of industrial and provident societies, and he obviously speaks from knowledge. However, a serious problem clearly exists. We are happy to leave it with the Minister and hope that consultation takes place shortly.

        81
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Schedule 18

        SCHEDULE 2A TO INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
        Amendments made: No. 356, in page 287, line 34, after 'a' insert—
        'person who is, when the agreement mentioned in section 72B(1) is entered into, a'.
        No. 357, in page 287, line 34, after 'individual' insert—
        'in relation to a communication'.
        No. 358, in page 287, line 37, leave out 'and'
        No. 359, in page 287, line 38, after 'a' insert—
        'person who is, when the agreement mentioned in section 72B(1) is entered into, a'.
        No. 360, in page 287, line 38, after 'investor' insert—
        'in relation to a communication'.
        No. 361, in page 287, line 39, at end insert—
        ',and
        () a person in a State other than the United Kingdom who under the law of that State is not prohibited from investing in bonds or commercial paper.'.
        No. 362, in page 287, line 45, at end insert—
        () For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)—

        (a) in applying article 19(5) of the Financial Promotion Order for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a)—

        (i) in article 19(5)(b), ignore the words after "exempt person",

        (ii) in article l9(5)(c)(i), for the words from "the controlled activity" to the end substitute "a controlled activity", and

        (iii) in article 19(5)(e) ignore the words from "where the communication" to the end, and

        (b) in applying article 49(2) of that order for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c), ignore article 49(2)(e).'.

        No. 363, in page 288, line 2, leave out—
        'section 72B and paragraph 1 of'
        and insert—
        'sections 72B and 72E and'.
        No. 364, in page 288, line 18, leave out 'contractual entitlement' and insert 'entitlement under an agreement'.
        No. 365, in page 288, line 19, leave out 'contractual responsibility' and insert 'responsibility under an agreement'.
        No. 366, in page 288, line 28, leave out 'contractual responsibility' and insert 'responsibility under an agreement'.
        No. 367, in page 288, line 31, leave out 'or'.
        No. 368, in page 288, line 33, at end insert—
        ',or
        (e) it is the holding company of a company within any of paragraphs (a) to (d).'.
        No. 369, in page 288, line 35, after '(d),', insert—
        'or is within sub-paragraph (1)(e),'.
        No. 370, in page 288, line 36, leave out from 'performs' to end of line 37 and insert—
        'a function which is not—

        (i) within sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (d),

        (ii) related to a function within sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (d), or

        (iii) related to the project.'.—[Mr. Pearson.]

        7 pm
        Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendments Nos. 83 and 84.
        Mr. Waterson: I shall try to deal with these amendments fairly briefly, as they were debated in Committee. They relate to the abolition of Crown preference. Lest anyone should accuse me of looking a gift horse in the mouth, let me say that we unreservedly welcome the scrapping of Crown preference. The demands of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have often been a malign factor in the dying days of a business, particularly a small business, and the removal of this preference can only be a good thing. It has been welcomed in all quarters. As I recall, the amount in question is about £80 million, but the measure is welcome none the less, particularly for small businesses.
        As I have said before, the Chancellor's fingerprints are all over this Bill, even if it is nominally a DTI measure. He has a habit of giving with one hand and taking away with the other—hence amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Although we are abolishing the Crown's preferential rights to the debts listed in clause 245(1), we are not scrapping the DTI's subrogated preferential rights in respect of salary and wage arrears.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: May I make it clear that we have already debated and accepted amendments Nos. 134 and 137, which remove the Secretary of State's right to be paid in priority to any preferential claims lodged in insolvency proceedings by former employees, which is what these amendments also seek to achieve?
        Mr. Waterson: I am looking at the response from the hon. Lady's fellow Minister in Committee, and he seemed not to accept those amendments, and to insist that the Secretary of State should be able to step into a former employee's shoes.
        Miss Johnson: Perhaps I can clarify this. Amendment No. 137 was taken on Thursday, and amendment No. 134 was in an earlier group. Both amendments have the same effect as amendments Nos. 83 and 84. We said that we would reconsider the issues, so I therefore believe that these amendments are no longer necessary.
        Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall immediately turn, on a sixpence, and express my pleasure and surprise in equal measure that the Government have accepted the argument. They were certainly fighting a doughty rearguard action on it in Committee, although I exempt the hon. Lady from any blame for that. It is extremely good news that, yet again, common sense has prevailed. I can only put that down to the detailed and energetic scrutiny that the official Opposition have applied to the Bill. It would, therefore, be quite churlish of me not to seek leave to withdraw the amendments—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not formally moved the amendments, so need not formally withdraw them.
        Mr. Mark Field: I wonder whether I might be able to say a few words on these amendments?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: I think, from what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was saying, that he has not moved the amendment formally, so it would be inappropriate to make any comments.

      Clause 246
        UNSECURED CREDITORS
        Amendment made: No. 98, in page 172, leave out lines 32 to 34.—[Mr. Pearson.]
      Clause 250

        DURATION OF BANKRUPTCY
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 174, leave out line 12 and insert—

        '(a) in the case of an individual whose bankruptcy arises from the closure of a business or trade established or operated by that individual, one year beginning with the date on which the bankruptcy commences: and

        (b) in cases not falling within subsection 1(a):

        (i) where a certificate for the summary administration of the bankrupt's estate has been issued and is not revoked before the bankrupt's discharge, two years beginning with the date on which the bankruptcy commences; and

        (ii) in any other case, three years beginning with the date on which the bankruptcy commences'.

        Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 86, in page 174, leave out lines 13 to 16.
        Government amendment No. 371.
        Amendment No. 87, in schedule 20, page 292, line 32, after "knew", insert—
        'or ought to have known'.
        Amendment No. 88, in clause 252, page 175, leave out lines 18 and 19.
        Amendment No. 411, in clause 253, page 175, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 176 and insert—
        '(6) An incomes payment order must specify the period during which it is to have effect which period may end after the discharge of the bankrupt.'.
        Amendment No. 412, in clause 254, page 176, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert—
        '(5) An income payments agreement must specify the period during which it is to have effect which period may end after the discharge of the bankrupt.'
        Mr. Waterson: No doubt the Minister will intervene if any of these amendments have already been accepted by the Government, although I somehow doubt that that is the case. I shall speak mainly to amendments Nos. 85 and 86. Government Amendment No. 371 and our amendment No. 87 are basically identical, which seems to suggest another acceptance by the Government of our ideas.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: In the spirit of my regularly helping the hon. Gentleman, I can confirm that that is the case.
        Mr. Waterson: Splendid. Even I managed to notice that. Our amendment No. 88 basically repeats what is in amendment No. 86. I shall deal with amendments Nos. 411 and 412 later.
        We touched on the distinction between business and consumer bankruptcies—a term which does not exist in the Bill—in Committee, but it is sufficiently important to
        84
        return to it on Report. In Committee, the Minister rejected our amendment seeking separate discharge periods for business and consumer bankrupts, saying that it was impossible to disentangle business and consumer debts. The experience in the USA, when the rules were changed in a similar fashion, was that there was an explosion in the number of consumer bankruptcies—people who had run up too many credit card debts, or whatever—and a slight reduction in the number of strictly corporate insolvencies. We take the view, as does the Consumer Credit Association, among others, that it would make enormous sense to try to find a way of separating out the two, so that we can test the Government's intentions.
        We are told that the reasoning behind the Bill is to encourage a culture of entrepreneurial activity and risk taking. The difficulty with that is that, whatever the result might be in the corporate sector, all the changes in the rules would have to apply in equal measure to personal, consumer-type bankruptcies. If, however, we could apply a longer period of time to the duration of individual bankruptcies—with all the consequences that would follow—and single out the very sector that the Government are trying to help, that is, corporate bankruptcies, presumably we should be doing everyone a service.
        We are not necessarily suggesting that these amendments represent the best provisions that can be achieved. It is certainly open to the parliamentary draftsmen to come up with something better. The model that the Consumer Credit Association has put forward, which we are happy to adopt, contains proposals that
        "the debtor states, in the bankruptcy application form, if he is in business;
        making a false or misleading statement would be an offence;
        creditors have a right to challenge the debtor's statement. Most would be able to do so on the basis of information in their own customer databases;
        if so challenged, the debtor must produce evidence that he was in business. Even those who have not kept formal accounts should be able to do so, by producing, for example, an appointment book or purchase receipts or tax return."
        That seems to be a commonsense approach, because it is actually quite difficult in real life for someone to pretend not to be in business when they really are. The Consumer Credit Association goes on to state:
        "On that basis, there would be no need to disentangle individual debts. Anyone in business would benefit from the shorter discharge period, whether or not they also have consumer debts. But the credit industry would also have the important safeguard of being able to challenge those applicants whom it believes are not genuinely running a business. In this way, those looking to abuse the system…could be deterred."
        Abuse in these circumstances can work in two ways; it can damage the credit industry, and it can also damage other consumers.
        I want to ask the Minister two or three specific questions, given that, for these purposes, we accept the Government's basic premise, which is that the aim of these far-reaching changes in insolvency law is to encourage entrepreneurs to go out, start a business and take the risk of it failing through no fault of their own.
        Is the Minister prepared to accept the amendments as they stand, or to return with amendments of her own? Will she at least indicate her view on the principle? If not, will she consider returning with proposals if, as we predict, there is an explosion in the number of consumers,

        85
        rather than businesses, seeking bankruptcy? Does she accept as a matter of principle that people with only consumer debts should not be able to benefit from the short discharge period enjoyed by entrepreneurs—for the straightforward reason that the only purpose of that is to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks? If she believes that those with only consumer debts should also enjoy the shorter discharge period, what benefits does she think that will bring to the economy and, indeed, to consumers?
        In Committee, it was argued that there was no solid or practical way of distinguishing between business and consumer debtors. In consultation with the consumer credit industry, we have come up with what we consider to be a reasonably watertight solution, but we need to know not just the Minister's problems with the drafting of the amendment but whether she has any problem with the principle.
        Amendment No. 86 also returns to an argument we had in Committee, but it too is extremely important. The aim is to ensure that the official receiver conducts a proper investigation in the case of each bankrupt. Without that there would be a real risk of, in effect, rubber-stamping of bankruptcies—first because the period involved could be much shorter even than 12 months, and secondly because we can expect an explosion in the number of cases to be considered.
        According to PricewaterhouseCoopers,
        "Warnings should be heeded from America, where a more friendly attitude towards consumer debt has led to a bankruptcy rate which is about 10 times the rate in the UK in relation to population"—
        and we all know about the enormous increase in consumer debt in this country.
        I do not want to go into too much detail, but I think that the Government are still in denial over important points of principle. We raised three of them in Committee. First, should stigma be attached to personal bankruptcy? Secondly, what would the effects in the real world be? Would we end up with a rogues' charter? Thirdly, would resources be available to deal with those effects? We feel that the best way of testing what the Government are really trying to do is to offer them a straightforward, practical way of distinguishing between business and consumer debtors.
        We have received representations from MBNA Europe Bank Ltd, which represents more than 13 per cent. of the UK credit card market and has more than £6 billion in outstanding loans. It is very concerned about the experience of the United States, and how it would apply here. It says
        "In the US…it requires on average 33 debtors who pay their debts to cover the cost of one debtor that defaults. In practice, personal insolvency costs every US household $400 per annum in higher prices for goods and services".
        It calculates that there
        "will be a minimum of an additional 15—20 per cent. increase on existing bankruptcy levels"
        if the Bill is passed unamended.
        We heard all the arguments in Committee about the likely effect not only on the industry but on borrowers. We discussed whether it would be more difficult for people to borrow money, and whether—as happened in the United States—we would see the emergence of a predatory part of the lending industry, preying on people
        86
        who could obtain no credit anywhere else, charging high levels of interest and generally making those people's circumstances much worse in the long run.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) mentioned student loans. An article in the April edition of Credit Today states:
        "Government plans to introduce commercial rate loans for better off students may be shelved because of fears the debt would be uncollectable".
        It says that the Department for Education and Skills is currently examining the position, and adds that a spokesman for the Department
        "told Credit Today: 'We will be putting plans out for consultation later in the year. We are aware that if a student is declared bankrupt they will not have to pay back their student loan and are looking at the impact this might have for student loan legislation…
        Borrowers who entered higher education prior to 1998 will be able to escape repayments by making themselves bankrupt…credit manager of Cornwall County Council, which processes student loan applications, claims students will have nothing to lose by going bankrupt because few are homeowners.
        'I am concerned the student loans system would become so open to abuse it becomes impossible and this would herald a return to the grant system which would be administered by us in local government,' he said."
        7.15 pm
        Those are just some examples of what we think might result from the proposed changes, across the board. There are a number of possible ways of dealing with them. We have suggested amendments involving a minimum bankruptcy period of a year, for example. There would, of course, be a full investigation in each case. One solution, however, would be a separation between business and consumer debtors.
        Amendments Nos. 411 and 412, concerning income payments orders, are strongly supported by the CBI—which, indeed, proposed them in the first place—and are supported particularly by CBI members in the consumer finance industry. They specify a maximum of three years for the duration of an income payments order or income payments agreement. There is no clear or sensible objective reason for the limitation, says the CBI, which thinks that the duration is best left to the court's discretion. Why should an extraneous limit be placed on the period? The CBI says that the amendments are driven by the simple rule that when a debtor can pay, he should pay.
        The Minister has talked a great deal about striking a balance, but I think we are in danger of shifting the balance dramatically between debtor and creditor. As I have said, we should not think just about the consumer credit industry, although naturally there will be consequences: if the number of bankruptcies and uncollected debts rises, banks and other lending institutions wil have to make adjustments accordingly, and it will become more difficult for the very people who find it hardest to raise money to obtain credit. As I have said, however, we should always remember the creditors who are not lending institutions—friends and family, for instance, who would suffer far more proportionally than such institutions if someone were unable or unwilling to pay debts.

        87
        I make no apology for raising again issues that were raised in Committee. We do not think that the Government have taken them seriously enough.
        Dr. Pugh: The debate has been dogged by the tendency of many people to regard bankrupts as a homogeneous group. The thrust of the Bill is that they are not. Some people lose money through no fault of their own—for instance, the thousands of victims of the Wall street crash. Not all of them were foolish; many were just downright unfortunate. It has been said that we should distinguish between the reckless, the foolish, the careless and the negligent, but of course there are many shades of grey.
        If we look at the whole picture, we see that there is a simple view throughout the House—that, from the moral point of view, not everyone merits the same treatment. What has dogged both sides today, however, is the question whether it is possible to distinguish between the categories. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), indeed, asked whether we should differentiate. Was it worth while? I should have thought that the Tory answer would be no—that there should be no distinction between those who are bankrupt through no fault of their own and those who have lost their money, and other people's money, through negligence of one kind or another. It has been argued that there would be practical difficulties and dangerous consequences and that it would not be worth the candle—that the benefits of better enterprise and greater social justice that the Act was meant to ensure would not outweigh the snags.
        The argument of the hon. Member for Eastbourne was reasonably consistent with that, in that he seemed to suggest that differentiation was not possible, but now he is arguing that it is possible to differentiate the consumer bankrupt and the business bankrupt. That differentiation is apparently practical, worth while, in line with the overall objectives of the legislation and not dangerous. He has effectively reversed his arguments.
        A consistent view, which the Minister may be tempted to take, is that it is certainly possible to distinguish between bankrupts. If we can differentiate those who have been reckless and those who have been unfortunate in pursuing a business enterprise, it is surely not beyond the wit of man to differentiate those whose bankruptcy is largely the effect of bad consumer spending patterns and those who have suffered from unfortunate business dealing. It would certainly be legitimate for the Minister to consider whether the amendment is worth pursuing.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: We tabled Government amendment No. 371 in response to points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) in Committee. It extends slightly the grounds for courts to consider hearing a bankruptcy restriction order application. It takes on board the point about ensuring that the BRO regime has similar grounds to those for wrongful trading for limited companies in section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. I hope that the House will support it.
        Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 are designed to ensure that an income payments order or agreement can run for any period, potentially until all the bankrupt's liabilities are discharged. I said in Committee—I have heard nothing
        88
        today to change this view—that it is right for bankrupts who are able to make contributions from their income to be required to do so, but setting a three-year limit to the agreement recognises that there must be a balance between the benefits brought to the creditors and the rehabilitation of the individual bankrupt. Currently, IPOs tend to run until discharge—about three years—and it would hardly be fair or consistent with the Government's aim of helping bankrupts to make a fresh start if we imposed a far more stringent regime, as could be the case under the amendments.
        The provisions in the Bill make it clear that the Government support the principle of "can pay, should pay" for bankrupts. The amendments could result in IPOs and IPAs lasting longer than is reasonable. If the intention is to ensure that bankrupts with a high potential future income—for example, those in the professions—make payments to the estate, the amendments are misguided, because they could make all bankrupts entering into IPOs or IPAs subject to the longer time scale. If a debtor wants to make payments for a period beyond the three years provided for in clauses 253 and 254, it would be more appropriate to use the individual voluntary arrangement regime, which would allow flexibility in setting out a programme of payments that is acceptable to the creditors.
        Amendment No. 85 was debated at length in Committee, and again today. I remain unconvinced of the case for drawing a distinction between business and consumer bankruptcies for the purposes of discharge. It has been suggested that without such a distinction there is likely to be an increase in bankruptcies brought about by a headlong rush of consumers seeking to take advantage of some perceived easy ride. There is no reason to believe that consumers would act in that way. Bankruptcy is not an easy option, and in some respects the new regime makes it more rather than less severe.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) said, there is a difference here. In particular, the proposals contain no changes to the assets that will be included in the estate on the making of a bankruptcy order and they do not shorten the period over which the bankrupt is liable to make payments out of income. The proposals make it easier for the trustee to ensure that the bankrupt makes payments out of future income by introducing income payments agreements. Consumers who behave recklessly or dishonestly run the risk of being subject to a bankruptcy restriction order for a longer period than the current discharge period and may damage their credit rating. I do not think that the majority of consumers are as short-sighted as some Opposition Members would have us believe.
        The hon. Member for Eastbourne briefly regaled us with the position in the United States, but the comparison with the US is not a valid one. There are many differences between our proposals and the US regime. In the US, there is no real concept of a discharge period and individuals can opt either for an asset-based regime under chapter 7 or for an income-based regime under chapter 13, depending on their circumstances and what would be better for them. There is no investigation to speak of in the US. Our proposals do not allow debtors to choose the option that suits them best. If they can pay, they should pay. We also provide for proper investigation into misconduct and for effective sanctions where necessary. For those reasons, we do not think that bankruptcies here will reach levels equivalent to those in the US. There are significant differences.

        89
        We believe that the aim of reducing bankruptcy should apply to the majority of bankrupts, regardless of whether they are in business, where no misconduct or criminal behaviour has been identified. People can have bad luck in their personal lives—the unexpected loss of a job or the breakdown of a personal relationship can often lead to financial problems. The advice agencies all say that those are major reasons why people find themselves in that position. Such people are as entitled to a fresh start as a business person would be under parallel circumstances. It would not be fair or equitable to stigmatise them through a tougher regime.
        Dr. Pugh: Although we may not want to distinguish in moral terms, surely the object of the Bill is to make business bankruptcy less of a problem, rather than to deal with consumer bankruptcy. There is a distinction. When the Bill was conceived, there was no thought of making it easier for people to overspend.
        Miss Johnson: We are trying to make it easier to distinguish in both areas between those who face bankruptcy unexpectedly, through no fault of their own, and those who have behaved recklessly or wantonly. The distinction suggested in the amendment is entirely artificial, and we think that it would be unworkable in practice. The experience of the official receiver shows that the self-employed do not operate their business and professional lives in conveniently separate compartments—as we discussed at length in Committee, they are often inextricably linked.
        For all those reasons, I do not believe that the amendments would work well or that we should accept them. I hope that hon. Members will not press them to a vote.
        Amendment No. 86 was also discussed at considerable length in Committee. We do not support it, as it would effectively continue the one-size-fits-all approach. As I said in Committee, early discharge will occur only in straightforward cases where debtors co-operate with the official receiver. In cases where the administrative work is complete and the issue of public protection does not arise, there is no merit in preventing bankrupts from getting through the process as quickly as possible, or in not helping them to promote rehabilitation of their financial affairs. In almost all cases, such administrative work will be completed in under a year. One exception might be cases where the bankrupt has failed to co-operate fully with the official receiver. Such individuals would be subject to the suspension of discharge provisions, and would not be discharged until they have co-operated fully. Similarly, in most cases an investigation decision is made in the first few months after the bankruptcy order. Again, if investigation matters are outstanding. there will be no discharge within the 12-month period.
        7.30 pm
        Amendment No. 88 was also considered at length in Committee. The Bill will remove provisions relating to summary bankruptcy and introduce instead a general discretion for the official receiver to investigate cases as he or she sees fit. This is not a new concept. Sections of the Insolvency Act 1986 dealing with summary bankruptcy currently provide that, in cases involving unsecured liabilities of less than £20,000, the official
        90
        receiver need only investigate if he or she sees fit. The advantage of the Bill's proposal is that resources can be used more effectively by looking at each case on its merits, rather than on the current basis of an arbitrary financial limit. The amendment would require an in-depth investigation in all cases, including those currently dealt with under the summary regime. It would therefore seek, for no good reason, to engage the official receiver in investigating cases that do not involve issues of public protection or criminal behaviour. That is at odds with the professed concern of Opposition Members to ensure that the official receiver is properly resourced to carry out his or her functions.
        Finally, amendment No. 87, about which I have already spoken, is very similar to Government amendment No. 371.
        Mr. Waterson: The Minister's response to amendment No. 85, which deals with the distinction between business and consumer bankruptcies, was extremely revealing. As I predicted, she mentioned the practicalities and difficulties involved. We are prepared to concede that such problems exist, and I am sure that they can be addressed. However, so far as the principle is concerned, she made it entirely clear that there is no intention to distinguish between business and consumer bankruptcies. That seems to undermine one of the few bases on which the word "enterprise" is justified as forming part of the Bill's title. This part of the Bill has consistently been spun over many months as a means of encouraging entrepreneurs. It is not supposed to encourage people to spend far too much on their credit cards, only to find that they cannot pay their debts.
        The Minister is of course right to say that the analogy with America is not completely on all fours—no comparison between countries ever is. Major differences exist, but it is clear that a system that makes it easier to become bankrupt, and which removes the associated stigma, will lead to a very large growth in the number of bankruptcies. I challenge the Minister to say that her Department firmly predicts that the passage of the Bill as it stands will not lead to a very substantial increase in bankruptcies.
        There is a clear conceptual problem. The Government have rowed back from the suggestion that they are trying to encourage entrepreneurs. I am happy to leave the practicalities of the amendments to parliamentary draftsmen, so long as the Minister is prepared to accept the principle behind them. However, as was underlined by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), it is clear that the Government's commitment to that principle is only skin deep. They do not care that, in fact, many more consumer bankrupts than business bankrupts will be drawn into the system. I suspect that, in practice, the impact on entrepreneurs will be largely negligible. The only effect will probably be that people will escape the net simply because far more bankruptcies will have to be processed. There will be insufficient resources, and the period of examination of bankrupts' assets will again be foreshortened by other provisions in the Bill.
        I was very disappointed by what the Minister had to say, but in a sense I was heartened. Her comments support the point that I argued consistently throughout the Bill's passage: that, as the Confederation of British Industry said, the name "Enterprise Bill" is a complete misnomer. However, having made those points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Schedule 20

        SCHEDULE 4A TO INSOLVENCY ACT 1986
        Amendment made: No. 371, in page 292, line 32, leave out "himself to be" and insert—
        'or ought to have known that he was'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Clause 259

        DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE: PARLIAMENT
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 177, line 32, leave out clause 259.
        I was hoping that the Chamber would fill up at this point, and it has: my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has appeared. Given that the amendment would delete the clause that deals with the disqualification from office of Members of Parliament as a result of bankruptcy, I thought that more Members of Parliament might have an interest in it, but apparently they do not.
        The Government are trying to ensure that, under the new regime, Members of Parliament—and, indeed, local councillors and various other office holders—can be elected and retain office, even if they become bankrupt. If they become subject to a bankruptcy restriction order—in other words, if they are one of those culpable bankrupts whom we hear so much about—the same consequences will be visited on them as are currently visited on them if they become bankrupt. We tested that proposition in Committee for two broad reasons. First, in the real world, can one distinguish, in this or any other context, between two neat categories—culpable, malign bankrupts, and non—culpable, benign bankrupts—even assuming that the stretched resources of the Insolvency Service allow it so to differentiate?
        Secondly, should there be a different and somewhat higher test for Members of Parliament? Are the Government really arguing that benign, blundering but basically honest Members of Parliament who have been unlucky in business or in their purchases should not suffer some kind of disadvantage as a result of going bankrupt? I take the view that there should be a higher test for Members of Parliament. Even in the case of "bad luck" bankrupts, their being unwise enough to go bankrupt should be sufficient—as is the currently the case—to justify their disqualification. That is to say nothing of whether we want a Member of Parliament to continue to serve who may have been a rogue, and who recklessly or intentionally left behind debts.
        Of course, we have had our share of rogue Members who have gone bankrupt and left behind financial responsibilities. Robert Maxwell, the former Member for Buckingham, and John Stonehouse are two names that come to mind, but it has happened fairly regularly for some 200 years. Indeed, Spencer Perceval, the only British Prime Minister ever to be assassinated, was shot in the House of Commons by a bankrupt called Bellingham—a direct antecedent of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).
        Even if a "bad luck"—to use the Minister's expression—bankrupt Member of Parliament satisfied all creditors, in this age of intrusive media interest in almost every aspect of our humdrum, mundane lives, the matter would doubtless end up in the public domain. Leaving
        92
        aside the question of whether the hapless Member had in fact run up such debts in their own constituency—an action that would be unwise—the matter would come out sooner or later, at least in the constituency. Is it really the business of the House of Commons to tell our constituents that no stigma should be attached to being bankrupted for any reason if one is a Member of Parliament or wishes to be one? It is all right for us to tell the rest of the population that they need no longer feel any stigma, but how can we tell them how they should view a Member of Parliament or would-be Member who is in the same position?
        As I said in Committee, the proposals assume that bankruptcy has no victims. I make no apology for repeating what I have said today: leaving aside the damage caused to business and the credit industry, many bankrupts leave debts payable to their immediate family and friends. They may even leave friends or relations to go bankrupt themselves as a result, Is it really the Government's view that Members of Parliament—or anyone else—can be wholly innocent when they become bankrupt?
        The British population are possessed of a greater wisdom. I do not mean that wisdom that has sent every Member here—that goes without saying—but if an MP has been injudicious enough to run up debts that cannot be paid, leaving many people out of pocket, it is arguable that such a person should not be entrusted with representing constituents' interests. I admit that there, but for the grace of God, go I. Any one of us could make an unfortunate investment, such as in a home in our constituency, because MPs can be subject to bad luck as much as anyone else. However, we must think carefully about whether we should change the rules for ourselves. People expect a higher standard from a Member of Parliament, or someone who seeks to be a Member of Parliament, and there is a strong argument that the current rules should continue to apply.
        If the Government are intent on changing the rules for everyone else, because they think that it will encourage entrepreneurial spirit or will be redistributive—whatever their real motives are—they can make it easier for the rest of population to go bankrupt and come out of bankruptcy, and they can remove the stigma. However, no matter how much law we pass here, an MP who becomes bankrupt or a candidate who has been bankrupt will still have a stigma attached to them, and I see no particular problem with that. People will have to weigh up the character and abilities of such a person—including, perhaps, the level of gullibility—before deciding who should represent them in this place. The Government have yet to make out a case, in Committee or elsewhere, for this change in the law.
        Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendment No. 76 seeks to maintain the status quo regarding the bankruptcy disqualification of Members. However, under the Bill it would not be possible to do so, because if a Member were subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order, he or she would not be disqualified. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) does not appear to have realised the implications of his amendment, although it may be only a probing amendment. Those subject to BROs would not be disqualified, but they are exactly the people who we are saying are the most serious bankrupts and who will be subject to a much more rigorous regime under the Bill

        93
        than under existing bankruptcy provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point to heart, because his allegations that our changes to the regime are always in favour of leniency are growing a little stale. In truth, the BRO provision will make bankruptcy a suitably serious matter in the appropriate cases.
        The last bankruptcy disqualification of a sitting Member of Parliament was in the late 1920s, notwithstanding the more recent names that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Such disqualification is unusual, but that is not to say that we should not have provision to cover it. Section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 currently provides that a person who becomes bankrupt in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland, or has his estate sequestered in Scotland, is disqualified from being elected to this House or sitting or voting in either House or Committee of either House.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Waterson: I appreciate the practical point that the Minister has just made, but she must also remember that we are talking about people who might wish to put themselves forward for election to Parliament who currently would not be allowed to do so. The issue would not arise for sitting Members, but would for those who wish to stand and would be allowed to do so, even though they were bankrupt.
        Miss Johnson: Former members of the Committee will remember that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) provided some illuminating insights as to the history of the disqualification of Members and, in particular, whether it is right that somebody who is bankrupt should be disqualified from standing for election to Parliament. I have written to my hon. Friend and other former Committee members confirming that the Bill as currently drafted will enable a person who becomes bankrupt but is not subject to a BRO to be elected to and to participate in this House, but that if a person subject to a BRO were to be elected, the return would be void. However, it is very unlikely that a person subject to a BRO would be chosen as a candidate.
        Under section 427 of the 1986 Act, a Member of Parliament would be able to continue to undertake constituency work. However, if after six months he or she remained bankrupt or sequestrated, his or her seat would be vacated. We recognise that arrangements relating to the conduct of Members of Parliament are a matter for Parliament itself to determine and not the Government alone. Therefore, the proposals in the Bill were the result of discussion between the Lord President of the Council and the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee.
        The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) confirmed that against the background of the Government's objectives it would no longer be appropriate for a Member who becomes bankrupt to be disqualified from sitting or voting, and nor would it be fair to the constituents. The Standards and Privileges Committee also felt that if a Member becomes subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or an interim order, his or her seat should be vacated. By the same token, only bankrupts subject to a BRO or an interim BRO should be disqualified from election to the House.
        The Government are grateful for the Committee's consideration of this matter and accept its advice, which is reflected in clause 259. That position was supported
        94
        by some of my hon. Friends who spoke to the issue in Committee. The clause also disqualifies a member of the other place who is subject to a BRO, or interim order, from sitting and voting.
        Initially, the proposals will apply only to those persons made bankrupt in England and Wales. That is because Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own devolved individual insolvency regimes and until such time as they are amended, Members sequestrated in Scotland or made bankrupt in Northern Ireland will continue to be subject to the current arrangements.
        I do not need to go into more detail about the arrangements for the devolved Administrations, but we should recognise that we currently have a lower standard than some other areas because a Member is allowed a six-month period of grace to get either an annulment or a discharge before he or she has to vacate their seat. In other areas, there is no such grace period and disqualification has immediate effect. To leave things as they are, as the amendment advocates, and to take no action against Members who are subject to a BRO would widen that disparity even further. We would be faced with the perverse possibility that bankrupt Members could have to vacate their seats after six months, but could stand for election again and be returned even after their discharge even though they were subject to a BRO.
        We should bring the provisions on Members into line with what will happen elsewhere. The order-making power in clause 261 will allow unnecessary bankruptcy disqualifications to be removed or amended. It is already clear that a number of restrictions on bankrupts will be replaced by restrictions on persons subject to a BRO. That is what we will be doing for Members in clause 259.
        I will not be accepting amendment No. 76 which would have some. perhaps unintended, undesirable consequences. I believe that the moves that we are making are in the right direction, although the Government entirely accept that this is a matter for this House.
        Mr. Waterson: I was merely trying to put the principle before the House. The Minister referred to a probing amendment, and if ever there was one, this was it. I still believe that those outside the House will not look kindly on us giving ourselves this exemption. The Minister has rightly pointed out some practical difficulties and, given her full explanation on at least two occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 263

        FEES
        Amendment made: No. 323, in page 181, line 10, leave out "or cancel recognition" and insert—
        'recognition, or revoke an order of recognition under section 391(1) by a further order,'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Schedule 24
        TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
        Amendments made: No. 374, in page 304, line 10, at end insert—
        TRANSITIONAL AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

          'Designation orders under Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act
          '(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the repeals made by section 200 do not affect—

          95

          (a) the operation of Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act in relation to any application for designation of a professional rule which is made before the commencement date;

          (b) the operation of section 3(1)(d) of and Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act in relation to any designation effected by an order made before the commencement date or on an application mentioned in paragraph (a).

          (2) No designation order (whenever made) shall have any effect in relation to any period of time after the end of the transitional period.
          (3) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) a designation order may be made after the end of the transitional period on an application mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
          (4) For the purposes of this paragraph—
          "commencement date" means the day on which section 200 comes into force;
          "designation" means designation under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the 1998 Act; and
          "the transitional period" means the period of three months beginning with the commencement date.'.
          No. 188, in page 304, line 6, at end insert—
          '8A. Any person who is a member of the Competition Commission appeal panel (but not a member of the panel of chairmen) immediately before the commencement of section 12 is on that date to become a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, on such terms and for such a period as the Secretary of State may determine.
          8B Any member of the Competition Commission appeal panel who is, immediately before the commencement of section 12, a member of the panel of chairmen under paragraph 26 of Schedule 7 to the 1998 Act is on that date to become a chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, on such terms and for such a period as the Lord Chancellor may determine.
          8C Nothing in paragraph 7, 8, 8A or 8B applies to any person who, before the commencement of section 12, gives notice to the Secretary of State stating that he does not wish that paragraph to apply to him.'.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Schedule 25
        MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Amendments made: No. 382, in page 304, line 17, at end insert—
        MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

          'Registered Designs Act 1949 (c. 88)
          A1 (1) The Registered Designs Act 1949 is amended as follows.
          (2) In section 11A(1) (powers exercisable in consequence of report of Competition Commission), paragraphs (a) and (b) shall cease to have effect.
          (3) After section 11A there is inserted—
          "11AB Powers exercisable following merger and market investigations
          (1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

          (a) section 40(2), 54(2), 65(6), 72(2), 80(2), 132(2), 141(2) or 154(2) of, or paragraph 5(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to, the Enterprise Act 2002 (powers to take remedial action following merger or market investigations) applies;

          (b) the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State considers that it would he appropriate to make an application under this section for the purpose of remedying, mitigating or preventing a matter which cannot be dealt with under the enactment concerned; and

          (c) the matter concerned involves conditions in licences granted in respect of a registered design by its proprietor restricting the use of the design by the licensee or the right of the proprietor to grant other licences.

          (2) The Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State may apply to the registrar to take action under this section.
          (3) Before making an application the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as it or he thinks appropriate, a notice describing the nature of the proposed application and shall consider any representations which may be made within 30 days of such publication by persons whose interests appear to it or him to be affected.
          (4) The registrar may. if it appears to him on an application under this section that the application is made in accordance with this section, by order cancel or modify any condition concerned of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above.
          (5) An appeal lies from any order of the registrar under this section.
          (6) References in section 34, 35, 46, 62, 128 or 135 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (questions to be decided by the Competition Commission in its reports) to taking action under section 40(2), 54. 65, 132 or 141 shall include references to taking action under subsection (2) above.
          (7) An order made by virtue of this section in consequence of action under subsection (2) above where an enactment mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above applies shall be treated, for the purposes of sections 88(3), 89(1)(a), 156(1) and 160(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duties to register and keep under review enforcement orders etc.), as if it were made under the relevant power in Part 3 or (as the case may be) 4 of that Act to make an enforcement order (within the meaning of the Part concerned)."'.
          No. 383, in page:304, line 19, at end insert—
          '(1A) In section 19A (action following report by Commission)—
          (a) for subsection (1) there is substituted—
          "(1) Subsection (2) applies in any of the following cases.
          (1A) The first case is where section 132(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects following market investigation reference) applies and whatever is to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme.
          (1B) The second case is where section 141(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects in public interest cases) applies and whatever its to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme.
          (1C) The third case is where—

          (a) a report of the Competition Commission under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 (c.21) (references of public bodies etc.), as laid before Parliament, contains conclusions to the effect that—

          (i) certain matters indicated in the report operate against the public interest, and

          (ii) those matters consist of or include any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme, and

          (b) none of the conclusions is to be disregarded by virtue of section 11C(3) of that Act (requirement for two—thirds majority).";

          (b) in subsection (2)—

          (i) the words from the beginning of the subsection to "this section" shall cease to have effect;

          (b) for the words from "those conclusions" to the end of the subsection there is substituted "a report of a committee of investigation had contained the conclusion that the provision of the scheme in question, or the act or omission in question, is contrary to the interests of consumers of the regulated product";

          (c) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

          "(3) An order made by virtue of this section in a case mentioned in subsection (1A) or (1B) shall be treated, for the purposes of sections 156(1) and 160(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duties to

          97
          register and keep under review enforcement orders etc.), as if it were made under the relevant power in Part 4 of that Act to make an enforcement order (within the meaning of that Part).".
          (1B) For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) the amendments made by sub-paragraph (1A) shall be taken to be pre-commencement enactments within the meaning of that Act.'.
          No. 384, in page 308, line 44, at end insert—

          'Patents Act 1977 (c. 37)
          6A (1) The Patents Act 1977 is amended as follows.
          (2) After section 50 there is inserted—
          "50A Powers exercisable following merger and market investigations
          (1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

          (a) section 40(2), 54(2), 65(6), 72(2), 80(2), 132(2), 141(2) or 154(2) of, or paragraph 5(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to, the Enterprise Act 2002 (powers to take remedial action following merger or market investigations) applies;

          (b) the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State considers that it would be appropriate to make an application under this section for the purpose of remedying. mitigating or preventing a matter which cannot be dealt with under the enactment concerned; and

          (c) the matter concerned involves—

          (i) conditions in licences granted under a patent by its proprietor restricting the use of the invention by the licensee or the right of the proprietor to grant other licences; or

          (ii) a refusal by the proprietor of a patent to grant licences on reasonable terms.

          (2) The Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State may apply to the comptroller to take action under this section
          (3) Before making an application the Competition Commission or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State shall publish, in such manner as it or he thinks appropriate, a notice describing the nature of the proposed application and shall consider any representations which may be made within 30 days of such publication by persons whose interests appear to it or him to be affected.
          (4) The comptroller may. if it appears to him on an application under this section that the application is made in accordance with this section, by order cancel or modify any condition concerned of the kind mentioned in subsection (1)(c)(i) above or may, instead or in addition, make an entry in the register to the effect that licences under the patent are to be available as of right.
          (5) References in section 34, 35, 46, 62, 128 or 135 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (questions to be decided by the Competition Commission in its reports) to taking action under section 40(2), 54, 65, 132 or 141 shall include references to taking action under subsection (2) above.
          (6) Action taken by virtue of subsection (4) above in consequence of an application under subsection (2) above where an enactment mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above applies shall be treated, for the purposes of sections 88(3), 89(1)(a), 156(1) and 160(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duties to register and keep under review enforcement orders etc.), as if it were the making of an enforcement order (within the meaning of the Part concerned) under the relevant power in Part 3 or (as the case may be) 4 of that Act."
          (3) In section 51(1) (powers exercisable in consequence of report of Competition Commission), paragraphs (a) and (b) shall cease to have effect.
          (4) In section 53(2) (statements in certain reports of the Competition Commission to be prima facie evidence of the matters stated) after "1980" there is inserted "or published under Part 3 or 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002".'.
          No. 385, in page 314, line 6, leave out ", (4) and (5)" and insert "and (4)".
          No. 386, in page 314, line 6, at end insert—
          98

          '(b) in subsection (4), for the words "against the public interest" there is substituted "inappropriate";

          (c) for subsection (5) there is substituted—

          "(5) In deciding what is inappropriate for the purposes of subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the considerations mentioned in section 238 of the Enterprise Act 2002."'.
          No. 189, in page 314, line 16, after "(6)", insert "or 111(3)(b) or (4)(b)".
          No. 190, in page 314, line 17, after "11B(1)(c)", insert "or (f)'.—
          No. 387, in page 314, line 38, at end insert—
          '(10) For the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46) the amendments made by this paragraph shall be taken to be pre-commencement enactments within the meaning of that Act.'.
          No. 388, in page 314, line 42, at end insert—

          'Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (S.I. 1982/1080 (N.I. 12)
          9A (1) The Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 is amended as follows.
          (2) For article 23 (action following report by Commission) there is substituted—
          "23 Action following report by Competition Commission
          (1) Paragraph (5) applies in any of the following cases.
          (2) The first case is where section 132(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects following market investigation reference) applies and whatever is to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a hoard administering a scheme.
          (3) The second case is where section 141(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects in public interest cases) applies and whatever is to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme.
          (4) The third case is where—

          (a) a report of the Competition Commission under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (references of public bodies etc.), as laid before Parliament, contains conclusions to the effect that—

          (i) certain matters indicated in the report operate against the public interest, and

          (ii) those matters consist of or include any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme, and

          (b) none of the conclusions is to be disregarded by virtue of section 11C(3) of that Act (requirement for two-thirds majority).

          (5) The Department shall have the like power to make orders under Article 22 as if a report of a committee of investigation had contained the conclusion that the provision of the scheme in question, or the act or omission in question, is contrary to the interests of consumers of the regulated product.
          (6) An order made by virtue of this Article in a case falling within paragraph (2) or (3) shall be treated, for the purposes of sections 156(1) and 160(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duties to register and keep under review enforcement orders etc.), as if it were made under the relevant power in Part 4 of that Act to make an enforcement order (within the meaning of that Part)."
          (3) In article 42 (action following report by Commission)—
          (a) for paragraph (1) there is substituted—
          "(1) Paragraph (1D) applies in any of the following cases.
          (1A) The first case is where section 132(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects following market investigation reference) applies and whatever is to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme.
          (1B) The second case is where section 141(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duty to remedy adverse effects in public interest cases) applies and whatever is to be remedied, mitigated or prevented relates to any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme.
          (1C) The third case is where—

          (a) a report of the Competition Commission under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (references of public bodies etc.), as laid before Parliament, contains conclusions to the effect that—

          (i) certain matters indicated in the report operate against the public interest, and

          (ii) those matters consist of or include any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme, and

          (b) none of the conclusions is to be disregarded by virtue of section 11C(3) of that Act (requirement for two-thirds majority).

          (1D) The Department, if it thinks fit so to do—

          (a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as it considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;

          (b) may by order revoke the scheme;

          (c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the board to rectify, may by order direct the board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the hoard forthwith to comply with the order.";

          (b) in paragraph (2) for "paragraph (1)" there is substituted "paragraph (1D)";

          (c) in paragraph (3) for "paragraph (1)(b)(iii)" there substituted "paragraph (1D)(c)";

          (d) in paragraph (5)—

          (i) for "paragraph (1)(i) or (iii)" there is substituted "paragraph (1D)(a) or (c)";

          (ii) for "paragraph (1)(ii)" there is substituted "paragraph (1D)(b)";

          (e) after paragraph (5) there is inserted—

          "(5A) Any order made under this Article in a case falling within paragraph (1A) or (1B) shall be treated, for the purposes of sections 156(1) and 160(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 (duties to register and keep under review enforcement orders etc.), as if it were made under the relevant power in Part 4 of that Act to make an enforcement order (within the meaning of that Part)."'.
          No. 389, in page 315, line 3, at end insert—
          '(2A) In section 13 (licence modification references to Commission), subsections (9) and (9A) shall cease to have effect.
          (2B) After section 13 there is inserted—
          "13A References under section 13: time limits
          (1) Every reference under section 13 above shall specify a period (not longer than six months beginning with the date of the reference) within which a report on the reference is to be made.
          (2) A report of the Commission on a reference under section 13 above shall not have effect (and no action shall be taken in relation to it under section 15 below) unless the report is made before the end of the period specified in the reference or such further period (if any) as may be allowed by the Director under subsection (3) below.
          (3) The Director may, if he has received representations on the subject from the Commission and is satisfied that there are special reasons why the report cannot be made within the period specified in the reference, extend that period by no more than six months.
          (4) No more than one extension is possible under subsection (3) above in relation to the same reference.
          (5) The Director shall, in the case of an extension made by him under subsection (3) above—

          (a) publish that extension in such manner as he considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it; and

          (b) in the case of a licence granted to a particular person, send to that person a copy of what has been published by him under paragraph (a) above.

          13B References under section 13: powers of investigation
          (1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) below, for the purposes of references under section 13 above as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

          (a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

          (b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

          (c) section 108 (penalties);

          (d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

          (e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

          (f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

          (g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

          (h) section 113 (statement of policy).

          (2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if—

          (a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

          (b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

          (3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of subsection (1) above, have effect as if for the words from "the latest" to the end there were substituted "the day on which the report of the Commission on the reference concerned is published."
          (2C) In section 14 (reports on licence modification references)—

          (a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

          "(1A) For the purposes of section 15 below, a conclusion contained in a report of the Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
          (1B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under section 13 above as the conclusions of the Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.";

          (b) for subsection (3) there is substituted—

          "(3) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Commission on a reference under section 13 above.
          (3A) In making any report on a reference under section 13 above the Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
          (3B) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
          (3C) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

          (a) commercial information whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

          (b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

          (3D) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in subsection (3C)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report."'.
          No. 390, in page 316, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 317.
          No. 391, in page 317, line 9, at end insert—

          'Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
          15A (1) The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is amended as follows.
          (2) In section 144 (powers exercisable in consequence of report of Commission) for subsections (1) and (2) there is substituted—
          "(1) Subsection (1A) applies where whatever needs to be remedied, mitigated or prevented by the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Competition Commission under section 12(5) of the Competition Act 1980 or section 40(2), 54(2), 65(6), 72(2), 80(2). 132(2), 141(2) or 154(2) of, or paragraph 5(2) or 10(2) of Schedule 7 to, the Enterprise Act 2002 (powers to take remedial action following references to the Commission in connection with public bodies and certain other persons, mergers or market investigations) consists of or includes—

          (a) conditions in licences granted by the owner of copyright in a work restricting the use of the work by the licensee or the right of the copyright owner to grant other licences; or

          a refusal of a copyright owner to grant licences on reasonable terms.

          (1A) The powers conferred by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 include power to cancel or modify those conditions and, instead or in addition, to provide that licences in respect of the copyright shall be available as of right.
          (2) The references to anything permitted by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 in section 12(5A) of the Competition Act 1980 and in sections 72(4)(a), 80(4)(a), 81(2)(a), 86(1), 154(4)(a), 155(3)(a) and 158(1) of, and paragraphs 5, 10 and 11 of Schedule 7 to, the Act of 2002 shall be construed accordingly."
          (3) In section 144(3)—

          (a) for "A Minister" there is substituted "The Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the Competition Commission";

          (b) after "he" there is inserted "or it".'.

          No. 392, in page 318, line 38, at end insert—

          '(f) paragraph 8 (exemption from monopoly provisions) shall cease to have effect.'.

          No. 393, in page 322, line 47, at end insert—
          ';

          (ii) sub-paragraphs (7) and (7A) shall cease to have effect;

          (da) after paragraph 4 there is inserted—

          Further provision about references under paragraph 4
          4A (1) The following sections of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 shall apply, with the modifications mentioned in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), for the purposes of references under paragraph 4 as they apply for the purposes of references under that Part—

          (a) section 106 (attendance of witnesses and production of documents etc.);

          (b) section 107 (enforcement of powers under section 106: general);

          (c) section 108 (penalties);

          (d) section 109 (penalties: main procedural requirements);

          (e) section 110 (payments and interest by instalments);

          (f) section 111 (appeals in relation to penalties);

          (g) section 112 (recovery of penalties); and

          (h) section 113 (statement of policy).

          (2) Section 107 shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), have effect as if—

          (a) subsection (2) were omitted; and

          (b) in subsection (9) the words from "or section" to "section 64(3))" were omitted.

          (3) Section 108(5)(b)(ii) shall, in its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), have effect as if for the words from "the latest" to the end there were substituted "the day on which the report of the Commission on the reference concerned is published.";
          (db) in paragraph 5—

          (i) for "Director" (in each place) there is substituted "OFT";

          (iii) sub-paragraph (5) shall cease to have effect;

          (iii) after sub-paragraph (5) there is inserted—

          "(5A) For the purposes of paragraph 6, a conclusion contained in a report of the Competition Commission is to be disregarded if the conclusion is not that of at least two-thirds of the members of the group constituted in connection with the reference concerned in pursuance of paragraph 15 of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998.
          (5B) If a member of a group so constituted disagrees with any conclusions contained in a report made on a reference under paragraph 4 as the conclusions of the Competition Commission, the report shall, if the member so wishes, include a statement of his disagreement and of his reasons for disagreeing.
          (5C) For the purposes of the law relating to defamation, absolute privilege attaches to any report made by the Competition Commission on a reference under paragraph 4.
          (5D) In making any report on a reference under paragraph 4 the Competition Commission must have regard to the following considerations before disclosing any information.
          (5E) The first consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable) any information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks is contrary to the public interest.
          (5F) The second consideration is the need to exclude from disclosure (so far as practicable)—

          (a) commercial information whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates, or

          (b) information relating to the private affairs of an individual whose disclosure the Competition Commission thinks might significantly harm the individual's interests.

          (5G) The third consideration is the extent to which the disclosure of the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (5F)(a) or (b) is necessary for the purposes of the report.".'
          No. 394, in page 323, line 1, leave out "paragraphs 5 and" and insert "paragraph".
          No. 395, in page 323, leave out line 11 and insert—

          (iii)sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) shall cease to have effect;

          (ga) after paragraph 8 there is inserted—

          Enforcement
          8A (1) The court may, on an application by the OFT, enquire into whether any person ("the defaulter") has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under paragraph 8(1).
          (2) An application under sub-paragraph (1) shall include details of the possible failure which the OFT considers has occurred.
          (3) In enquiring into a case under sub—paragraph (1), the court shall hear any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the defaulter and any statement which may be offered in defence.
          (4) Sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) apply where the court is satisfied, after hearing any witnesses and statements as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), that the defaulter has refused or otherwise failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the notice under paragraph 8(1).
          (5) The court may punish the defaulter as it would have been able to punish him had he been guilty of contempt of court.
          (6) Where the defaulter is a body corporate, the court may punish any director or officer of the defaulter as it would have been able to punish that director or officer had the director or officer been guilty of contempt of court.
          (7) In this section "the court"—

          (a) in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, means the High Court, and

          (b) in relation to Scotland, means the Court of Session.

          8B (1) A person commits an offence if he intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys a document which he has been required to produce by a notice under paragraph 8(1).
          (2) A person who commits an offence under sub-paragraph (1) shall be liable—

          (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

          (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.

          False or misleading information
          8C (1) A person commits an offence if—

          (a) he supplies any information to the OFT or the Competition Commission in connection with any of their functions under this Schedule;

          (b) the information is false or misleading in a material respect; and

          (c) he knows that it is false or misleading in a material respect or is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading in a material respect.

          (2) A person commits an offence if he—

          (a) supplies any information to another person which he knows to be false or misleading in a material respect; or

          (b) recklessly supplies any information to another person which is false or misleading in a material respect;

          knowing that the information is to be used for the purpose of supplying information to the OFT or the Competition Commission in connection with any of their functions under this Schedule.

          (3) A person who commits an offence under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall be liable—

          (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

          (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.".'

          No. 396, in page 325, line 16, at end insert—

          'Osteopaths Act 1993 (c. 21)
          25A (1) The Osteopaths Act 1993 is amended as follows.
          (2) In section 33(2) (competition and anti-competitive practices)—

          (a) for the words from the beginning to "orders)" there is substituted "Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 (provision that may be contained in enforcement orders)";

          (b) for "a competition" there is substituted "an enforcement".

          (3) After section 33(2) there is inserted—
          "(2A) The references to anything permitted by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 in sections 154(4)(a), 155(3)(a) and 158(1) of that Act shall be construed accordingly."
          (4) In section 33(3), for "A competition" there is substituted "An enforcement"
          (5) For section 33(4) there is substituted—
          "(4) In this section "an enforcement order" means an order under—

          (a) section 154 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (orders following failure to fulfil final undertakings); or

          (b) section 155 of that Act (final orders following market investigation reports).".

          (6) For section 33(5) there is substituted—
          "(5) For the purposes of an enforcement order section 83(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 as applied by section 158(2)(a) of that Act (power to apply orders to existing agreements) shall have effect in relation to a regulatory provision as it has effect in relation to an agreement."'.
          No. 397, in page 325, line 19, after "Regulator)" insert "—

          (a) in subsection (2)(a), the words from "in cases where" to "market" shall cease to have effect;

          (b) '.

          No. 398, in page 325, line 21, at end insert—
          ';

          (c) subsection (8) shall cease to have effect.'.

          No. 399, in page 326, line 17, at end insert—

          'Chiropractors Act 1994 (c. 17)
          26A (1) The Chiropractors Act 1994 is amended as follows.
          (2) In section 33(2) (competition and anti-competitive practices)—

          (a) for the words from the beginning to "orders)" there is substituted "Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 (provision that may be contained in enforcement orders)";

          (b) for "a competition" there is substituted "an enforcement".

          (3) After section 33(2) there is inserted—
          "(2A) The references to anything permitted by Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 in sections 154(4)(a), 155(3)(a) and 158(1) of that Act shall be construed accordingly."
          (4) In section 33(3), for "A competition" there is substituted "An enforcement".
          (5) For section 33(4) there is substituted—
          "(4) In this section "an enforcement order" means an order under—

          (a) section 154 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (orders following failure to fulfil final undertakings); or

          (b) section 155 of that Act (final orders following market investigation reports).".

          (6) For section 33(5) there is substituted—
          "(5) For the purposes of an enforcement order section 83(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002 as applied by section 158(2)(a) of that Act (power to apply orders to existing agreements) shall have effect in relation to a regulatory provision as it has effect in relation to an agreement."'.
          No. 400, in page 327, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]

      Schedule 26

        REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS
        Amendments made: No. 401, in page 338, line 20, at end insert—
        'Registered Designs Act 1949 (c. 88)
        In section 11A(1), paragraphs (a) and (b).'.
        No. 402, in page 338, line 20, at end insert—
        Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (c.47)
        In section 19A(2), the words from the beginning of the subsection to "this section".'.
        No. 403, in page 339, line 19, in column 2 at end insert—
        Section 84'.
        No. 404, in page 339, line 46, in column 2 at beginning insert—
        'In section 51(1), paragraphs (a) and (b).'.
        No. 405, in page 340, line 4, leave out", (4) and (5)" and insert "and (4)".
        No. 406, in page 340, line 14, in column 2 at beginning insert—
        'In section 13, subsections (9) and (9A).'
        No. 301, in page 340, line 31, in column 2 at beginning insert—
        'In section 54, subsection (3).'
        No. 135, in page 341, line 46, after "In", insert "Schedule 29, in".
        No. 136, in page 341, line 47, at end insert—
        'Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
        Section 62(2)(a).'.
        No. 407, in page 342, line 12, in column 2 at end insert—
        'In Schedule 14, paragraph 8'.
        No. 408, in page 342, line 19, after "4," insert—
        ', in paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs (7) and (7A), in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (5), in paragraph 8, sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) and'.
        No. 192, in page 342, line 47, leave out "and (2)" and insert "to (3)".
        No. 409, in page 342, line 48, in column 2 at beginning insert—
        'In section 4, in subsection (2)(a), the words from "in cases where" to "market", and subsection (8).'
        No. 193, in page 343, line 11, after "(1)" insert "and (2)".
        No. 302, in page 343, line 21, in column 2 at beginning insert—
        'In Article 45, paragraph (3).'
        No. 194, in page 343, line 26, after "(1)" insert "and (2)".
        No. 137, in page 343, line 26, at end insert—
        'Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18)
        In sections 166(7)(a) and 183(3)(a), the words "or an administration order."
        Section 189(4).'.
        No. 191, in page 344, line 16, after "2(1)(a)", insert ", (3)(a)".
        No. 303, in page 344, leave out line 29.—
        No. 138, in page 345, line 8, at end insert—
        'Finance Act 2000 (c. 17)
        In Schedule 7, paragraphs 2 and 3.'.
        No. 139, in page 345, line 35, at end insert—
        'Finance Act 2001 (c. 9)
        In Schedule 5, paragraphs 17(1) and (2) and 18.'.
        No. 381, in page 345, line 37, at end insert—
        'Stop Now Orders (E.C. Directive) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1422)—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
        The whole Regulations.'

      Clause 272

        COMMENCEMENT
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 184, line 4, at end add—
        '(2) Parts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Act shall not come into force before 1st March 2005'.
        I shall speak briefly to the amendment. We discussed this in Committee but, given our slightly truncated debates last Thursday, I still think it is worth debating the amendment, which would ensure that parts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill, once enacted, do not come into force before 1 March 2005.
        I am sure that it is rare to propose amendments to the commencement provisions in a Bill. However, we have received very strong lobbying from the CBI and other organisations which feel quite aggrieved, not unreasonably, that we are revisiting competition law only a very short time after the Competition Act 1998, which was described at the time as the state-of-the-art measure on competition, and an even shorter time after the Act came into effect. We believe that there is a symbolic importance in suggesting that there should be a moratorium before the new provisions on competition come into force.
        I am sure that Members want to get on to Third Reading, so I will desist from going through all the provisions that are being proposed on competition matters. We had some debate on it last Thursday. However, this seems eccentric for two reasons—first, it will place extra burdens on business because companies will have to become au fait with these new competition provisions very soon after doing so in respect of the 1998 Act.
        Secondly, it was clear from our deliberations in Committee that on certain key issues the regime in this country and the European Union would be moving in opposite directions. That is very unfortunate; there is no doubt that the European regime for competition is developing, and developing quite fast. Again, there seemed to us to be great sense in waiting to see how that regime, to which British companies are subject, developed before committing ourselves to further changes in competition law. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I commend it to the House.
        Mr. Carmichael: I can probably beat the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for brevity. I believe that

        107
        there is some force in what he says. I feel as if passing competition legislation is almost like buying a new computer—by the time everything is installed and all the games are up and running, it is obsolete and something better has come on the market. [Interruption.] Or, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) says, it has crashed.
        I am not convinced that the length of the delay envisaged in the amendment is desirable, but as I have said on a number of occasions in Committee, there is a good reason for having a period of mature reflection on the progress of the Competition Act, which is of two years' vintage only. Before the Bill comes into force in its entirety, it might be possible to commence introducing some of the provisions over a longer period of time.
        Miss Johnson: In the interests of brevity, I will not go over all the reasons why we propose to have the Bill. Its provisions build on those of the 1998 Act. There is no real reason for delaying it, as the amendment proposes, until at least 1 March 2005. It would be unusual for the House to introduce legislation, support it and then suggest that it needs to be delayed for so long.
        I set out the rationale for each of the reforms on Second Reading and in Committee. Merger and market reforms will depoliticise the process; they will improve the clarity of the framework for decisions and the predictability of the decisions made under it. The introduction of an offence for cartels will create a real deterrent against individuals who enter into cartels, and the effect will be fewer cartels. The civil regime introduced by the 1998 Act imposes civil fines on companies but it does not deter individuals in this way.
        I do not believe that there are any grounds for delaying the introduction of this package of important reforms, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
        Mr. Waterson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Order for Third Reading read.
        7.57 pm
        Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to our debates on the Bill, not only on Report but on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill is set to go on to the other place in even better shape, I believe, than it was on its introduction. That is due to the diligence that many Members of the House have demonstrated in scrutinising the Bill. I am particularly grateful for the constructive approach of Opposition Members to the Bill, their support for the majority of the measures and their determination to improve it.
        Hon. Members have asked how much of a difference the proposals will make to people's lives in practice; they have sought reassurance that the Bill will not create new burdens on business and have asked whether sufficient resources will be available to back up the new powers in the Bill. I have sought to reassure them on these points throughout the passage of the Bill and will do so again this evening.
        108
        There remains a productivity gap with our key competitors—France, Germany and the United States. My Department's No. 1 public service agreement target is to tackle this productivity gap. The measures in the Bill will boost productivity through promoting stronger competition and an enterprise culture. They will make a real difference to people's lives. It is no wonder, then, that the Bill has wide support. The Federation of Small Businesses says:
        "We do not see anything controversial in these proposals and would urge all party support and speedy implementation through Parliament".
        Sheila McKechnie of the Consumers Association said that the measures will
        "put an end to the billions lost to consumers each year from rogue traders".
        Digby Jones of the CBI expressed support for the Bill "in the round" and said that
        "we value a very tough competitive regime because it will enhance productivity".
        The Bill has also received support from leading competition experts such as Michael Porter and Irwin Stelzer, from the British Chambers of Commerce and other consumer organisations.
        Mr. John Redwood: If competition is so good, why are hon. Lady's Government delaying its introduction in the Post Office?
        Miss Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently made a statement on the Post Office and we are trying to ensure that the Post Office has a secure future. That is not a matter for the Bill, which does not need to deal directly with issues of enterprise and productivity in the Post Office, as they are being fully addressed elsewhere. Indeed, it could be said that insufficient action by the Conservative Government meant that the future of the Post Office was not what it would have been had the organisation been suitably released from the constrictions under which it worked at that time.
        The result of our extensive consultation on the Bill is a measure that reforms existing regulatory frameworks for the better. For example, there will be better competition regulation. By removing from Ministers decisions on mergers and market investigations, we are removing a layer of regulation and streamlining the regime. We are ensuring that decisions are taken by competition experts, free from short-term political pressures. By ensuring that those decisions are taken on the basis of a competition test, rather than a public interest test, we are improving the clarity of the framework for decisions and the predictability of the decisions made under it.
        Opposition Members have expressed concerns about the manner in which the Office of Fair Trading will investigate markets. The OFT threshold for making references will be no lower than at present. The OFT will naturally want to concentrate its resources on the most serious cases. It will certainly not be in the OFT's interests to refer markets for detailed investigation unless there is a reasonable prospect that the Competition Commission will make an adverse finding. That has not happened in the past, and I cannot envisage its happening in the future.

        109
        Some forms of anti-competitive behaviour, specifically hard-core cartels, are highly damaging to consumers and a major drain on the world economy. Those are serious economic crimes and that is why the Bill provides for a criminal offence with the possibility of a maximum five-year criminal sentence.
        The Competition Act 1998 already provides civil fines against firms, as I said a moment ago. However, to prevent the formation of hard-core cartels, we need to create real deterrents for individuals. Cartels operate undercover and are notoriously difficult to detect. That is why we are providing for tough but appropriate and proportionate investigatory powers, with significant safeguards.
        As well as benefiting from stronger competition, consumers will benefit from effective consumer protection. The stop now orders, introduced last year for certain aspects of consumer protection, were widely welcomed by consumer organisations. The Bill will extend that protection to other sectors—especially the service sector—where consumers' interests are harmed by traders not meeting their legal obligations. The new framework will work better for consumers and for business.
        We have heard several calls for the Bill to include a general duty not to trade unfairly. I agree that businesses should trade fairly. but I am not convinced that enshrining a general principle of that kind in legislation is necessarily the best way forward. Policies must be founded on a robust evidence base to ensure that they are effective and necessary, do not place undue burdens on business and serve the purpose of protecting the consumer—the overriding reason for those aspects of the Bill. That is why I shall invite key stakeholders to a seminar to explore their concerns with me in more depth. In the light of that seminar, I shall assess the case for further action.
        If we are to build a truly enterprising economy, we must ensure that our insolvency regime supports rather than stifles the development and growth of new businesses. The Bill will deliver that support while striking a balance between the interests of creditors, companies and the public.
        In providing early discharge for those who have failed through no fault of their own and by introducing a more stringent regime for the rest, we are drawing a clear distinction between the culpable and the non-culpable. That is vital if we are to move away from our current one-size-fits-all approach to bankruptcy which is inappropriate and unfair.
        On earlier occasions and, indeed, this evening, some hon. Members have said that bankruptcy will become an easy option. That is a cynical argument that has no basis in fact. Debtors who can pay should pay and will pay. Trustees will be entitled to realise the same assets and income as they do at present, and that is why we are introducing bankruptcy orders for protection against the most reckless and dishonest people. However, we also believe that the consequences of bankruptcy should reflect the circumstances of the case.
        As well as encouraging individual enterprise, we want to ensure that companies facing financial difficulties do not go to the wall unnecessarily. That is why we are restricting the use of administrative receivership and creating a new streamlined administration procedure with a clearer purpose and clear time scales. The procedure
        110
        will focus on company rescue and better returns for the company's creditors as a whole. We will also ensure that the interests of all creditors are taken into account.
        The measures in the Bill are radical and bold, but based on careful consultation. We have developed them to strike the right balance and to reform the existing framework of regulation for the better—without creating additional regulations for business. We will provide the necessary resources to ensure that the measures are effective. Together, the package of reforms will make a real difference to this nation's prosperity and I commend the Bill to the House.
        8.6 pm
        Mr. Waterson: One might think that it was difficult to say anything new about the Bill by this stage, but I shall do my best—as the Minister and I prepare to stagger back to our respective corners to receive the ministrations of our managers.
        We have been considering a long and detailed Bill: 274 clauses and 26 schedules. As I have said before, much of it is common ground. To call it an Enterprise Bill is puzzling, as it is a collection of different Bills—some of which contained sensible provisions—which have somehow become attached to one another. That makes it all the more surprising that the Government wanted to rush it through in such a hurry. I have already referred to the fact that we scarcely had time to draw breath between the coming into force of the Competition Act 1998 and the introduction of these new provisions and their effect on business.
        Last Thursday, we managed to avoid any debate of cartels—which are, as the Minister explained, an important aspect of the measure—or market investigations, and there was precious little debate of mergers. That is extraordinary, because it is not as though there were massive party political differences on the entirety of the Bill, although there are some differences between us here and there which we have tried to bring to the fore. There has been relentless pressure to push the measure through. The point that I made on Thursday bears repetition: many people apart from ourselves will have to grapple with the complexities in the Bill when it becomes law.
        I am still mystified that the Bill was not considered appropriate for pre-legislative scrutiny, as that would have created an opportunity to deal with many of the practical and technical objections that we have tried to raise in our role as the official Opposition. However, in fairness to the Government, several of our amendments were accepted and the Government have introduced some amendments based on our proposals.
        I want to deal with some of the broad issues in the Bill. We welcome, of course, the formal recognition by statute of the ending of political interference by Ministers in decisions on takeovers and mergers. However, as I have explained previously, in theory, that should not make a vast difference to individual cases; since the Tebbit guidelines, Ministers have on the whole adopted that approach—a self-denying ordinance.
        I hope that the provisions mean what they say. because the Government have fought like tigers to retain not only a provision about the public interest but also one that allows them to expand the definition of public interest by regulation. They assure us that they do not envisage

        111
        circumstances in which they might do so, but let us hope that the House can hold a debate, which is as full as the rules allow, if and when the Government want to expand that definition.
        I hope that shabby episodes of the sort that we debated on Thursday—the way in which the takeover of Express Newspapers Group by Mr. Desmond's companies was handled by the then Secretary of State—will be a thing of the past. There are still some major unanswered questions about that whole episode, not least about the precise criteria adopted by the then Secretary of State in making his decision on what the Office of Fair Trading called the non-competition issues. Fortunately, the Opposition are not alone in wishing to get to the bottom of those questions. A large and growing number of Labour Members would also like to know on what basis that decision was made and why it was followed only a few days later by a substantial donation to the Labour party.
        Of course we welcome the strengthening of the competition regime, although we expressed our concerns in Committee about the apparent divergence between the new regime under the Bill and what is happening in the European Union. That will create extra problems for businesses, and it is completely at odds with this Government's attitude when the Competition Act 1998 was being debated. They then took the view that one should not be able to get a cigarette paper between what was happening in Europe and what was happening in this country. I wonder why.
        The issue of criminalising cartels is great for a headline, but not much else. In Committee, we heard about the EU's express reservations about our moving in that direction if it is not doing so. There were concerns about how whistleblowers will be treated in practice and whether they will feel able to come forward if they know that criminal sanctions may await them. There were also concerns about the effect on investigations and, crucially, the effect on exchanging information between our regime and that in Europe or those in countries without express criminal sanctions.
        We discussed those countries that very rarely used criminal sanctions even though they were on their statute books. It was interesting that our debate on that subject occurred precisely at the time of the result in the Sotheby's cartel trial. Mr. Alfred Taubman was sentenced to a period in Club Fed, whereas Sir Anthony Tennant will not be subject to criminal sanctions, let alone imprisonment, so long as he does not set foot in America.
        In practice, will the directors of major companies be less willing to err or cross the line because criminal sanctions exist? Their existence does not seem to have affected Mr. Alfred Taubman in America, and they will not have the desired effect here. The proposal is a bit of gesture politics, but it will have a serious practical effect on the efficacy of investigations in this country.
        We could have had a substantial debate on market investigations if we had had enough time last Thursday. The Government have failed to strike the balance between the need for proper investigations and the extra burdens to be placed on business by the various types of investigations that the OFT will be able to conduct with its new powers, functions and resources. The Government even resisted our modest amendment to place in the
        112
        OFT's annual report an assessment of the cost to business of the investigations that it carried out in the preceding year.
        Of course what really beggars belief is the fact that the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill itself concluded that there would be no effect on business if those provisions were placed on the statue book. I find that very difficult to believe, and have done throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
        On consumer protection, we broadly welcome extending stop now orders, introducing super-complaints and the OFT's powers and functions, but we remain disappointed, as do many consumer organisations, that the Government have not been prepared to grasp the nettle of creating a general power to deal with the sort of scams, frauds and abuses that I described earlier today in the debate on those provisions. Despite the Bill's reaching the statute book, it is clear that many of those activities will continue unabated simply because the fraudsters are one step ahead of the law and the Government.
        We debated the insolvency provisions at length today. Of course we welcome the abolition of Crown preference. That must be a practical and sensible step. We have significant reservations about the Government's attempts to remove or certainly to reduce the stigma of bankruptcy. It is absolutely impossible to understand how a genuine judgment can be made between culpable and non-culpable bankrupts. Not only do we believe that there is a third category of what I call pathological optimists, but the fact is that it will be very difficult to make those judgments, particularly as the period will be reduced to 12 months or less; as there will be no formal requirement on the official receiver to investigate all cases; and as the Insolvency Service's resources will be stretched to breaking point.
        That would be bad enough with the existing number of bankruptcies, which has been steadily rising over the years, but we have predicted—the Government have not challenged this—that there will be a significant increase in the number of bankruptcies following the introduction of the provisions. In fact, we go further than that: there will be an explosion in the number of bankruptcies, as happened when similar measures were put into effect in the United States.
        What blows out of the water any pretence that the Government have that the Bill is really about enterprise is the Minister's admission that she sees no theoretical reason to differentiate the length of the bankruptcy period for business and consumer bankrupts. She also made the separate assertion—it was perfectly open for her to do so—that it was difficult and impracticable to make that distinction. It will not be very long before the resources available to deal with the growing number of personal consumer bankruptcies in this country will become obviously inadequate.
        The real problem with the Bill is that it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with enterprise, for we are debating it against a background of understandably deteriorating relations between the Government and industry and business. Britain is now 16th in the world competitiveness league tables. Ernst and Young's latest report shows that 52 per cent. of those asked—the sort of entrepreneurs to whom the Government like to feel they are close—thought that the Government gave low priority to entrepreneurship, and a staggering 1 per cent. thought

        113
        that they gave it high priority. Even if the Government do not understand what they are trying to do, business men and women do.
        The Minister quoted the Federation of Small Businesses, but it also had this to say:
        "All the welcome measures have been undone by the increase in National insurance. For three million self-employed workers, it will mean increases in tax…it is a tragedy that the Chancellor has decided that the self-employed will also pay higher National Insurance Contributions".
        The Independent—not exactly a sub-department of central office—said this about the Bill:
        "these are largely candy floss measures which fail to address the main problem facing Britain's enterprise economy—namely the growing burden of regulation, especially as it concerns the labour force…the Government's pro-business agenda is at odds with its social objectives, for business will always do best if the Government simply gets out of its way."
        However, the Government simply and fundamentally fail to understand how business and entrepreneurial activity work. They simply do not understand. When we come right down to it, it is difficult to disagree with the CBI's judgment that the Bill's title is something of a misnomer.
        8.19 pm
        Mr. Carmichael: It is an unexpected pleasure for me to address the House on Third Reading and from this position in the Chamber. Hon. Members will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) usually leads for the Liberal Democrat party on such occasions. Unfortunately, he has been on unavoidable business elsewhere today, and I suspect that he has been caught out by our alacrity and great progress in finishing our debates on Report as early as we did.
        If my short speech in this debate is punctuated by a series of dull thuds, I can probably account for that by saying that it is the sound of senior members of the leader's office and the Whips Office throwing themselves out of high windows when they see my name on the monitor at this stage in the proceedings. What I am about to say may or may not he party policy; I merely ask Members not to assume that I say it simply because of where I am standing. The absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has given me my big chance, however, which I shall take with all the skill and precision of an Irish footballer taking a penalty—[Laughter.] As a Scotsman, I feel that I am one of the few people in the Chamber in a position to make fun of anybody else's soccer skills.
        On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats' position was that we agreed with much of the philosophy behind the Bill, and we recognised the contribution that the principles of competition could make to the development of a culture of entrepreneurship. That was our approach throughout the Committee stage and on Report. As is the case with all parties, we will not be forcing a Division on the Bill. We wish it good progress in another place.
        This is the second Bill on which I have served in Standing Committee since I came to the House last year. Again, I was impressed at the manner in which the issues raised were dealt with. I pay particular tribute to the Under-Secretary and her colleague, the then Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, who has been made Minister of State, Cabinet Office in the meantime. I also pay tribute, despite our occasional differences, to the
        114
        contribution made to the debate by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who was always well briefed and put his points with force and eloquence, and to my absent hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.
        My view of this Enterprise Bill—I wonder whether it might please the hon. Member for Eastbourne were a small amendment made to its title at a later stage, as I suspect that it would save us all a lot of grief—is that it is all right as far as it goes. The Government's approach to competition as presented in the Bill, however, lacks a little imagination. It seems to be driven by a conventional and—dare I say it?—conservative view of competition and what it can achieve. As we have tried to suggest in Committee and on the Floor of the House, it seems that it will not allow sufficiently for concerns to be addressed in relation to local monopolies, for example.
        It also seems that the Labour party has a remarkable ideological commitment to competition as a tool of economic management, about which I am surprised and disappointed, as it is a one-size-fits-all approach. There are parts of the country, one of which I represent, where competition alone will not be enough. There is still a role for the Government in economic management. Clearly, they will not have the primary role, but were Governments simply to say, "That is a matter for the market to take care of, and we are not going to deal with it", that would be an abdication of part of the responsibility that voters feel that they entrust to us. The more we abdicate our responsibilities, the more disengaged we will become from our electorate.
        I was disappointed that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes)—who, I am pleased to see, is now in his place—were not given a fairer wind. I was pleased that Liberal Democrats were able to support them. On Thursday last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) suggested that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire was trying to smuggle in social revolution by the back door. It is difficult to see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, who is one of the most thoughtful and, at least in his delivery, gentle Members of the House, cast in the role of the foot-in-the-door salesmen whom we were so deprecating earlier today. If he was seeking to use the Bill as a tool for social change however, more power to his elbow. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made the point that the need for accountability underpinned his amendments; it is all very well for Government to use competition as they do but, at the end of the day, there must still be political input. The amendment seeking to introduce the public interest to the considerations underpinning the Bill would have been a useful reinstatement of that accountability. The Bill is the poorer for not having it.
        The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) offered earlier the example of Consignia and the Post Office. Why, he asked, if the Government are in favour of competition, are they delaying its introduction in the Post Office? I would hope that the answer to that is obvious to all Members of the House. It would be an absolute disaster if unlimited competition were introduced to the Post Office. The universal service obligation would disappear like snow off a dike. That ideologically driven approach to competition, which accepts no role for the state, is very dangerous.
        Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the introduction of competition to postal services is a

        115
        requirement under European law, and a very good European policy? Is he saying that he is not a good European? What will he do about the fact that he is at variance with a decision already taken by the European Union?
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that, on Third Reading, we should be discussing the content of this Bill.
        Mr. Carmichael: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is for others to decide whether I am a good European. I merely point out to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he poses a different question, because the European proposals for postal services liberalisation operate to a different time scale, and he was asking why the Government were delaying it. It is therefore not the same point.
        Unfortunately, we did not discuss the operation of cartels on Report. I am comfortable in principle with the criminalisation of cartels. I have severe reservations, however, about the practical aspects of their prosecution. Were I still in practice as a solicitor, I would much prefer to defend a client on a charge under the cartel offence provisions than to try to gain a prosecution.
        I regret that we were not able to make more progress today in relation to the protection of consumers. I welcome, as far as it goes, the Under-Secretary's commitment to a seminar on this issue. I hope that it will produce some inspiration for her, as I feel that that has been slightly lacking.
        The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, although he slightly undersold them, sought to introduce a system based on certain principles. I suggested to him that the great attraction of such a system was that principles are there for application by the court, and that they can be interpreted to defeat new forms of the old evil or mischief. His response was that, as long as that was consistent with current law, that was fine. In Scotland, of course, which has a principle-based system, that is entirely consistent with our current law. Had we never departed from the true principles of Roman law that underpin Scots law, I suspect that we might not be in the mess that we are in today.
        In Committee and on Report, the Government made several concessions which I welcome. One of my constant refrains in Committee was that not sufficient account had been taken of what is, in many respects, a distinctly Scottish position. It remains my impression that the Scottish position has simply fallen off the radar screen for a number of Whitehall Departments since devolution. In many respects, the Bill forcefully illustrates the need for that to change.
        A great many reserve powers remain at Westminster and they will have a direct impact on Scots law. To that extent, I am grateful for the help that I have had in the deliberations on the Bill from members of the Law Society of Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. I place my gratitude to them on the record. However, if future Bills of this sort do not take on board the Scottish position at an earlier stage, that will be very dangerous for the Union.
        116
        Although good progress has been made, a lot more could be done. I shall watch the Bill's further progress in the other place with interest, but I am more than pleased to give it the good wishes of the Liberal Democrats as it leaves the House tonight.
        8.31 pm
        Mr. Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
        I welcome the Government's conversion to the idea that competition is a good thing, but my worry is that the Bill is exceedingly schizophrenic. Provisions in it rightly say that competition is the way to produce lower prices, more choice, better innovation and better standards of service; the Bill also says that, wherever possible, we need to find better ways of enforcing that competition message. I entirely agree. However, when we look at the Government's practice in the sectors that they regulate, control and own, we see that they practise the opposite of what they preach. If the Bill becomes an Act, it will allow them to carry on merrily in their bad old ways. It will be a question of "do as I tell you, not as I do".
        The Bill will tell the competitive private sector that it needs to be even more virtuous in believing in the benefits of competition, and it will impose even stronger penalties on any director or business person who does not behave and does not understand the need to avoid price rigging, monopoly practice and damaging activities vis-à-vis the market. Yet the Government, in their policies towards regulated businesses, will often move in exactly the opposite direction. The Bill, if passed in its current shape, will allow them to carry on doing just that.
        As a former Minister with responsibility for competition, I very well remember attempting to enforce the Tebbit doctrine on the private sector on behalf of the then Secretary of State. I attempted to liberalise and open up those parts of the public and regulated monopoly sectors that needed liberalising, to start to spread some of the benefits of competition to those sectors. For example, we liberalised telecommunications and the results were astonishingly good. I am pleased that the Government do not wish to reverse that. We have much more service, innovation, capacity and choice, and much lower prices, as a result of the liberalisation of telecommunications. Why are the Government therefore unwilling to learn those lessons when it comes to sectors such as the railways, the provision of road space or postal services? If anything, it seems that they are trying to move in the opposite direction.
        When I was the Minister responsible for competition, I accepted fully that it was my duty and that of the Secretary of State to come to the House when necessary to explain our activities. I saw nothing wrong with that. However, I have worries about the Bill if the Government are to use the creation of an independent Competition Commission as an excuse to avoid coming to the House to talk about the most sensitive and important business issues that might come up.
        I hope that Ministers will recognise that, even if they have delegated more of their authority and power through the Bill to more independent bodies, they will still feel that they have to explain to the House of Commons if things go wrong or are contentious, or if people on either side of the House feel that the decisions taken by that independent body are not right, just, fair or in the wider

        117
        national interest. It is most important in a democratic society that still pays salaries to many people in the Department of Trade and Industry that we should have the right of access to Ministers even if, under the Bill, some of their activities will be delegated.
        I remember that there were occasions when Conservative Members, let alone the then Opposition, rightly wanted to expose to scrutiny and debate the decisions that I and the then Secretary of State had taken in rather tricky merger cases. We had deliberately applied the Tebbit doctrine and tried to provide a fair and sensible regime. However, on occasion, the results seemed perverse to people with constituency interests, with worries about jobs or with other public considerations. It was therefore our duty to come to the House to explain why we had come to the view that we had taken. I hope that we shall still have access to Ministers when difficult decisions are taken under the new regime.
        When I was able to work through and with the then Government to liberalise things, it was my experience that liberalisation always yielded much better results. That is why I find the present Government's schizophrenia as regards competition surprising and worrying. For example, transport is covered by the regulation provisions of the Bill, but the Government take a divergent approach to different parts of that sector.
        The Government are proud of following a strongly pro-competitive approach to air travel services. They promote more competitive airlines, they welcome ever cheaper fares and the additional services offered by low-cost airlines, and they are vigilant about ensuring that the major players do not have an unreasonable advantage. If they do, the Government may even intervene to move against those who they think have an unreasonable advantage, so as to open up the market to a wider number of players. I fully welcome that. It has brought visible benefits and means that many people can go to exotic destinations to which they could not have afforded to travel 10 or 15 years ago. An explosion in jobs, success and prosperity has followed on the back of that obviously competitive market working well, with the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government.
        Why then is the railway industry treated so differently that the Government want to take away the rather modest elements of competition that the previous Government introduced? The Government do not appear to want to strengthen them and take them further in the way they wish to in other sectors. Why do they want only one train operating company to go into each London terminus? Given the strong statements in the Bill about the advantages of competition, it will be a great pity if and when the Government decide to use the obvious windows in the regulated provisions to allow a restriction of the competition and choice going into each major London terminus. For reasons that we do not understand, they think that that is better for this industry, even though it demonstrably does not work in any other industry where monopoly or cartel has been allowed. Their approach is clearly against the spirit of the general thrust of the Bill.
        Why are there no worries about the monopoly over the railway network—Railtrack itself—when the Government support the opening of other networks and encourage competitive challenges to them in much more interesting ways? Why do the Government seem not even to be keen to encourage proper competition for proposals to replace Railtrack in administration with something rather better?
        118
        They have come up with the monopoly solution that Railtrack should become a company limited by guarantee, a vehicle not before attempted on such a scale for anything so heroic without first encouraging proper debate and proper canvassing of the marketplace to determine what alternative options might produce a better result under a more competitive challenge. Why do the Government fully support a monopoly canal system entirely under their control? Have they not noticed that that system has continued to decline, with its high prices and inability to attract any commercial use of the assets? Things might be different under a competitive challenge in the private sector.
        In the case of road transport, why are the Government keen on promoting ever more competition for the provision of road vehicles? Although I welcome that—it is producing phenomenal choice and lower prices—when it comes to the provision of road capacity, we have to face a solemn public monopoly that never builds any roads. Indeed, it seems to be proud of the fact that there are not enough roads and then blames the people who want to use them for the fact that the roads are so awful. The Government go even further by encouraging a reduction in road space from the limited amount that is available by a stunning array of road works, impediments, chicanes, blocks, humps and traffic lights that ensure people cannot use the network properly.
        When I challenged the Minister on postal competition, she said she could not understand what it had to do with either the fundamental purpose of her Department, as she called it, of improving British productivity, or the Bill, but it is central to both issues. Postal competition is clearly governed by the Bill because it has to exempt restricted competition areas, such as post or road supply, thus showing that the Government clearly want to exempt themselves from the competition that they urge on everyone else.
        The Minister should also understand that getting more competitive postal services or, for that matter, a much better road and rail system, is fundamental to raising British output and productivity. Does she not understand that some of the main problems holding Britain back from achieving even higher levels of prosperity, productivity and commercial success are the services that are delivered as monopolies by the state in the public sector? What are we worst at? Roads and railway lines, and they were provided by the state for most of the last century. Railway lines are even going to be provided badly again by the state through the administration and then the back-door renationalisation of the company limited by guarantee—technically a private sector company, but I am sure a pensioner of the state in all but name.
        The Government are finding it difficult to provide health services as a centralised planned monopoly, however much money they tip in. There is a shortage of supply and people are not happy with the service. We notice that the Government have considerable difficulties in supplying a high-quality education service to the standards everyone would like, because once again they wish to frustrate choice. They do not want parents to have a real choice of school and are not prepared to expand the more popular schools so that they can give places to the children of parents who seek them.
        David Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman advocate dismantling the national health service?
        Mr. Redwood: No. I have set out my views on the NHS at considerable length in print and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to read them. I suspect that I would be out of order if I wandered too far into the bigger health debate under the pretext of the Third Reading of this Bill. My point is that people are not offered a choice in those great public services, which are either removed from the Bill or, in the case of the regulated monopolies and regulated public enterprises, are covered by it but differently from anything else in the private competitive enterprise sector.
        The aim of the Department of Trade and Industry—raising productivity and getting us up to the standards of the best in the world—is thoroughly laudable. I also agree that the prime method of sharpening competition even further, as recommended in the Bill, is the natural way to bring that about, because it will happen by the activities of people competing in the marketplace. However, the Government must think again on those parts of the economy that are Government owned, Government monopolies, or regulated in a way that makes them into cartels.
        The Government should tell the House why they are deliberately trying to limit competition in the railways, where it is only just beginning to emerge, by reducing the number of companies offering services. They must tell us why they are not prepared to try out competition in a range of other public sector areas. They must also tell us why the areas in Britain that are furthest behind our foreign competitors are practically all in services and goods that are supplied by the public sector, usually through a monopoly, a cartel or a heavily hedged-about operation in which the Government are directly involved.
        It is well known that the Government are the biggest monopoly in the country and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the biggest exploiter of monopoly in the country through his phenomenal powers to tax, with occasional support from people in this House. He is certainly not shy about proving beyond doubt that monopolies with too much power always overcharge and always deliver a lousy service for the money that they charge. We have seen that in the huge increase in taxation and the lack of improvement in public services.
        We should also note—this is entirely relevant to the Bill—that in the most crucial ways of improving our productivity and business success, such as our transport and postal services, the Government do not practise what they preach: far from it. Instead, they are moving in the wrong direction by going towards monopoly cartel and protection and further away from the competitive model, which would produce better results.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have allowed him a little scope, but I must remind him that on Third Reading we should he discussing the contents of the Bill, and he is tending to make remarks that would have been more suitable for Second Reading.
        Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
        120
        I welcome the Bill's thrust towards more competition in the private sector, but I do not like the possibility that Ministers will use the Bill as an excuse to evade proper accountability to the House on difficult business issues. I certainly do not like the different treatment for the regulated businesses, because I believe that the Government will use that route to develop their public enterprises in a less competitive direction, which will be deeply damaging to overall productivity and to the success of the freely traded competitive sector, which in turn has to rely on many of those crucial public enterprises. For that reason, I do not welcome the Bill. It comes too fast on the heels of the Competition Act 1998.
        The Bill seems to avoid the obvious point made by my Front-Bench colleagues, which is that we are, for these purposes, a vassal state. We are primarily under a European competition regime, which has been considerably strengthened in recent years. It is therefore strange to see the Government wandering further away from the European regime in this Bill, so shortly after the passage of the 1998 Act, when we were told that it was crucial to follow that regime in every twist and turn and that that was the sole purpose of the Act. Indeed, we were told that so perfectly had the Act mimicked the European system that we were in sync, and Europe would take most of the big decisions.
        Apparently, that is not so. That shows that old Labour is beginning to come back, and it wants certain regulatory and monopoly activities to move in the other direction.
        David Winnick: I would hope so.
        Mr. Redwood: I am pleased to see that there are hon. Members present, representing old Labour, who know that they are on a roll. This Parliament is much more interesting because there are lively Back Benchers behind what was new Labour and is now rather tired-looking old Labour. It is now having to recognise that there are many people in the party who want to go in a rather different direction from the punk-Thatcherism that is sometimes sketched out by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and others.
        I cannot say that I welcome the Bill. It is bizarre because it does not recognise European realities; it is dangerous because of the way in which it treats regulated monopolies. Let us hope that it at least increases competition in what remains of the free trading sector, because that would be a modest advance.
        8.47 pm
        Mr. Mark Field: It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who took what I hope he will forgive me for describing as a broad-brush approach to many of the issues.
        One of the difficulties of having been in Committee and having gone through the mill on the Bill, as I have with several other hon. Members present, is that sometimes one cannot see the wood for the trees. I certainly do not think that my right hon. Friend could be accused of that. He made valid points about a range of competition issues, not least on the clear dichotomy between public sector and private sector competition. As he pointed out, it is clear that the Bill has several intentions that many Conservative Members would

        121
        support as they affect competition in the private sector, but it is a shame that they have not been replicated for our public sector monopolies. I also share a number of the concerns expressed about accountability, and I shall turn to those in a moment.
        Many of the Bill's provisions are positive reforms that will receive support from the Conservative party, and I understand that we will not be voting against Third Reading. However, it seems that it will have little effect on the British enterprise culture as long as the Government continue their policies of high tax and over-regulation. The Government seem to think that they can pick winners. An example is their help for the small business sector. I accept that they have been positive about entrepreneurialism, particularly in the capital gains tax regime that they have put into place over the past four or five years. However, the main effect of the policies, as we have seen from the Finance Bill, which is currently in Committee, is to encourage expensive avoidance measures and complicate the entire commercial framework.
        Returning to competition, the Government are proposing ferocious new criminal powers. Those were brought into being under the Competition Act—even though it became an Act in 1998, many of its provisions came into effect only 18 months or two years ago. The Government's approach appears to be confused, but the penalties are draconian. Perhaps, as we have argued both today and in Committee, there should be a more meaningful assessment of the impact of the 1998 Act before we go though another set of wholesale changes.
        My view is that the super-complaints procedure epitomises some of the worst aspects of what we might suffer in coming years. I am not convinced that Ministers will not utilise the spurious elements of consumer protection to undermine business certainty and add to commercial costs. When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) conducted a misguided and cynical campaign against supermarkets as part of the "Rip-off Britain" campaign in 1999. I am glad that that has been put to one side.
        One of the concerns expressed about many of the competition and Office of Fair Trading aspects of the Bill is that there will be insufficient accountability in the House. I have made it clear that I have some sympathy with the idea that certain competition decisions should have a political element, although I know that that view is no longer in vogue on either the Opposition or the Government Front Bench. It strikes me as invidious that decisions might all too often be made behind closed doors, with Ministers making representations away from Parliament, with the consumer none the wiser and no better off.
        On bankruptcy, especially individual bankruptcy, there have been several debates on the way in which the Government seek to remove the stigma of bankruptcy. There are real dangers in their approach—dangers that we have articulated repeatedly. One need only look at the United States experience in the past decade or so of consumer-led bankruptcies. My main concern is not merely that the Bill will adversely affect a range of lending institutions, but that smaller businesses, which will be the main creditors in such cases, are the most likely to suffer from the relaxation of the personal bankruptcy rules. We fear that in the next few years we
        122
        will receive significant representations from the very small businesses that are supposed to benefit from the Bill, but that are the worst to suffer from aspects of its insolvency provisions.
        When the Government introduced the Bill, they referred to a regulatory impact assessment. With a wry smile, one reads that, in terms of the impact on businesses, the overall costs arising from the competition and consumer reforms would be neutral, and that the insolvency reforms and proposals on the employment of insolvency practitioners would have only a minor impact on business. One has to be somewhat cynical about the assertion that business will pay nothing directly.
        We were told that there would be costs for Government—both sides of the House were approving of the fact that £70 million to £100 million a year was likely to be lost from the Government purse because of the changes to the Crown preference rules. We broadly support those changes, despite the concerns articulated by hon. Members on both sides about the fact that many small businesses find that the Government, in the form of the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, are often able to take a moderate view of debts built up when a business encounters difficulties during the early years of its existence, whereas the ending of Crown preference might mean that those institutions now try to get their money sooner, not later, rather than risk losing out entirely if bankruptcy results.
        Apparently, the Bill will impose no costs on consumers. However, if our worst fears are realised and businesses have additional costs, undoubtedly consumers will suffer, because businesses will to a large extent pass on those costs to consumers where they can. We will have to wait to see the longer-term overall costs and benefits. I think I speak for many Opposition Members in saying that I support a number of provisions in the Bill which, however, is not simply an enterprise Bill, but an enterprise and regulation Bill. In the context of enterprise, we must ensure that we have proper scrutiny in the House of competition policy, which is inevitably political with a small "p" and always controversial. However, I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter tonight, when the Bill becomes an Act, and as business develops in different ways in future. I wish the Minister godspeed in getting the legislation onto the statute book; I hope that she retains an open mind about the things that we have discussed tonight which we will no doubt continue to discuss both when statutory instruments are introduced and on the Floor of the House in the months and years ahead.
        8.55 pm
        Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to make two small points. First, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman—a temporary spokesman on this issue—for his kind remarks, which I shall spread across north Derbyshire so that people will be aware that there is at least some appreciation of the matters that I sought to propound on Thursday. Secondly, I wish to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) which he also made in Committee. He talked about pathological optimists, a phrase that I shall use in a different context.
        I am still trying to appeal to the Government to take into account public interest considerations and perhaps I am a pathological optimist to believe that they will

        123
        introduce such measures in the Lords. However, strong representations have been made which have been only partly heard in the Chamber. The TUC and major trade unions are greatly concerned about the withdrawal of public interest considerations which, indeed, they want to expand. Instead of being enabling measures, as they were in the Fair Trading Act 1973, they should be matters which we should be obliged to instigate and act upon. The least that we can do is to try to hold on to what was introduced under the Heath Government in 1973. It seems that new Labour will not go beyond that stage, but as it becomes more mature, I hope that it will take into account the points that I have made. However, I am sorry that the Government have lost interest in the public interest.
        8.58 pm
        Mr. McWalter: I want to say something about a defining characteristic of the Bill. A lot of people complain that the Bill is not quite there and say that things are missing from it. For example, it does not include anything to contradict the assertion of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that we are introducing a Tebbit doctrine for the unalloyed operation of competition as an economic force. One of the great strengths of the Bill is its provisions on anti-competitive practices, including stop now orders and the attempt to try to produce a culture in which people challenge an existing business regime to develop new enterprises that produce services and goods in new ways. It is a jewel within a crown, as it were—[Interruption.] No doubt, this is a popular analogy in jubilee year. The crown itself is the raft of policies that the Government are introducing, not to produce Tebbitised competition, but to produce fair competition.
        I think that that is tremendously important, because fair competition is not achieved only by introducing a measure such as the Bill. Among other things, it is achieved by bearing down on enterprises that cheat. That is the case whether they cheat their customers—there is a strong desire to ensure that consumer law is amplified and improved—or whether they cheat the environment, by polluting it, or their workers, by underpaying them. The Government have introduced legislation to try to ensure that companies cannot cheat their workers too much. They cannot do so, for example, in respect of the minimum wage and the right to be recognised by a trade union. The effect is to create an environment that makes competition between companies fairer than it would ever have been under a Tebbitised doctrine. So the first thing that the Bill does is contribute to an environment in which entrepreneurial activity is given a genuine boost, and that is how it should be read.
        The second issue is what the Bill does not do, in terms of the contribution of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood): it does not propose in a Tebbit or Redwood way that competition is the answer to every economic puzzle. It manifestly is not the answer. For example, to cite the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which I
        124
        happen to be a member, it is clear that to establish wave and tidal power systems that achieve non-carboniferous energy generation, there may be a need for a time scale of, say, 50 years, and an investment plan far exceeding anything that the normal market would be willing to produce and develop. That is a role for Government as assuredly as the delivery of health services to people who are poverty stricken is a function for Government.
        Let us be clear: the Bill is saying not that every economic problem has a competitive answer, but that where competitive elements are possible, they should be fostered, encouraged and nourished. For instance, if the Government start along the path of major long-term investment in wave and tidal power, and start to issue many subcontracts as part of that grand scheme, it would be utterly inappropriate for them to try to cosset and keep to themselves all those contracts and all that activity, ingenuity and capital. It would be absolutely right for them to try to find partners, in whatever sector, and whether that involved other countries, companies and so on, to bring forward such a project as effectively as possible.
        The Bill does not do what some hon. Members—they include the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, in his way, and some Labour Members—have suggested, and propose an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who said that we are all Thatcherites now. If the Bill is read as a component of a strategy for fostering business and enterprise, but one that does that in a way that maximises social responsibility and uses appropriate economic instruments for the multifarious economic problems with which this country and its people are faced, I believe that it should be very much welcomed by all hon. Members.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

        FEES AND CHARGES
        That the draft Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
        Question agreed to.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,
      That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th June, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Robin Cook relating to House of Lords Reform (Joint Committee) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business and the Order of 28th June 2001 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply to them.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  House of Lords Reform
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: One of the more enduring legacies among many that the Government will pass on to future generations will be their constitutional reform programme, which has achieved a great deal to date and is an evolving process that continues apace. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly have been considerable successes in their own way. There have been significant teething difficulties in some respects, but by and large the great majority of people who live in those parts of the United Kingdom believe them to be considerable successes. The roll-out of regional democracy looks set to continue in England, both through new mayoral elections and the introduction, I hope, of regional assemblies.
  At a different level of government, there is a need to reform the House of Lords, and that, too, is moving ahead apace. I want to stress why House of Lords reform must take place in a way that is complementary to, not competitive with, the roll-out of regional assemblies and subsidiarity across the United Kingdom. A couple of months ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House took part in a conference in London on that subject organised by the Scottish Forum for Modern Government. The matter has been the subject of some discussion, but I want to air one or two points that I fear otherwise might not see the light of day.
  The first of those points is timing. Notwithstanding the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses that will be formed this week, we seem to be moving towards a timetable for Lords reform that suggests that the new-look Chamber could be in place at the time of the next general election, if not before. That would mean a Bill passing through this House in 2003 or 2004. If it is decided that the second Chamber should have a directly elected element of as much as 50 per cent., and assuming that the Lords Chamber is around the same size as this one, about 300 newly elected Members of the Lords would take their seats following an election in 2005 or 2006. That timetable would run virtually concurrently with the roll-out of regional assemblies, where regions chose to have them. It could therefore reasonably be assumed that the two processes would influence each other—positively or negatively, depending on how they are carried out.
  It is important to bear in mind the fact that the level of representation on putative regional assemblies, if they were to operate at about the same level as the Greater London Assembly, could be lower than the level that each region would provide to a reformed House of Lords through elected Members under a 50 per cent. election plan. It can be predicted that some political and media interests will campaign for a no vote, presenting new political jobs as a jamboree for the regional political classes. In view of that, there is a fairly strong risk that the creation of 30 or 40 new political jobs in each region will have a seriously detrimental effect on the results of referendums on regional assemblies that would probably be taking place at around the same time.
  It is worth considering two points in more detail. It is likely that payments for new, elected Members of the Lords will be lower than for full-time Members
  126
  of Parliament. The Government and the Public Administration Committee have presented arguments on that. However reimbursement, remuneration or payment is structured, it will probably be more attractive than that for a councillor. It may even compete with being a member of a regional assembly when and if assemblies are established in different parts of the country.
  The Public Administration Committee suggested that, in view of greater journey times and distances and the possible higher administrative costs of travelling from Scotland or the north-east, the total package for a Scottish Member of the second Chamber could exceed £30,000. I believe that the figure would be more, given that flights would cost approximately £10,000 for a weekly attender.
  It will be hard to argue that the new appointments are meaningful and valuable but to pay a daily rate that is substantially lower than that of non-departmental public bodies. That problem must be solved. The Senior Salaries Review Body would probably recommend a sum that approached that offered by non-departmental public bodies: perhaps £200 or £300 a day. Perhaps the figure would be half that, but it would still be significant.
  Regardless of the rate and the costs of the current system, the fact that £1 million per annum or more has been committed to a new layer of regional party politicians would make winning a referendum on a new regional assembly harder work than it would otherwise be. That is possibly a fatal blow to assemblies, for which polling suggests a tight result. The problem would be exacerbated by the almost inevitable compensation that would have to be paid to current life peers who would have to leave the Chamber to keep the numbers manageable under a plan to elect 50 per cent. or more. I presume that the public would prefer that money to be spent on public services such as health and education.
  I have not heard the second point that I want to stress in a debate on reforming the Lords until now. It is the function of the other Chamber. I have read the Government's comments and those of the Public Administration Committee. I have also read previous debates. Perhaps hon. Members will make similar comments later about clearly defining powers. One could say that the other Chamber is primarily for revision and scrutiny. That is all very well, but unintended and unforeseen consequences may ensue from immediately having a substantially elected element of new Members of another Chamber. I want to illustrate that through my experience and that of my colleagues in the context of otherwise successful devolution in Scotland.
  Some list Members of the Scottish Parliament have taken on roles as shadow constituency MSPs in ways that people did not foresee when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. I suspect that some of the same practices would operate in a Lords or a senate, or whatever the second Chamber happened to be called. I believe that many practices would be imported. Let me refer to a couple that happen regularly in Scotland and perhaps in Wales and Northern Ireland.
  In Scotland, a d'Hondt system was used to provide proportionality in the legislature. Hon. Members were elected through that system to provide fairness when passing legislation; they did not have a constituency role. Indeed, many who were elected as list Members stood unsuccessfully for constituencies. In almost all cases, list MSPs have set themselves up as shadow constituency

  127
  MSPs. When I conduct my weekly surgeries, I see posters for "your local MSP". They do not refer to the local constituency MSP, but the list MSP who is working the patch. Indeed, Opposition list Members divide up each region according to their own party's political interests and work that patch. I suspect that that activity was not foreseen, and it could easily be replicated by a substantially elected membership of the other place, if such there were to be.
  People sometimes say to me that there would be a limit to what people could do if they were elected to the other Chamber, because they would have a clearly delineated function, and if they stepped outside that they would be slapped down. In fact, it is not as simple as that. For example, I have a large Child Support Agency office in my constituency, which looks after the north and Scotland. I recently paid a visit to the parliamentary questions section of the agency, and was told that quite a high proportion of the work that is referred to it came from MPs. I said, "Surely it is all referred by MPs, as it is a reserved area", but I discovered that that is not the case. MSPs can put in cases to the CSA and are treated in the same way as MPs. I presume that there is a good reason for that, and that it has something to do with the fact that a CSA case will often dovetail with issues relating to social services, housing and so on. That might well be the reason for that working practice having developed, but the fact remains that that movement across a boundary was not foreseen.
  Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In such circumstances, he and an MSP might end up pursuing the same case, which could lead to correspondence being duplicated or triplicated, because everyone wants in on the act. I agree that the issue is likely to be compounded by an elected second Chamber.
  Mr. Joyce: My hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, the public have a right to go to whichever elected representative they think appropriate. It is then efficient for that representative to point the constituent in the direction of the person who can best help them. People often come to Members of Parliament with housing issues, for example, and it is much more efficient gently to direct them towards the appropriate councillor, and to help whenever possible with any related issues.
  In Scotland, that does not always work as efficiently as it might, but I would stress that that is a matter of the whole process bedding in. We must not be depressed about looking towards the future, because the reality is that things are getting tidier, more efficient and more effective all the time. Scotland has learned a great deal in the last couple of years, and I suspect that, when a few more years have passed, these issues will dovetail and work quite well. The question is how quickly that learning process takes place, and how quickly we introduce an element of democratisation—in this case, to the other Chamber.
  If there were to be a substantially elected second Chamber, a substantial chunk of its Members would still not be able to ensure proper proportionality for Scotland. That is a reason to commend the idea of an elected component, because it will enable us to ensure that different parts of the country are properly represented.
  128
  Before the last reform of the House of Lords—the temporary reform, if I may call it that—there was a system that ensured a certain number of Scottish peers. In fact, there were too many, and they held a ballot to see which ones would come down. Under an appointment-only system, we would not be able to guarantee proper representation for the regions, so that commends an element of election. Not all my similar-thinking colleagues agree with that, but it is important to have that relationship with the regions, and it is therefore important to have an elected element. That proportionality remains distinctly important.
  I shall conclude my remarks, because one or two of my colleagues might wish to speak. My intention tonight is not to say that the roll-out of devolution in Scotland has been anything other than a considerable success—quite the contrary. My intention is to convey the point that the speed at which we introduce what could be described as democratisation to the Lords is something about which we must be extremely careful. If we get it wrong—if we do it too quickly—that could have an impact on another important element in the roll-out of constitutional reform across the country.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: My hon. Friend mentioned possible duplication. Surely there is a requirement for representation to address different functions, roles and responsibilities. There is no evidence that the public want to pay for duplication of representation.
  Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the size of a second Chamber? The White Paper on regional assemblies recommended a standard size of between 25 and 30 members per region.
  Mr. Joyce: Those are both important points. I can see that a second Chamber could have a function, although there are a number of alternative models. Regional assemblies, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly would provide scope for a scrutiny function that would not involve a second Chamber. It would be possible to have a unicameral system here that would broadly work.
  I agree with the Government that, given our tradition and our constitution, it makes sense to have a revising Chamber here; but, as my hon. Friend says, the case still needs to be justified. If we are not careful, we may end up simply duplicating what goes on elsewhere. We want regional assemblies to have a meaningful function, rather than being merely talking shops.
  As for my hon. Friend's second point, I understand that the regional assemblies will have about the same number of members as the Greater London Assembly. My concern about the roll-out of democratisation of the Lords revolves around that. As I said at the outset, there might well be more representatives from a region in a reformed House of Lords than there would be in a regional assembly. There could be competition for appointments between the same types of people. There is a grave danger that if we bring in too many elected peers in the first instance—I think 50 per cent. is too large a proportion; in the first instance there should be about 20 per cent.—we will create a hostile, or at least negative, environment for a referendum. Such hostility might be stoked by a hostile media, or people might simply be fed up with the idea of elections, knowing that there would be elections for the Lords.

  129
  I think that the best idea is to adopt the Government's original recommendation of about 20 per cent. for one full term—to "suck it and see", and then decide whether the experiment has been a success and whether further democratisation is needed in the light of the roll-out in the regions. We should evaluate the first four years of the experiment before considering its expansion.
  9.23 pm
  Mike Gapes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on his choice of subject, and on his interesting speech.
  I go further than my hon. Friend in my anxiety about the possible consequences of what could be called the ultra-democrat or deadlock-democrat approach to reform of the House of Lords. I do not think we need two elected Chambers or one elected and one substantially elected Chamber, because we could, by accident, find ourselves with an unworkable political system.
  From time to time there have been power struggles between the lower and upper Houses in Germany, because they are elected on a different basis. Eventually it has been difficult to get Budgets through, for example. There have also been power struggles in other countries between first and second Chambers.
  I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to consider carefully the implications of the proposals. The Government made various proposals and then we had the Wakeham recommendations, but I do not think that Wakeham seriously considered the best option, with the second Chamber acting as the cement that holds together the United Kingdom. I agree, too, that we must recognise that devolution makes a difference.
  My preference would be for a small second Chamber of perhaps a maximum of 100 Members, made up of indirectly elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the English counties, initially, or the regions, when that system is established. It would not have to meet continuously, as in the present system, but could assemble on a regular programmed basis to bring together the institutions of the devolved United Kingdom to act as a constitutional safeguard and revising Chamber to air issues of concern to all parts of the country, in conjunction with the driving democratic force of this Chamber. Anything else would be dangerous.
  I am a democrat. I believe that we should get rid of all aristocratic influences in politics, whether direct or indirect. I am also against a new aristocracy being established, based on influence and friendship. That is always the danger when people are appointed to any organisation, whatever the motives. We should have a legitimate second Chamber that can question Ministers, but my preference would be for all Ministers to he elected Members of this House, although they could appear before Committees or the plenary session of the upper Chamber, whatever we call it—senate, second Chamber—which would act as a cement to bring together our democratic institutions.
  Similarly, no judges or Law Lords should be members of the second Chamber by right, nor should we have any bishops—although I understand that that is controversial. We should have a Chamber that reflects the diversity of the United Kingdom by indirect election from the regions and Parliaments within our UK structure. In that way,
  130
  we could act as a modern, efficient Parliament and, for the first time in our history, we would be able to say that we live in a real democracy, not a quasi-democracy, which is what we have today.
  9.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate and giving me an early opportunity to discuss reform of the House of Lords. I thank him for putting his concerns on the record.
  It may be helpful if I set the current debate in some historical context. The Government embarked on the process of House of Lords reform in the last Parliament. My hon. Friend was not a Member at that time, but I am sure he recalls that, with the enacting of the House of Lords Act 1999, the Government removed nine tenths of the hereditary peers.
  We proceeded with Lords reform in two stages, because experience had shown us that trying to do it in one stage had never worked. We need to finish now what we started then, but we should never forget that the 1999 Act was a historic achievement in its own right.
  Our White Paper of November last year followed on from the royal commission report of January 2000, and both exercises prompted widespread discussion—inside this House and beyond. The public consultation on the White Paper received more than 1,000 responses, including 112 written responses from Members of this House. In addition, we received a thoughtful report from the Public Administration Select Committee, the members of which must be congratulated on preparing a significant piece of work in such a short time. All those contributions are valuable and will inform the next stage of reform, as will this evening's contributions.
  As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have decided that the search for consensus can best be pursued through a Joint Committee of both Houses. Its first job will be to prepare options for the Chamber's composition, which will be considered in each House on free votes. The terms of reference for the Joint Committee have already been debated in the other place, and will be debated in this House on Wednesday.
  Some people have claimed that the Joint Committee is a way of allowing the momentum for reform to run out, but that is not so. The Government want reform to proceed as quickly as possible. Nobody should pretend that major parliamentary reform is easy, but this Government have a strong record of modernising our democratic institutions, as the Public Administration Committee's report acknowledged.
  It has also been suggested that the establishment of the Joint Committee shows that our earlier initiatives have been wasted. I reject that analysis completely. The royal commission, the White Paper and the public debate that they generated are valuable contributions. They provide a baseline of knowledge and discussion that is vital to making progress, and I am sure that they will be an important source for the Joint Committee. Although differences of opinion remain, important agreement on some fundamentals has also emerged from these debates, and I will say a little more about that later. Where disagreement remains, it primarily concerns the composition of the second Chamber.

  131
  The Government's proposal for a Joint Committee has been widely welcomed, but in that regard I am left in some difficulty in replying to the debate. The Government have made it clear that we should not seek undue influence over the Joint Committee's deliberations, so it would be inappropriate for me to offer a detailed policy statement on where the Government think the answer might lie. What I can do, however, is to set out some areas in which the general thrust of public comment seems to be in agreement.
  Let me start with the question of elected Members. I do not wish to make any statement that could be construed as "steering" the Joint Committee, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my pointing out that, in the light of the debates in this House, the responses to the public consultation, the Public Administration Committee's report and numerous opinion polls, his solutions—if not his concerns—put him in the minority. I remind him that 89 per cent. of respondents to the consultation favoured a largely or wholly elected upper House. More than half the world's second Chambers are wholly elected, and a significant proportion of the rest are largely elected.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) expressed the concern that creating a large number of elected Members of the Lords would undermine the role of this House. However, many who responded to our recent consultation said that such fears are overstated. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said of the second Chamber in his statement of 13 May:
  "There is, we believe, a consensus that its main role should continue to be that of a revising, scrutinising and deliberative assembly, with the power to delay, but not to…veto, legislation."
  The powers of the second Chamber are already set down in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, and are strictly limited in statute. There seems to be a general consensus that they are about right as they are. It will of course be up to the Joint Committee to decide whether it concurs with that belief or whether it wants to propose some change, but we must remember that the powers of the second Chamber cannot be altered without the express approval of this House through legislation.
  In his statement on 13 May, my right hon. Friend went on:
  "There is, we believe, broad agreement that the Commons should retain its role as the pre-eminent Chamber and that the test for any Government should continue to be whether it can command a majority in the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 13 May 2002; Vol. 388. c. 517.]
  There has been no suggestion, from any quarter, that that fundamental constitutional principle should change.
  I would also draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West to some of the other modern democracies that include significant numbers of elected Members in their second Chambers. In Australia, Japan, South Africa, India, Spain, France, Austria and Ireland, to name but a few, the Government continue to be responsible only to the lower House. Various restrictions apply to the powers of the second Chamber over
  132
  legislation—from a short delay to a veto power. The choice depends not on whether the Chamber is elected but on the political traditions of that particular country. How we manage such relationships within the British tradition is no doubt something that the Joint Committee will wish to consider.
  I believe, as does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that it is an important principle for the two Houses of this Parliament to remain distinct in order that each can make its own contribution. There are other factors that the Joint Committee may wish to consider to allow that. For example, both the royal commission and the White Paper proposed long terms of office for Members, which would reduce the immediacy of any mandate. That was supported both by the consultation in general and by the Public Administration Committee. Similarly, elections in tranches—so that not all elected Members enter the Chamber at once—would enable the upper House to include a democratically elected element without ever giving it an equal or greater mandate than this place enjoys.
  My hon. Friend raised some other specific issues that I shall try to address, with the caveat that they will be matters for the Joint Committee and that it would be rash to make too many assumptions about the timing and the make-up of the Chamber after reform. My hon. Friend mentioned timing and said that he understood the reform would be on the statute book in time for the next general election. The only comment that has been made on the record on that point was when my right hon. Friend said that he hopes that the issue will be dealt with in this Parliament. I am sure that the House and the members of the Joint Committee will have heard what my hon. Friend said about his fears about clashing with the roll-out of regional assemblies. If that might be a problem, I am sure that the Committee would wish to avoid it.
  My hon. Friend seemed to assume that the upper House would be about the same size as the House of Lords is now. Few other people think that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South went to the other extreme by suggesting a membership limited to 100. The figure mentioned by the PAC was 350, but a coalition is building around the need for a Chamber smaller than the current one. The roll-out of elected Members—if that is what is decided—would be gradual, because of the need to reduce the overall membership at the same time. The problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned about competition for money and talent—in Scotland in particular—will therefore not be a problem.
  On regional representation and obtaining a good cross-section from Scotland, the PAC report and previous reports all came to the conclusion that large electoral areas, if not regions, would be needed. Scotland might even constitute one electoral region, which would make it possible to obtain a good cross-section from Scotland for any elected element. Those reports are already in the public domain.
  In its deliberations, the Joint Committee will also want to bear in mind the risk raised by my hon. Friend of a possible clash between the work of constituency MPs and MSPs and Members of a reformed upper House. I do not think that that is a danger but it is certainly something of which members of the Joint Committee will be cognisant.
  The Joint Committee will also want to consider the options for including an appointed element in the new second Chamber. Most Members of the House accept that

  133
  there are good arguments for including some appointed Members, as that would add expertise to the House and the ability to include Members who are independent of any political party. The inclusion of appointed Members would also be an additional reinforcement of the greater legitimacy and democratic mandate that this place enjoys.
  The terms of reference for the Joint Committee which the Lords have proposed to us, and which we shall debate on Wednesday, reflect the importance of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. The Committee is specifically charged to consider the second Chamber
  "and its role and authority within the context of Parliament as a whole, having regard in particular to the impact which any proposed changes would have on the existing preeminence of the House of Commons".
  134
  My hon. Friends can thus be assured that we share the same objective. I am confident that there are various ways in which their concerns can be addressed, and I think that we all look forward to hearing the Joint Committee's proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West has done the House a service in drawing attention to some of the difficult aspects of how best to sustain the proper relationship between this House and a reformed and, we hope, reinvigorated second Chamber. I am sure that when the Joint Committee is appointed, as I hope it will be in the very near future, it, too, will note with interest the points that have been made here tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

WALES

  Assembly Elections
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what responsibility he has for amendments to electoral law in relation to elections to the National Assembly for Wales. [62545]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am responsible for making provisions, under section 11 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, in relation to the arrangements for Assembly elections. These provisions are set out in the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999 (SI 1999 No. 450). Earlier this year, important amendments were made to these provisions.

  I am currently considering further changes, with a view to bringing arrangements for the 2003 Assembly elections into line with those for elections to this House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what refurbishment projects(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59771]

  Derek Conway
  The major projects currently in progress are:

  Norman Shaw South

  Victoria Tower archive storage

  Replacement of main Palace boilers and chillers.

  The major maintenance and refurbishment projects due to start within the next six months are:

  Refurbishment of Committee Rooms 7, 8 and 9

  Commons Court and Commons Inner Court stone restoration

  Ladies' Gallery lift overhaul

  Stone restoration and security near base of Clock Tower

  Removal of huts and restoration of Speaker's Green

  Removal of roof-top huts in Cloister Court

  Basement plant room modernisation

  Asbestos removal

  Encaustic tile replacement, St. Stephen's Hall

  New Palace Yard and Black Rod's Garden security works

  Fire precautions and PDVN

  Hansard office reorganisation.

  2W
  In addition, the following major projects are due to start within the next six months in the House of Lords:

  Old Palace Yard phase 3

  Asphalt roof near Chancellor's Court

  Moses Room roof and ceiling.

  In 2000 a clause was added to the General Specification used for parliamentary projects requiring certification that timber is supplied from sustainably managed sources. For contracts written before that, certification is nevertheless sought from the contractors.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many days a week the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is working; and if he will make a statement. [61324]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on 12 June 2002, Official Report, columns 1245–46W.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Members of Parliament
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps the Government have taken to remove the barriers to women's membership of Parliament. [59079]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill completed its parliamentary stages on 28 January, and received Royal Assent in February. The Act enables political parties to use positive measures in the selection of candidates with an aim to reduce inequality in the numbers of men and women elected to our democratic institutions.

  Employment Law (Transsexuals)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for Women what assessment she has made about the applicability of employment law relating to a transsexual person who is now a woman. [57278]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: The Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the fields of employment and vocational training to give protection against discrimination to people intending to undergo, undergoing, or who have undergone gender reassignment. The regulations help individuals who undergo reassignment to either sex. The Equal Opportunities Commission's powers were extended by the regulations so it can help people experiencing discrimination on these grounds. The commission is taking this forward effectively, and about two thirds of the requests it receives relate to employment or vocational training. A few individuals have taken cases to employment tribunals under the normal process for sex discrimination claims.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59313]

  Mr. Straw
  The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by Departments. The report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Records of other correspondence received by my Department are not kept centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to provide the first of the monthly updates for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam concerning the case of his constituent Mr. Jason Clark's father. [62542]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Friday 21 June.

  Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60151]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department has undertaken two formal written public consultations since June 2001:

  (1) A Green Paper on Private Military Companies—options for regulation: and

  (2) A Green Paper on Strengthening the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention: Countering the Threat from biological Weapons. Neither consultation will be completed until September this year.

  Middle East
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Palestinians from the Church of the Nativity resident in(a) the Irish Republic and (b) other parts of the EU will be free to travel to the United Kingdom; and what steps will be taken to monitor attempts to enter the United Kingdom. [60178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The Common Position of the Council of the European Union concerning the temporary reception by member states of the European Union of certain Palestinians provides that acceptance in a member state does not imply a right for the persons concerned to move freely within the territories of the member states and that the validity of the national permit shall be limited to the territory of the member state concerned.

  Any Palestinian received in another member state who sought to travel to the UK would normally require a visa for that purpose which, if applied for, would be considered in the normal way. Entry to the UK from the Republic of Ireland is governed by the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration (Control of Entry through the
  4W
  Republic of Ireland) Order 1972 and any visa national who enters the UK without the requisite visa is an illegal entrant. The normal expectation is that such an illegal entrant would be returned to the Republic of Ireland.

  Movements into and out of the United Kingdom will be monitored in the usual way.

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61066]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has spent the following on training and development for UK-based and local staff both in the UK and overseas.

  £

  1997–98

  6,261,972

  1998–99

  7,233,036

  1999–2000

  6,671,147

  2000–01

  9,874,047

  2001–02

  11,331,631

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 528W, on the EU meeting at Brussels, if he will make a statement on the nature and aim of the substantive contribution by relevant council bodies on the EU's role in the World Summit on Sustainable Development process; and if he will list the bodies involved in making that contribution. [61403]

  Peter Hain
  The Seville European Council is the opportunity for the EU to finalise its preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The European Council Conclusions should set out major EU priorities for Johannesburg, focusing on poverty eradication and key initiatives such as freshwater and sanitation, and sustainable energy.

  The Development Council, General Affairs Council and Seville European Council are all involved in producing the Conclusions, incorporating contributions from ECOFIN, the Environment Council and Article 133 Committee on trade. The Development Council of 30 May has for example already agreed substantive Conclusions setting out key priorities for action that the EU would like to be taken up at WSSD and detailing the external dimension of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy. Copies of these are available on the EU Council of Ministers website at http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/dev/70867.pdf.

  President Mugabe
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was informed of the intention of President Mugabe to travel to Rome via the United Kingdom; what steps he took; and what steps he will take in future to prevent such transfers. [61393]
  5W
  Mr. MacShane
  We understand that Mugabe and his entourage flew directly from Harare to Rome and, contrary to media reports, did not transit London.

  High Commission, Harare
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Jubilee celebrations took place at the high commission in Harare; what the costs were; and which Zimbabwean nationals were invited to the functions hosted by the high commissioner and his officials during the Jubilee celebrations. [61865]

  Mr. Straw
  To mark the Jubilee, the high commissioner hosted a reception at his residence on the afternoon of Friday 31 May. A few bills have still to he presented, but the cost of the event to date is £6,953.88. 781 guests and their partners were invited. We do not have a record of the nationality of the guests, but the high commission estimates that about half were Zimbabwean nationals. No Zimbabwean on the EU travel ban list was invited.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines exist with regard to officials from the high commission in Harare visiting farms which have been seized or are under threat of seizure; and how many farms have been visited since January. [61863]

  Mr. Straw
  There are no guidelines on British high commission staff visiting farms. Since January, high commission officials have visited around half a dozen farms to which they were invited, in order to see the situation at first hand. As a result of the attention focused on British Government policy and activity during the presidential election campaign, and the overall level of political violence, high commission staff remained in Harare in the period 20 February to 20 March, unless given specific permission by the high commissioner to travel internally. This curtailed visits to rural areas. The high commission is also aware that in current circumstances some farmers do not think it helpful to have a British diplomat visit their farm since this would expose them to further harassment by the authorities.

  11 September
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether officers from(a) MI6 and (b) the British embassy in Washington have been requested to give evidence to the United States congressional hearings into the intelligence context of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. [61961]

  Mr. Straw
  No British official has to date been requested to give evidence to the United States congressional hearings.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued for civil servants in his Department on answering written questions. [61994]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. There are two sets of guidance: a brief one, enclosed with our request for draft FCO written answers; a more detailed guide relating to such questions on the FCO Intranet site. Both sets of guidance have already been made public.

  Kisangani
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had with the Government of(a) the Democratic Republic of Congo and (b) Rwanda regarding the reported massacre in Kisangani of civilians by Rwandan soldiers. [61867]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, along with his French, Belgian and US counterparts, wrote to the Presidents of Rwanda and the DRC following the recent events in Kisangani. They expressed concern about the situation in Kisangani and urged President Kagame to exert his influence on the RCD-G to reduce tension in Kisangani and stop the use of force against the civilian population. At the same time they urged President Kabila to refrain from any action that could escalate the military situation on the ground.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Government policy to seek a Spanish commitment to operate unhindered red and green customs channels between that country and Gibraltar. [62320]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government have, in the course of the Brussels Process talks, consistently urged the Spanish Government to ensure that traffic flows smoothly from Gibraltar into Spain.

  We welcome the fact that, on 21 March, the Spanish Government opened a new second channel aimed at significantly seeding up the passage of private vehicles across the border.

  We shall continue to monitor the situation and discuss with Spanish and Gibraltarian authorities how delays might be further reduced.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the people of Gibraltar's rights in the free movement of services, capital and persons as(a) EU citizens and (b) a constituent territory of the EU. [62317]

  Mr. Straw
  The people of Gibraltar enjoy the benefits of free movement of persons, services and capital by virtue of the provisions of Community law relating to these matters, as far as they apply to Gibraltar. I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 821W.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on(a) the provision of more telephone lines for Gibraltar and (b) recognition from Spain of the Gibraltar international dialling code. [62420]

  Mr. Straw
  We remain concerned about the various telecommunications problems that Gibraltar is experiencing. We are concerned that the new telephone numbers offered by Spain at the 26 July Brussels Process Ministerial meeting are still not in use. We have raised this with the Spanish; and invited experts from the Government of Gibraltar to a meeting, with Spain and us, to seek a way forward. But we have always said that more numbers alone will not solve the longer term problems.
  7W
  Our objective remains Spanish recognition of Gibraltar's international dialling code, which we believe is the only viable long-term solution.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Government policy to seek Spanish commitment to open up maritime and air links between that country and Gibraltar. [62315]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. In accordance with the terms of the Brussels Communique, November 1984, the talks under the Brussels Process are aimed at overcoming all the differences between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar and at promoting co-operation on a mutually beneficial basis on economic, cultural, touristic, aviation, military and environment matters. These talks are continuing.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is Government policy to seek the recognition of Gibraltarian identity cards by Spain. [62316]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes. It has been the Government's policy to seek recognition by Spain of Gibraltar ID cards. This was achieved as part of the agreement concluded with Spain in April 2000.

  Gibraltar ID cards, as reformatted, are therefore now accepted by the Spanish Government.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2001,Official Report, column 19W, on the BBC World Service, what extra funding has been given to regional language services to the Muslim world; and what further action he proposes to take in relation to such services. [62170]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have provided the World Service with an extra £2.85 million for the enhancement of regional language services after 11 September 2001. This is additional to an uplift of £64 million in funding for the World Service for the present Spending Review period. The uplift over the baseline in this FY alone is £24 million. We maintain constant contact with the World Service over a range of issues, including funding.

  EU Applicants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the Government's assessment of the economic and social impact on the United Kingdom of the accession to the EU of the eastern European applicant nations. [61765]

  Peter Hain
  The Government have not made an integrated study of the economic and social impact of EU enlargement on the United Kingdom. However, independent economic studies by the European Round Table of Industrialists and the Centre for Economic Policy Reform show that EU enlargement could increase UK GDP by £1.75 million and create 300,000 jobs among the EU-15. I have placed copies of these reports in the House of Commons Library.

  European Diplomatic Service
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on the setting up of a common European diplomatic service. [62319]

  Mr. Straw
  We believe that it is for EU member states to organise their respective diplomatic services at the national level. There are already 138 bilateral and five multilateral European Commission delegations overseas.

  Tibet
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he made to Vice Premier Wen Jiabao and other Chinese leaders concerning the situation in Tibet during his recent visit to China; and what replies he received. [61767]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not visited China recently. He most recently raised Tibet with his Chinese counterpart Tang Jiaxuan in January this year.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) discussions he had with and (b) representations he made to Li Ruihuan, Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, concerning the situation in Tibet, during Chairman Li's recent visit to the UK; and what response he received. [61768]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not meet Li Ruihuan during his recent visit to the UK. However, the Lord Chancellor raised a range of human rights issues, including Tibet during his meeting with Li Ruihuan last month. Li Ruihuan's response was along standard lines.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome of the General Affairs Council meeting of 10 and 11 June was; what the Government's stance on the issues discussed, including its voting record was; and if he will make a statement. [62930]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the General Affairs Council at Luxembourg on 10 June. [61876]

  Peter Hain
  I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 10 June.

  Enlargement

  The Council welcomed progress made under the Spanish presidency, including on aspects of the agriculture chapter. The Council instructed experts to pursue work on the question of direct payment.

  The Council reaffirmed the Union's commitment to an inclusive approach to enlargement. The Council reiterated its determination to bring the accession negotiations with the candidate countries that are ready to a successful conclusion by the end of 2002. In that context, it welcomed the Commission's proposals for strengthening the candidate countries' administrative capacity, and the provision of further special financial assistance from the

  9W
  PHARE programme. It called on the Commission to continue with regular monitoring of candidate countries' practical implementation of the Community acquis.

  Additional customs duties on imports of certain US products

  The Council gave unanimous support to the Commission's proposal for a regulation on additional custom duties for certain US products. This will be formally adopted at the 13 June JHA Council, entering into force by 18 June to meet the WTO deadline.

  India/Pakistan

  The Council expressed grave concern about the crisis between India and Pakistan. It called on Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to: seal the Line of Control; restrain, and stop supply of, militant groups in Kashmir; and close the training camps on Pakistan's side of the Line of Control. The Council called for diplomatic and military de-escalation, implementation of a ceasefire and the resumption of dialogue. The Council underlined the EU's commitment to help defuse the immediate crisis, and to support efforts to achieve a lasting resolution to the differences between India and Pakistan.

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the NEPAD initiative to be implemented. [62093]

  Mr. MacShane
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD) is an African-led initiative which acknowledges that Africa's development requires long-term commitments. The pace of its development and implementation will be set by Africa's leaders.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions his Department has had with Governments in Africa concerning the NEPAD initiative. [62092]

  Mr. MacShane
  My noble Friend Baroness Amos, the Prime Minister's personal representative to the G8 on Africa, has frequent discussions with African leaders concerning NePAD. For example, she had extensive discussions with members of the NePAD steering committee on 16–18 May in Maputo.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which international organisations Zimbabweans subject to an EU travel ban are allowed to attend. [62318]

  Mr. Straw
  International treaty obligations oblige EU member states to grant exemptions to the travel ban for attendance at meetings of some international organisations, for example, the United Nations and Interpol. Restrictions remain on movement outside of meetings.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to take further measures against the Government of Zimbabwe following the re-election of President Mugabe. [62094]
  10W
  Mr. MacShane
  Zimbabwe will be discussed today at the General Affairs Council. EU Foreign Ministers will review developments on the ground. Extending measures against Zrmbabwe's ruling party remains under consideration.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Defence Lawyers
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Solicitor-General what obligation rests on a defence lawyer to(a) ascertain and (b) believe the truth of matter pleaded in defence. [55456]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 May 2002]: These obligations are set out in the professional codes of conduct of the Bar Council and the Law Society.

  Leila Khalid
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what outstanding charges there are against Leila Khalid; and if he will make a statement. [59003]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: No criminal charges were ever brought against Leila Khalicl in this country; to the best of my knowledge there are no warrants or criminal proceedings in relation to Ms Khalid in this jurisdiction. Therefore none remain outstanding.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a decision on the outstanding charges against Leila Khalid arising out of hijackings with a view to prosecution; and if she will make a statement. [59007]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: No criminal charges were ever brought against Leila Khalid in this country, therefore none remain outstanding; to the best of my knowledge there are no warrants or criminal proceedings in relation to Ms Khalid in this jurisdiction. It follows that there is no decision to be made.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Pay
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) total teachers pay costs and (b) average teachers pay were in each LEA in 2001–02. [60238]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 68W, regarding unit spending per student, what the percentage change in unit of funding per student was in 2000–01; and what she expects it to be in 2001–02. [50428]
  11W
  Margaret Hodge
  Between 1989 and 1997, planned public funding fell by 36 per cent. from just under £7,600 to just over £4,800 per full time equivalent student.

  The Dearing report concluded that higher education institutions could not absorb further reductions of over 6 per cent. in the funding per student, which were in the plans of the previous Government.

  Following the last spending review, the Government's spending plans for higher education have reversed the decline in funding over the last decade. Publicly planned funding for higher education announced in November 2000, did reflect a 0.4 per cent. decrease in funding per full time equivalent student in real terms in 2000–01, compared to the previous year. But for 2001–02, the unit of funding in real terms was planned to increase by 0.7 per cent. compared to 2000–01.

  In addition to the funding for teaching and research the higher education sector received an additional £166 million in 1999–2000 and £242.5 million in 2000–01 for capital and to help widen access to higher education. It is planned that a further £359 million will be available in 2001–02.

  Proportion of UK domiciled applicants accepted through UCAS1 to full-time undergraduate HE courses, by subject group, course type and social class2

  Social class3 (per cent.)

  Accepted applicants

  Subject group and course type4

  Professional (I)

  Intermediate (II)

  Skilled non-manual manual (IIIN)

  Skilled manual manual (IIIM)

  Partly skilled (IV)

  Unskilled (V)

  Known total

  Grand total5

  Medicine/dentistn.

  First degree

  39

  40

  9

  8

  4

  I

  5,940

  6,523

  Subjects allied to medicine

  First degree

  13

  43

  14

  18

  10

  2

  19,966

  23,265

  HND

  8

  39

  14

  23

  12

  3

  740

  1,025

  Total

  12

  43

  14

  18

  11

  2

  20,766

  24,290

  Biological sciences

  First degree

  17

  16

  13

  18

  7

  2

  14,701

  16,432

  HND

  8

  32

  16

  26

  14

  2

  192

  235

  Total

  17

  45

  13

  16

  7

  2

  14,663

  16,667

  Agriculture and related subjects

  First degree

  16

  51

  11

  13

  8

  1

  2,184

  2,495

  HND

  8

  47

  13

  17

  13

  2

  1,039

  1,298

  Total

  14

  50

  11

  14

  10

  1

  3,223

  3,793

  Physical science

  First degree

  19

  44

  13

  16

  7

  2

  10,927

  12,028

  HND

  11

  32

  14

  26

  11

  6

  202

  263

  Total

  19

  44

  13

  16

  7

  2

  11,129

  12,292

  Mathematical sciences and informatics

  First degree

  13

  38

  15

  20

  9

  3

  21,697

  26,343

  HND

  8

  35

  16

  24

  11

  5

  4,205

  5,915

  Total

  12

  39

  16

  21

  9

  3

  25,902

  32,268

  Engineering and technology

  First degree

  18

  41

  11

  19

  8

  2

  13,234

  15,452

  HND

  12

  34

  12

  28

  10

  3

  1,097

  1,444

  Total

  18

  41

  11

  20

  8

  2

  14,331

  16,895

  Architecture, building and planning

  First degree

  16

  43

  12

  20

  7

  2

  4,162

  4,927

  HND

  9

  32

  12

  34

  10

  1

  386

  477

  Total

  16

  42

  12

  21

  8

  2

  4,527

  5,404

  Social studies

  First degree

  15

  45

  14

  16

  8

  2

  31,727

  38,716

  HND

  5

  31

  16

  26

  18

  5

  579

  978

  Total

  15

  44

  14

  18

  8

  2

  32,406

  37,694

  Business and administrative studies

  First degree

  12

  45

  16

  18

  8

  2

  25,753

  30,104

  HND

  8

  39

  16

  23

  10

  4

  4,676

  6,284

  Total

  11

  44

  15

  19

  8

  2

  30,429

  36,355

  Mass communications and documentation

  First degree

  11

  45

  16

  19

  8

  2

  7,208

  5,475

  HND

  6

  38

  17

  25

  12

  4

  1,145

  1,529

  Total

  10

  44

  15

  20

  9

  2

  8,354

  10,004

  12W
  With this additional funding the unit of funding per student provided by this Department for 2001–02 in cash terms, will be £5,350.

  The Government are investing, in partnership with the Welcome Trust, a total of £1.75 billion in science infrastructure between 1999–2000 to 2003–04.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the courses of study in higher education institutions, broken down by the proportion of undergraduate students of each social class. [61305]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information on the social class of undergraduate students in UK higher education institutions relates to accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and not all undergraduate courses and students. The UCAS data can be broken down into broad subject categories and into First Degree or Higher National Diploma (HND) courses. The latest UCAS figures are shown in the table.
  13W

  Proportion of UK domiciled applicants accepted through UCAS1 to full-time undergraduate HE courses, by subject group, course type and social class2

  Social class3 (per cent.)

  Accepted applicants

  Subject group and course type4

  Professional (I)

  Intermediate (II)

  Skilled non-manual manual (IIIN)

  Skilled manual manual (IIIM)

  Partly skilled (IV)

  Unskilled (V)

  Known total

  Grand total5

  Languages and related disciplines

  First degree

  16

  48

  14

  13

  8

  1

  14,905

  16,573

  Humanities

  First degree

  19

  47

  13

  13

  6

  1

  9,859

  11,045

  HND

  14

  14

  14

  29

  14

  14

  7

  9

  Total

  19

  47

  15

  13

  6

  1

  9,866

  11,054

  Creative arts

  First degree

  13

  46

  14

  17

  8

  2

  23,408

  28,709

  HND

  8

  38

  17

  23

  11

  2

  3,888

  5,070

  Total

  13

  45

  14

  18

  9

  2

  27,074

  33,779

  Education

  First degree

  9

  40

  16

  21

  12

  2

  12,010

  13,731

  HND

  5

  34

  16

  28

  15

  2

  530

  697

  Total

  9

  40

  16

  21

  12

  2

  12,540

  14,428

  Combined studies

  First degree

  14

  45

  14

  17

  6

  2

  38,558

  45,238

  HND

  7

  39

  18

  26

  11

  3

  1,860

  2,191

  Total

  14

  45

  14

  17

  8

  2

  40,208

  47,429

  All first degree courses

  15

  44

  14

  17

  8

  2

  256,259

  298,057

  All HND courses

  8

  37

  16

  24

  11

  4

  20,224

  27,415

  Total all courses

  14

  44

  14

  18

  6

  2

  276,483

  325,472

  1Covers all UK higher education institutions and some specialist colleges of further education.

  2Year of entry: 2001.

  3The social class percentages are based on the number of accepted applicants for which social class is known.

  4First degree or HND courses. HNDs are not offered in all subject areas.

  5Including unknowns.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  School Meals (Garrison Towns)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the validity of the use of the number of children receiving free school meals as an indicator of need in garrison towns. [56048]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  None, specifically in connection with garrison towns. Within the data collected by the Department annually from schools, the proportion of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals is an established indicator of socio-economic disadvantage. It has been used by the Department as one measure for grouping schools to allow comparisons of the performance of similar schools in the autumn package of pupil performance. This package is provided to assist them in the process of target setting and school improvement.

  The Department is now engaged in a programme of establishing measures of pupil progress from one Key Stage to the next, and it is proposed that this year's secondary schools performance tables will contain two indicators of 'value added' based on such information.

  Secondary Schools
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what review she is undertaking of the capacity of secondary schools. [59104]

  Mr. Miliband
  The capacity of all maintained mainstream schools is currently being reassessed using the new net capacity assessment method. This work is currently planned to be completed by November 2002.

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether she intends to include British Sign Language within the personal, social and health education component of the national curriculum. [60127]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We have no plans to include British Sign Language in the national curriculum. Schools that wish to do so can offer British Sign Language lessons to their pupils as part of the wider school curriculum. Teaching additional subjects, such as sign language will usually be built around the skills and strengths of the teaching staff and the learning needs of their pupils.

  Sector Skills Councils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the chairs of the sector skills councils will be announced; when all the members of the sector skills councils will be confirmed; and what arrangements have been made for the staff of national training organisations during the transitions to sector skills councils. [60772]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is no set timetable for the introduction of the new sector skills network. Sector skills councils (SSCs) will be introduced only in sectors where employers want one and the SSC standard is met. One requirement is for the SSC to have a senior level board and chair, representative of the sector. As SSCs are licensed information about them, including their board, will be published by the SSDA.
  15W
  The ending of Government recognition of national training organisations (NTOs) and the licensing of sector skills councils (SSCs) are separate issues. Organisations that were formerly recognised as NTOs are independent bodies. The continued funding, operation and staffing of former NTOs is a decision for the board of each organisation.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern apprenticeships were(a) commenced and (b) completed in each year since the scheme's inauguration; what percentage of modern apprenticeships are not completed; and what the annual cost has been of the modern apprenticeship scheme. [60773]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  (a) Information on starts and qualification success rates is published in a statistical first release (SFR 032002 'TEC/LSC Delivered Government Supported Work-Based Learning—England: Volumes and Outcomes'), which is available in the Library of the House.

  Modern apprenticeships

  Qualification success rates of leavers

  Financial year

  MA starts (000s)

  Percentage who achieve level 2 or above on FMA

  Percentage who achieve level 3 or above on AMA

  1995–96

  25.8

  —

  9

  1996–97

  70.3

  —

  22

  1997–98

  84.2

  —

  27

  1998–99

  119.1

  —

  36

  1999–2000

  170.7

  36

  48

  2000–01

  188.3

  45

  49

  Source:

  SFR 03/2002, tables 1 and 3.

  (b) Information on completion of modern apprenticeship frameworks is not available.

  Accurate figures for annual expenditure on MAs are not available but the total MA spend since 1997 is estimated to have been well in excess of £1 billion.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many traditional apprenticeships were(a) commenced and (b) completed in each of the last three years that they were running. [60774]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on traditional apprenticeships commenced and completed are not available. We do have estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) on the number of recognised trade apprentices at any one time and these are given in the table for the each of the last three years.

  Number (Thousand)

  Year

  All

  Male

  Female

  1999

  207

  172

  35

  2000

  223

  183

  39

  2001

  202

  169

  32

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, 1999–2001, United Kingdom

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the financing of modern apprenticeships with particular reference to differences of treatment relating to age. [61340]
  16W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the council's chief executive, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  School Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much additional resources have been given to(a) Rushey Mead. School, Green Academy, (b) Judgemeadow School and (c) Northfields House Primary as a result of their new status. [60779]

  Mr. Miliband
  Rushey Mead School has been awarded £3,963,827 to provide a Green Academy; Judgemeadow School has been awarded £100,000 of capital funding to improve its facilities for teaching modern foreign languages and will receive £495,862 in the period September 1999 to August 2003 to deliver its language college development plans (based on pupil numbers in January 2001) and Northfield House Primary has been awarded £365.700 of funding from the Space for Sport and Arts project.

  Small Schools
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the Small Schools Fund was spent in 2001–02. [61130]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: In 2001–02 £80 million was allocated for the Small Schools Fund through the Standards Fund. Of this, local education authorities accepted 98 per cent. (£78.2 million). Under the Standards Fund arrangements for 2001–02, schools and local education authorities are able to carry forward unspent grant into the 2002–03 financial year. The Department does not currently hold information on the extent to which schools or local education authorities have chosen to carry forward this grant.

  Clinical Veterinary Teaching
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when her Department or its predecessor last reviewed the financial arrangements for clinical veterinary teaching. [61187]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The review of financial arrangements for veterinary teaching, are a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England to consider.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action she is taking to improve access for disabled students to overseas courses, with particular reference to(a) physical access problems and (b) access to disability specific benefits. [61345]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) 2001 makes it unlawful, from September 2002, for providers of post-16 education in Great Britain to discriminate against disabled people. As part of their new statutory duties, institutions will be responsible for ensuring that any overseas institution
  17W
  which receives a disabled student as part of their course at a British institution is able to provide reasonable access in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

  Higher Education students eligible for the Disabled Students' Allowance (DSA) who have to study abroad as part of their course at a UK institution are entitled to continue to receive the DSA while they are abroad. The disability living allowance (DLA) is payable to people resident in Great Britain. However, payment can continue during the first 26 weeks of any period of temporary absence, so students who return during vacations may receive continuous payments.

  Internet Twinning
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the Government's aims at the Seville European Council on the establishment of internet twinning links for secondary schools in the EU. [61404]

  Margaret Hodge
  The European Commission will present its report on helping secondary schools to establish or enhance an internet twinning link with a partner school elsewhere in Europe. The Commission's paper was published on 21 May and sets out proposals for ensuring that school twinning projects are effective. We believe there are considerable potential educational benefits in extending school twinning, so we welcome the Commission's input and look forward to discussing with other member states how work should be taken forward on this issue.

  Medical Education
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the funding allocations to medical education relative to other branches of higher education. [61471]

  Margaret Hodge
  Funding allocations for medical education are made by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) as described in the HEFCE publication 'Funding higher education in England—How the HEFCE allocates its funds' (Guide April 02/8).

  The HEFCE funding methodology allocates funding over four price groups. Group D forms the base allocation. Group A, the highest, contains medical, dentistry and veterinary science courses. These are funded at four and a half times the base level, and in 2002–03, will be equal to £12,915 per annum per full-time student place.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of children who lived(a) in a residential care home and (b) with foster parents went into higher education in the last five years for which figures are available. [61780]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was in 2001 to(a) the universities and (b) the Government of administering
  18W
  university tuition fees, broken down by (i) publicity and information costs and (ii) costs incurred as a result of non-payment of fees. [61879]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not available. Government funding of higher education institutions in England through the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) takes account of the cost to universities and colleges of administering tuition fees. The forecast income that institutions receive from student contributions to fees is abated by 5 per cent. for collection of fees and any default. For 2001–02, that amounts to an estimated £18.2 million. The latest survey of the non-payment of fee contributions, published by Universities UK in November 2001, found that the amount unpaid at July 2001 across the UK was well within the 5 per cent. set aside for administration and default.

  University Staff (Redundancies)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many academic staff in each university in England and Wales were made redundant in each year since 1996. [62030]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Sixth Form Provision
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact this year's funding proposals will have on the Government's policy of bridging the funding gap between sixth form schools, sixth form colleges and community colleges who provide sixth form provision. [62252]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government remain committed to bringing up the level of funding for colleges towards that of schools. We have always made it clear that we must look to the spending review settlement for 2003–04 and beyond to address this issue. We will make a further announcement when the outcome of the spending review is known.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department issues to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities on identifying and supporting young carers. [62539]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills issued guidance to schools on supporting young carers in the circular 10–99. Social Inclusion: Pupil Support, sent in July 1999 to the chairs of governors and heads of maintained schools in England.

  Further Education Finance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the pay levels of(a) college lecturers and (b) school sixth form teachers. [62562]

  Margaret Hodge
  Pay and conditions for teachers in maintained schools, including those with sixth forms, is determined on a statutory basis under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. The pay and
  19W
  terms and conditions of lecturers who work in sixth form colleges and general further education colleges are matters for individual colleges as the employer to determine, in discussion with the relevant unions. A wide range of pay and conditions now exist in the FE sector, reflecting the diverse needs of the colleges' local communities and colleges' individual decisions on implementing the nationally recommended pay settlement each year.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to review the pay levels of college lecturers; and if she will make a statement. [62563]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have no plans to review the pay levels of college lecturers. The Department contributed financially to tire production of the "Association of Colleges and Joint Unions, National Review of Staffing and Pay in Further Education" published in March 2001.

  As independent organisations, it is for colleges in discussion with relevant representative bodies to determine the pay and terms of conditions of their staff.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will include in future Ofsted inspections an assessment of(a) school and (b) local education authority policies and practice in identifying and supporting young carers. [62540]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. I have asked HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to announce the result of the quinquennial review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [62310]

  Mr. Miliband
  Following the quinquennial review of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) a report has been published today, outlining the findings of the review and the recommendations that have been made as a result. The report is available in the Library. It can also be seen on the DfES website: "www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations".

  Teachers (Women)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of teaching staff in UK secondary schools are female. [58254]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: In March 2000 (the most recent date for which provisional data are available) 58 per cent. of the teachers in regular full or part time service in maintained secondary schools in England were female.

  Some 10 per cent.—20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teachers' Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  The devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for the supply of teachers in those countries.

  Special Educational Needs (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions she has had with Gloucestershire County Council about their policy towards special schools; and if she will make a statement; [60110]

  (2) what assessment she has made of special needs provision in Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement; [60111]

  (3) what assessment she has made of statementing in Gloucestershire; and if she will make a statement. [60112]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Ofsted published a report of its inspection of Gloucestershire Local Education Authority in January this year. My officials have been working with the Authority's officers as the Authority has developed its Post-Inspection Action Plan. The inspection report was critical of the delay in the Authority's development of an inclusive approach to meeting special educational needs [and noted that the process of special school re-organisation had been slow]. It recommended that the Authority should produce a strategy for special educational needs (SEN), which has a swifter timetable for implementation, shows how it will raise standards for pupils and incorporates the Authority's different reviews in a coherent plan.

  The report also recommended that the Authority should work with health authorities and the counties social services department, to reduce the number of cases where exceptional needs prevent the completion of SEN statements within 18 weeks.

  My officials received the Authority's Post Inspection Action plan on 1 May. They will continue to work with the Authority's officers as this Plan is developed and implemented.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Express Newspapers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what basis the then Secretary of State determined that Mr. Richard Desmond was a fit and proper person to control Express Newspapers; [61479]

  (2) what account was taken of the nature of pornographic websites controlled by companies associated with Mr. Richard Desmond when the Secretary of State was considering whether to refer the acquisition of Express Newspapers by the Northern and Shell Group; [61528]

  (3) what factors the then Secretary of State took into account when determining the non--competition issues concerning the acquisition of Express Newspapers by the Northern and Shell Group. [61480]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1984 it has been the policy of successive governments that the primary reason for making a reference will always be the impact of a transaction on competition.

  Further, since October 2000 it has been the stated policy of this Government to accept the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading on whether or not to make a reference in all but exceptional circumstances.
  21W
  In this case my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State had regard to the advice of the Office of Fair Trading on competition factors.

  In addition, the fact that Mr. Desmond had adult business interests was drawn to my right hon. Friend before the case was considered and the views of the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and a range of third parties on non-competition issues were considered. We did not investigate further Northern and Shell's websites. There was no suggestion that these sites were illegal. The laws on obscenity apply to all publications and to the internet.

  My right hon. Friend therefore took into account all factors which appeared to be relevant at the time before deciding that there was no reason, on competition or non-competition grounds, to refer this case to the Competition Commission.

  Internal Communications
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what budget, functions and staff will be under the control of the new head of internal communications in her Department; and what the previous structure and budget was for those functions. [62050]

  Ms Hewitt
  The internal communications team will initially be five people amounting to four full time equivalents. A budget of £100,000 has been put aside for this financial year. The team's aim will be to identify and implement an internal communications strategy for the DTI so that everyone can contribute to the Department's success by being well-informed and having the opportunity to feed in their own views. The team will publish the DTI's staff newspaper, improve the Department's internal communications systems, particularly the intranet, and raise communication skills across the Department.

  Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of retentions on the profitability of SMEs in the United Kingdom construction industry. [58138]

  Mr. Wilson
  The DTI has made no formal assessment of the impact of retentions The DTI is supporting the efforts of the Strategic Forum for the Construction Industry to address issues of payment and quality assurance; most recently in the "Accelerating Change" consultation document.

  Construction Industry
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the practice of retentions in the construction industry. [58140]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since taking over responsibility for sponsoring the construction industry after the general election in June 2001, Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry have received 83 letters supporting early-day motion number 428 on the practice of retentions in the construction industry.
  22W
  The use of retentions is commonplace, resulting from adversarial relationships between the players in the industry, and allegations about defects and poor quality of work.

  DTI is taking a range of steps to address the root causes. "Rethinking Construction" sets out a change process that should lead to fewer defects, and hence progressively reduce the need for retentions. DTI has undertaken considerable work to support constructive procurement principles. However this issue will only be fully resolved when the whole construction industry changes by providing quality, defect-free work that fully meets the needs of contractors and clients.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the targets for the Renewables UK unit in Aberdeen will be published; and if she will make a statement. [58267]

  Mr. Wilson
  Renewables UK's aim is to maximise the UK's involvement in renewable projects both at home and abroad in terms of jobs and investment in manufacturing, services and supplies. There is an important link between this sector and the oil and gas industry, whose strategic forum—PILOT—has established a number of key aims for the year 2010 including the identification of £1 billion worth of new business opportunities.

  As an initial working target Renewables UK has adopted half this target ie £500 million of new business to the UK in renewables manufacturing, services and supplies by 2010. However, Renewables UK is now working to refine and broaden this target by establishing baseline figures and developing a defined set of metrics. This will include undertaking an employment survey in conjunction with the Renewables Trade Associations to establish the number of current jobs in renewables.

  I have established the Renewables Advisory Board (the interim boards met on 21 May). The board will work closely with Renewables UK to establish a challenging yet achievable set of targets, which will be published.

  Coal Industry
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many collieries have closed in each year since 1997 in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) England. [60308]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information available shows that the total number of collieries that have closed in Scotland, Wales and England since 1997 is 37.

  The number of closures each year is as follows:

  Scotland

  Wales

  England

  1997

  1

  5

  6

  1998

  1

  9

  3

  1999

  0

  2

  3

  2000

  0

  4

  1

  2001

  0

  1

  0

  2002

  1

  0

  0

  Source:

  Coal Authority data provided to the Department of Trade and Industry.

  North Sea Fiscal Regime
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions regarding the change in the North sea fiscal regime have been conducted with PILOT since the announcement of the 2002 Budget. [59386]

  Mr. Wilson
  A number of discussions have taken place with the industry since the Budget of 17 April. Most recently, on 22 May, I met with industry representatives from PILOT to hear their views on the Budget 2002 changes.

  Further discussions will take place at the PILOT meeting in June.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how PILOT's stated goals are likely to be affected by the change in the North sea fiscal regime. [59387]

  Mr. Wilson
  PILOT, the joint Government/industry forum, has an extensive action programme to improve the industry's competitiveness. It is pursuing a number of visionary targets for 2010 and last year set the interim production and investment targets for 2005. I expect PILOT to continue to monitor progress against these targets. The fiscal regime is one of many influences affecting the success of the industry meeting them. Further discussions on the vision targets will take place at future PILOT meetings.

  Fabrication Jobs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many fabrication jobs there are in Scotland; and how many there were in each of the previous five years; [58895]

  (2) how many fabrication jobs there are in Scotland; and how many there were for each of the previous five years. [59384]

  Mr. Wilson
  Numbers employed in Scottish offshore fabrication are estimated at:

  Year

  Number employed

  2002

  1,220

  2001

  415

  2000

  3,060

  1999

  4,460

  1998

  4,180

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Telecommunications (Data Protection & Privacy) Regulations 1999 and the IC5715 Code of Conduct in controlling unsolicited faxes. [59991]

  Mr. Timms
  The effectiveness of the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations in controlling unsolicited direct marketing faxes may be monitored by, among other things, looking at levels of registrations with, and complaints to, the Fax Preference Service (FPS); up to date figures on these are available from the Direct Marketing Association, which was appointed to run the Telephone and Fax Preference Services under the 24W
  regulations. Since the Fax Preference Service was put on a statutory basis in 1999, total registrations have risen from under 15,000 to over 1,000,000; the FPS currently receives about 1,500 complaints a week about faxes, compared to some 700 a week at the end of last year. Information on compliance with the ICSTIS Code of Practice is published in the committee's monthly reports.

  There will be an opportunity to review the regulations in more depth next year when we consult on implementation of the updated version of the European directive on which they are based.

  Icelandic Trawlermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims for compensation in the last five years for the loss of Icelandic fishing have been rejected; and how many remain to be processed. [61405]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since October 2000, when the Compensation scheme for former Icelandic trawlermen began, a total of 2,872 applications (not including duplicates) have been rejected.

  A total of 4,158 applications have been accepted to end May 2002.

  All applications received have been processed though a number have been referred back to applicants for further information, are being reviewed by officials or are subject to an appeal to the independent adjudicator.

  Tyres (Disposal)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many tyres were scrapped in each of the last five years in the UK; how many tonnes this was; and what proportion of the tyres were(a) disposed of in landfill sites, (b) illegally dumped and (c) fly-tipped. [60640]

  Mr. Wilson
  The following table provides a guide.

  Tyres (million)

  Tonnes (000s)

  1996

  43

  484

  1997

  43

  490

  1998

  46

  431

  1999

  45

  427

  2000

  50

  450

  Note:

  Figures rounded to nearest million tyres or thousand tonnes.

  Source:

  Used Tyre Working Group.

  Latest available figures ale for 2000. The numbers of used tyres disposed of each year and their weight is estimated based on data supplied by tyre manufacturers and importers on replacement tyre sales, statistics from Customs and Excise on import and export trade in used tyre casings and information from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on the numbers of end-of-life vehicles.

  The method of compiling the statistics was refined in 1998 to improve their accuracy. Accordingly, figures from 1998 forward are not directly comparable with earlier years.
  25W
  The numbers of tyres landfilled over the period 1996–99 remained consistent at around 30 per cent. of all tyres disposed of. With the closure of the single largest facility for handling used tyres in 2000, around 37 per cent. of tyres were landfilled that year.

  It is difficult to gather accurate information on the illegal disposal of tyres, with incidences widely dispersed geographically and affecting a variety of local authorities, businesses and individuals. Research undertaken by the Environment Agency indicates that most local authorities experience low levels of fly-tipping, but the cumulative effect can lead to significant total numbers. The Agency has estimated that tyre fly-tipping is collectively costing local authorities around £2 million per annum. There is also substantial local fly-tipping of tyres on agricultural land. Not all tyre fly-tipping is immediately obvious, with significant numbers of lyre retailers experiencing fly-tipping on their forecourts overnight, and subsequently picking up the costs for ensuring responsible disposal and recovery.

  There are occasional large-scale deposits, which in extreme cases can amount to several tens of thousands of tyres. There are generally only one or two incidents of this magnitude each year. A recent survey by the Environment Agency estimated that there are around 21 million tyres in long-term storage. Not all of these will have been illegally deposited.

  Business Links
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is towards the repayment of the(a) interest and (b) capital on loans made by Business Link to firms that subsequently suffered a severe loss of business as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [61539]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Business Link Operators have not offered loans to businesses that suffered losses as a result of foot and mouth disease. However, some elements of the Rural Business Recovery Fund were used to assist businesses with interest relief on existing loans. The Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme (operated by high street banks) was extended to bring in scope businesses affected by foot and mouth disease. To date 40 new loans have been granted as a result of the extension. Repayment conditions are the same as loans normally offered under the scheme.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many calls the Business Links Complaints Hotline has received since its inception. [61315]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since the Business Link Feedback Line began in July 1998 it has received under 100 calls. The vast majority were complaints from clients of the Business Link Network who were unable to solve the problem at a local level.

  I am informed that all the complaints received have been resolved apart from three which are currently being dealt with.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many computers were replaced in her 26W
  Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60752]

  Ms Hewitt
  In 1998 my Department HQ entered into a Private Finance Initiative partnership with a consortium led by ICL (now Fujitsu) in conjunction with CMG, known as UNITAS. This arrangement included the transfer of ownership of the vast majority of our computer assets to UNITAS and part of the contractual arrangements in place are that the responsibility for replacing equipment and its disposal when this is necessary lies with them. Part of our normal monthly service charge paid for the provision of our computers includes an element to meet any costs incurred by UNITAS in carrying out this disposal service.

  Where equipment becomes surplus to requirement UNITAS always tries to re-cycle it and, accordingly, the number of PCs disposed of by UNITAS in the last three years has been negligible. Their environmental policy also dictates that any disposals are done in an environmentally friendly manner and appropriate security measures are applied to ensure hard discs are always erased before disposal. Where disposal is necessary UNITAS use a company known as STARS.

  I understand that this question has also been put to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and that the answer to that question will include any replacement and disposal details for DTI staff working in Government Offices in the regions.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had about extending minimum wage protection to 16 to 17-year-olds; and what plans she has to do so. [62151]

  Alan Johnson
  We have no plans to extend the minimum wage to 16 to 17-year-olds. However, I recently announced new terms of reference for the Low Pay Commission and will of course carefully consider any recommendations made on this issue in their next report.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices in Scotland have reduced their opening hours in each of the last five years. [62416]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 6 February 2002,Official Report, column 967W.

  Sustainable Development
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on sustainable development. [60049]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Government set out its policy on sustainable development in the White Paper "A better quality of life: A strategy for sustainable development for the UK" [Cm 4345] published in May 1999. The Government's Sustainable

  27W
  Development Strategy will inform the proposed Energy White Paper which the Government plans to publish around the turn of the year.

  Energy White Policy
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the forthcoming White Paper on energy policy will include a cost benefit analysis. [60054]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002): Energy policy is necessarily concerned with developments over long time periods. The analysis in the White Paper will include an assessment of costs and benefits across a range of impacts, recognising the risks and the inherent uncertainties of such estimation.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many chartered engineers are part of the Energy Strategy Unit tasked with producing the White Paper on the future energy policy; [60047]

  (2) what the engineering and scientific qualifications are of the head of the Energy Strategy Unit; [60051]

  (3) what the (a) composition and (b) structure is of the Energy Strategy Unit; [60052]

  (4) what liaison is carried out by the Energy Strategy Unit with the EU on policy development. [60053]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Energy Strategy Unit is the team tasked with undertaking the consultation on energy policy, following publication earlier this year of the Energy Review and with drafting the energy White Paper which the Government propose to publish around the turn of the year.

  It is composed of a team drawn from DTI, DEFRA, and elsewhere and its work is overseen by a senior cross-departmental group including members from DTI, DEFRA, DoT, HMT and others. Rob Wright, currently Director of Coal Policy in the DTI, has been appointed head of the Energy Strategy Unit. Within the DTI reporting structure, Rob Wright reports to Joan MacNaughton, Director General, Energy.

  The Unit currently has five staff at senior management level, all of whom have first or second degrees in science, engineering, economics or mathematics. In addition, the team draws on a much wider range of experts in similar fields from within and outside Government including the Energy Advisory Panel.

  The Unit is working closely with officials in the FCO, the DTI, DEFRA and other Departments who liaise directly with the European Commission and other member states.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what definition she uses of a low carbon economy; and what the Government's policy is on a low carbon economy. [60050]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The UK's Climate Change Programme, issued in November 2000, sets out the Government's approach to the challenge. It is estimated that the proposals in the programme could reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to about 23 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2010. This is well beyond the Kyoto target. Longer term, the Government believe that global emissions of greenhouse gases may need to be reduced by
  28W
  60 per cent. to 70 per cent. if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. This will require a major transformation in the way we generate and use energy—essentially a move away from the substantial use of fossil fuels emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to a low carbon economy.

  The possible nature of such an economy and the means for achieving it was one of the issues considered in the Performance and Innovation Unit's Energy Review report to Government. The Government are currently consulting on the Energy Review and the responses to the consultation will help to shape an energy White Paper, by around the turn of the year.

  Departmental Reviews
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the two departmental reviews being undertaken within the Department of Trade and Industry. [61316]

  Ms Hewitt
  Last year I announced changes to the structure and operation of my Department to improve the way in which it serves business, employees and consumers, 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 398W. Further information was made available in the Department's memorandum to the Trade and Industry committee (Reviews of DTI Structure and Business Support—Minutes of Evidence, 12 December 2001: HC 454-I). My Department's new structure came into being in April, and we are taking forward the other changes I have announced.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has set for the roll out of broadband services across the business community; and if she will make a statement. [61792]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have set a target for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005.

  The Government have also set a target of having one million SMEs trading online by 2002, which was exceeded in 2000, although the target is technology neutral and not specific to broadband.

  BAE Systems
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings her Department has had with representatives of BAE Systems since June 2001. [62265]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department of Trade & Industry's Ministers and officials meet representatives of industry as often as possible, and have met those from BAE Systems on a number of occasions since June 2001.

  Aerospace Industry
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what remuneration the Chair of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team will be paid. [62266]

  Alan Johnson
  None. The appointment is unpaid.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the mandate of the EC-Malta Joint Research Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament, and if she will make a statement; [58400]

  (2) what the mandate of the EC-Russia Joint Committee on scientific and technological co-operation is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58404]

  (3) what the mandate of the EC-China RTD Co-operation Steering Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58402]

  (4) what the mandate of the EC-Republic of South Africa Joint Committee on scientific and technological co-operation is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58406]

  Country

  Mandate

  Meetings in last 12 months

  Argentina

  Managing the Agreement, including promoting and overseeing co-operative activities, identifying sectors for potential co-operation, and advising on ways to improve co-operation

  None—Agreement has only just entered into force

  Canada

  Details not retrievable without disproportionate cost

  One

  China

  Managing the Agreement, including promoting and overseeing co-operative activities, identifying for the following year priority sectors for potential co-operation, and advising on ways to improve co-operation

  One

  Cyprus

  Functions include reviewing, evaluating measures for co-operation under the EU 5th Framework Programme, and examining ways to improve and develop co-operation

  One

  India

  Managing the Agreement, including promoting and overseeing co-operative activities, identifying for the following year priority sectors for potential co-operation, recommending joint projects for sponsoring on a cost sharing basis, and advising on ways to improve co-operation

  None—Agreement has not yet entered into force

  Malta

  Functions include reviewing, evaluating measures for co-operation under the EU 5th Framework Programme, and examining ways to improve and develop co-operation

  None—a Committee has yet to be formed

  Russia

  Managing the Agreement, including promoting and overseeing co-operative activities, identifying sectors for potential co-operation, and advising on ways to enhance co-operation

  None—last meeting February 2001

  South Africa

  Managing the Agreement, including promoting and reviewing co-operative activities, making recommendations for additional modalities of co-operation, and advising on ways to enhance co-operation

  One

  There is no UK representative on the Committees. The Agreements have no direct financial implications for the UK. Information is not available on items under discussion.
  30W
  (5) what the mandate of the EC-India RTD Co-operation Steering Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58401]

  (6) what the mandate of the EC-Canada Joint Committee on scientific and technological co-operation is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58405]

  (7) what the mandate of the EC-Argentina RTD Co-operation Steering Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement; [58403]

  (8) what the mandate of the EC-Cyprus Joint Research Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [58399]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of the mandates and the number of meetings held in the last 12 months by the Joint Committees established under the EC's scientific and technological co-operation agreements with the Argentine Republic, Canada, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of India, the Republic of Malta, the Russian Federation and the Republic of South Africa are set out in the following table.

  The Government welcomes the Agreements as their essential aim is to stimulate RTD co-operation between the European Communities and the Governments concerned and this increases the possibilities for the UK,

  31W
  as a partner of first choice, to engage in collaborative research. The Agreements have been subject to Parliamentary Scrutiny procedures and the Government does not consider that further steps are needed to assure the accountability and transparency to Parliament of the Committees.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Bills introduced by her Department in the last five years have contained sunset clauses; and what plans she has for the future use of such clauses. [49629]

  Ms Hewitt
  One Bill introduced by my Department in the last five years contained a sunset clause. Section 16(41) of The Electronic Communications Act 2000 provides for the repeal of Part 1 of the Act five years from Royal Assent if no order is made before then under Section 16(2). The use of such clauses in future Bills will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61646]

  Ms Hewitt
  SDA targets are set as an integral part of the Spending Review process. It is difficult to say for the majority of the Department's SDA targets how the Department's expenditure would have differed or no targets been set. Further analysis on the costs and savings of specific targets could only be undertaken at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61040]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on Departmental expenditure by Public Service Agreement (PSA) objective can be found in the Department's annually published Consolidated Resource Accounts, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House for years up to 2000–01. Information on costs incurred in working towards individual PSA targets is not available.

  PSA targets are set as an integral part of the Spending Review process. It is not possible to say how the Department's expenditure would have differed had different, or no, targets been adopted. As a result, additional costs or savings resulting from pursuing PSA targets cannot be specified, although one of DTI's current PSA targets requires the Department to achieve an annual 2.5 per cent. improvement in value for money, including through savings.

  Postal Services
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with managers of Consignia regarding a new post office and Royal Mail sorting office in Camborne. [59627]
  32W
  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day to day responsibility of Consignia and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what costs are arising from regulatory impact assessments for legislation introduced by her Department in the 2001–02 parliamentary session. [57324]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of all costs which arose from regulatory impact assessments for legislation introduced by the Department of Trade and Industry in the 2001–02 Parliamentary session were contained in the assessments prepared in respect of each Bill and Statutory Instrument where appropriate, copies of which were deposited in the Libraries of the House.

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement on the use by BNFL and its subsidiaries of public funds to make donations to political elements within the United States of America; [611071]

  (2) if she will list the donations made to political elements overseas by BNFL and its subsidiaries in each year since 1997. [61121]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: No. This is a matter for the company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether BNFL sought clearance from her Department before making donations to political elements within the United States of America. [61108]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: No.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long British troops are planned to remain in Afghanistan. [58676]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Security Assistance Force has made an enormous contribution to the stability of Afghanistan. We will transfer leadership of the ISAF to Turkey later this week, after which there will be a reduced but substantial British contribution.

  The task force based around 45 Commando has been engaged in difficult operations that have successfully denied al-Qaeda and Taliban freedom of action during what is a critical period for the future of Afghanistan as the Loya Jirga has been meeting. I have previously told the House that the Royal Marines would be deployed for about three months and I expect the deployment to conform to this timetable.

  Hon. Members will be aware that the Loya Jirga is drawing to a close in Kabul. In the light of this, and following final discussions with Turkey and other

  33W
  coalition partners, I hope to make a fuller statement to the House on the future of our forces in Afghanistan later this week.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the international security assistance force has helped with humanitarian aid missions in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [58694]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) earlier, at column 18 today, the primary role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is to help the Interim Administration maintain security in Kabul and its surrounding areas. However, national contingents within the ISAF have been involved in a number of humanitarian projects. United Kingdom service personnel, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, have contributed to the rebuilding of Kabul' s education system through helping with repairs to its schools. The ISAF has also on occasion responded to critical emergencies to help save lives. There has been no expansion in ISAF's mission as defined in the authorising United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and effectiveness of British troops deployed in Afghanistan. [58697]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent deployments of British forces in Afghanistan. [58704]

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the situation in Afghanistan. [58706]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of British military operations in Afghanistan. [58688]

  Mr. Hoon
  British military operations in Afghanistan have involved both warfighting and security assistance tasks. The task force based around 45 Commando Royal Marines has performed valuable work in denying remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban elements opportunities to regroup and commit terrorist attacks, especially around the time of the vital Loya Jirga process. British forces in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have also played a valuable role in helping the Afghan Interim Administration maintain security in Kabul. As I have already said in my answer to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), at column 33W today, I hope to make a fuller statement to the House on our forces in Afghanistan later this week.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [58709]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Security Assistance Force has helped the Afghan Interim Administration transform the security situation in Kabul, allowing a shattered city to become a functioning political and commercial centre.

  The United Kingdom's leadership of ISAF, ably exercised by Major General McColl, has been praised throughout the international community. I am confident that the ISAF will continue to make a positive impact under Turkish leadership.

  Defence Housing Estate
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses have been sold by the armed forces in(a) the UK, (b) Scotland and (c) Midlothian in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 2002. [58689]

  Dr. Moonie
  I regret that information for 1980 is not readily available.

  Based on available records, the figures for 1990 show that more than 814 properties were sold in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and 109 in Scotland. I should point out that the information for 1990 is, however, incomplete given the lapse of time and significant organisational changes.

  To date this year, 1,884 properties in England and Wales have been handed back to Annington Homes Ltd., with an additional 47 being sold by Defence Estates. A further 114 houses have been sold in Scotland in the same period. No houses have been sold in Northern Ireland this year.

  No houses in Midlothian were sold in either 1990 or to date this year.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve response times for maintenance to service personnel housing. [58691]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) is constantly looking for ways to further improve its repairs service. Current response requirements for unplanned maintenance are: within 24 hours for emergencies, within five working days for urgent repairs and within two months for routine repairs. DHE achieved 99 per cent. of routine repairs within the required timescale against a target of 95 per cent. On urgent repairs, 87 per cent. were achieved on time against a target of 90 per cent. Against a target of 95 per cent. for emergency repairs, the achievement was 93 per cent.

  The DHE is trialling a call centre in the north-east which allows the occupants of service families' housing to notify their requirement for response repairs directly. An appointment is then made with the occupant for the contractor to call and effect the repair. The contractor is incentivised to meet response repair targets and to reach a higher level of customer satisfaction. Failure to achieve the targets set by DHE will mean that fees will be withheld. The results of the trial will be used to inform the planned move to a prime contract for housing maintenance and works services, which is in line with a wider Government initiative.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is given to service men on dealing with the media. [58690]

  Mr. Ingram
  Invitations for service personnel to take part in media interviews are usually made by broadcasting and press authorities through official departmental channels. If, however, members of the armed forces are invited directly to take part in radio or television broadcasts, or undertake press interviews, there is guidance in The Queen's Regulations that instructs personnel on how to report the approach, and if the
  35W
  interview is sanctioned, guidance about the handling of the interview and not being drawn on any policy issue which is, or may become, a matter of controversy between political parties.

  Veterans
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of new arrangements for helping veterans from the armed forces. [58692]

  Dr. Moonie
  The broad effectiveness of the Government's veterans' initiative is monitored through the work of the task force and forum, the latter of which includes representatives from the veterans' community. We also monitor progress in specific areas including the success of our resettlement training, our initiatives with the charitable sector to address homelessness among those leaving the armed forces, and the service provided by our veterans helpline. In a number of areas work is still in hand, but my overall assessment is that the initiative is making good progress, with real benefits being delivered, particularly to the most vulnerable service leavers.

  Warships
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the operational strength is of the Royal Navy's destroyers and frigates. [58693]

  Mr. Ingram
  The full strength of the Royal Navy' s destroyer and frigate force is 32.

  Return to Civilian Life
  Mr. Watts
  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. [58695]

  Mr. Kidney
  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. [58699]

  Tony Cunningham
  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. [58707]

  Dr. Moonie
  For those service leavers eligible to receive standard career transition services, the Ministry of Defence is currently working on introducing a Tri Service Resettlement Manual, to align resettlement procedures, policy and structures across the three services, and on replacing the current system for funding resettlement training to allow service leavers greater flexibility for such training. However, for one category of service leaver not eligible to receive standard career transition services, those being compulsorily discharged, the MOD has under consideration a change to the current rules to allow them to receive some 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.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy Sea Harriers are in operational condition. [58696]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 29 May 2002, there were 27 Sea Harrier FA2 and four Sea Harrier T4 aircraft in the Actual Operating Fleet. The Actual Operating Fleet is the total number of aircraft available to the Operating Commander to undertake the defined military task. Numbers of operational aircraft can vary with time.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the withdrawal from service of the Royal Navy Sea Harriers. [58708]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans the first Fleet Air Arm Sea Harrier squadron will be withdrawn in 2004 and the remainder of the force will be withdrawn by 2006.

  An investment plan has been agreed to take forward Joint Force Harrier (JFH) into the era of Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) and Future Carriers.

  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR)) included a commitment to establish JFH, building on the success of Royal Navy and RAF Harrier aircraft operations in joint carrier air groups. This was a radical initiative to form a truly joint, flexible and deployable force optimised for the demands of the new strategic environment. JFH currently operates two aircraft types—Sea Harrier FA2, an air defence aircraft flown by RN personnel, and Harrier GR7, a ground attack/reconnaissance aircraft flown by RAF personnel. The plan has been for both the Sea Harrier FA2 and Harrier GR7 to be replaced by a common aircraft type. This is currently designated the FJCA with an In-Service Date of 2012.

  Work has been taking place on a migration plan to take forward JFH into the era of the FJCA and the future aircraft carrier. We have concluded that JFH should migrate to an all Harrier GR force, maximising investment in one aircraft type. It is planned to upgrade the GR7 to GR9 standard to ensure a credible expeditionary offensive capability until the aircraft leaves service. To achieve this, aircraft systems will be enhanced to ensure their longevity and give the Harrier the capability to operate with smart weapons.

  Given the Harrier GR9' s ability in future to employ smart weapons world-wide by day and night from land and sea and the increased emphasis on carrier based offensive air-power in the SDR and confirmed by the emerging conclusions of our post-11 September work, the Sea Harrier FA2 will be withdrawn earlier than planned, by 2006. The Sea Harrier entered service in 1979, and will start to become obsolescent as this decade progresses.

  As a consequence of its earlier withdrawal from service, the planned relocation of Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft from RNAS Yeovilton to RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering in 2003 will not now proceed. However, the relocation of RN personnel will go ahead but slightly later than currently planned, over the period 2004 to 2006. By 1 April 2007, JFH will have migrated to an all Harrier GR9 force by roughly equal numbers of RN and RAF personnel. These proposals will be subject to consultation with the trade unions in the normal way.
  37W
  This plan will significantly enhance the offensive strike capability of our aircraft carriers pending the introduction to service of the FJCA.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last had discussions with the preferred PFI bidder for the Colchester garrison about the delays in building the new garrison. [58698]

  Mr. Ingram
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence met with the preferred bidder on the Colchester Private Finance Initiative Project, RMPA Services, in January of this year, when he went to view the excellent Single Living Accommodation mock-ups at Colchester garrison. The MOD PFI project team and RMPA Services are now co-located in offices in central London where they meet daily.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the continuing contracts awarded by his Department to BAE Systems for the manufacture of ordnance in the United Kingdom. [58700]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence currently has a number of contracts with Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD), a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems, for the manufacture of munitions. These requirements and contracts fall under the umbrella of the MOD/ROD Framework Partnering Agreement. Contracts are placed with ROD as the prime contractor and the sourcing of materials or manufacture of components is a matter for the company, provided that they meet the MOD's stringent safety and quality requirements.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings his Department has had with representatives of BAE Systems since June 2001. [62264]

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

  BAE Systems is the largest supplier of equipment to the United Kingdom armed forces. As such, the Ministry of Defence maintains an ongoing dialogue with the company at all levels on a wide range of strategic and equipment related issues.

  Gibraltar
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with EU partners regarding the future of the British base in Gibraltar. [58702]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no such discussions.

  Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [58703]
  38W
  Dr. Moonie
  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.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the Falkland Islands to discuss the security of the islands; and if he will make a statement. [58705]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falkland Islands in March this year and had discussions with the Governor and members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Council on a range of issues, including the security of the islands. I visited the islands last week to represent the Government at commemorations to mark the 20th anniversary of the conflict. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to the security of the Falkland Islands and to the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.

  Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Turkish/US/UK Joint Paper on the Rapid Reaction Force. [58775]

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

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 478W.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60916]

  Dr. Moonie
  Expenditure for press and advertising campaigns is spread among many different budgets and budget holders within the Ministry of Defence, and is not recorded centrally. However, outturn figures for advertising and publicity are published in the annual departmental performance report. Figures for financial year 2001–02 are currently being collated and will appear in the departmental performance report for 2001–02 which is due to be published later in the years.

  Forecast information for financial year 2002–03 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Suez Medal
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received in the past 12 months requesting that a medal be awarded for the 1951–54 Suez Canal Campaign; and if he will make a statement. [61265]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since 1 June 2001, the Ministry of Defence has received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members and the general public on the subject of a retrospective campaign medal for service in the Canal Zone during the period 1951 to 1954. From available records it has been determined that the Ministry of Defence has received at least:
  39W
  One parliamentary question for oral response, five parliamentary questions for written response, 122 letters from MPs on behalf of constituents and recorded as ministerial correspondence, two early-day motions, two Adjournment debates and four letters to a Defence Minister from other than a MP, which were answered direct by him or on his behalf by his office. The Ministry of Defence has also received 88 letters from members of the public which were variously addressed to the Prime Minister, a Defence Minister, or to the Queen and were answered by an official on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. A small number of veterans have written many times on this subject.

  National Rail Academy
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with(a) Railtrack, (b) Network Rail, (c) the Strategic Rail Authority and (d) the Rail Regulator for the Defence Rail Executive land at Bicester to be used for the National Rail Academy; and if he will make a statement; [61782]

  (2) what plans he has for the Defence Rail Executive to help with the setting up of the National Rail Academy; and if he will make a statement. [61779]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Rail Executive, which is responsible for the operation and provision of Defence Rail capability, is liaising with the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) regarding the potential for using assets and land at Bicester so support SRA plans to form a National Rail Academy. Discussions are at an early stage, and no commitment has been made.

  Service Accommodation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's personnel houses have been sold in(a) each of the last five years and (b) in 2002; and how many were sold (i) to private developers and (ii) to social landlords. [62429]

  Dr. Moonie
  Most of the Families Quarters estate in England and Wales was sold to a private company, Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) 1996, on a 999 year lease, and the Ministry of Defence leases back the houses required for service families. Properties for which the MOD has no long term requirement are handed back to AHL, under the terms of the sale agreement, for disposal. The means by which AHL chooses to dispose of the surplus properties they own is a matter over which the MOD has no influence. AHL rents out or sells the properties as a commercial organisation.

  The number of properties passed to AHL in England and Wales for the years in question are:

  Properties handed hack to AHL

  1997

  8

  1998

  1,375

  1999

  1,195

  2000

  2,688

  2001

  2,656

  2002

  1,890

  40W
  Some houses, including all family quarters in Scotland, are still owned by the MOD and disposals are handled by Defence Estates. The figures for such properties covering the whole of the UK are:

  Social landlords

  Other sales

  1997–98

  132

  569

  1998–99

  125

  325

  1999–2000

  35

  142

  2000–01

  395

  186

  2001–02

  148

  214

  20021

  4

  9

  1to date

  The figures include sales of MOD-owned houses apart from Family Quarters. "Other sales" include sales of individual houses to private purchasers.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's personnel housing units have been sold in the Twickenham constituency in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002 so far; to whom they were sold; for what purpose; and at what price. [62430]

  Dr. Moonie
  All the Service Families Accommodation in the Twickenham constituency, along with most of the Service housing in England and Wales, was sold to a private company, Annington Homes Limited, in November 1996. Ministry of Defence leases back from Annington the properties required for service families and these are administered and maintained by the Defence Housing Executive.

  Properties for which the MOD has no long term requirement are handed back to Annington under the terms of the sale agreement, for disposal. No service housing in Twickenham was released for disposal in 2000 or 2001, but 24 properties in the constituency were passed to Annington for disposal in March 2002. The MOD has no influence over the manner of disposal of these properties; whether they are rented out or sold is a commercial decision taken by Annington. If they are sold, the price is arrived at in consultation with local agents and in the context of the local housing market at the time of sale.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely preferred variant type of Joint Strike Fighter for the future aircraft carriers. [58677]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence is currently undertaking a detailed evaluation of the Short-Take-OW Vertical Landing and Carrier Variants of the Joint Strike Fighter to establish which would best meet our needs. A decision is planned to be taken by autumn this year and an announcement will then be made.

  Princess Royal Barracks
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from the families of soldiers killed at the Princess Royal Barracks at Deepcut, Surrey; and if he will make a statement. [62279]

  Dr. Moonie
  met with the family of the late Private Geoff Gray on 15 May 2002. A number of written representations from Mr. and Mrs. Gray have been received
  41W
  by Ministers and other right hon. and hon. Members. There have also been a number of other representations made by Members on behalf of constituents.

  The Surrey police investigation into the deaths of Private Geoff Gray and Private James Collinson is continuing. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  The deaths in 1995 of Private Sean Benton and Private Cheryl James have both been subject to coroner's inquests and Army Boards of Inquiry (BOI). Privates Benton and James' next of kin have received copies of the respective BOI reports.

  Powers of Arrest
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers of arrest military authorities will have in assisting civilian authorities in the event of a terrorist attack as described in 'The Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security'; and if he will make a statement. [62627]

  Mr. Hoon
  Except where specifically authorised by statute, the armed forces have no powers of arrest over and above those of an ordinary citizen. There are no proposals to add to existing armed forces powers. This does not, however, rule out the possibility of the armed forces being asked by the police for assistance in maintaining law and order.

  'The Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security' discussion document proposes that the Reserves should play a greater role than is currently the case in support of the police and the civil authorities. They would do so at the request of the police and in close co-operation with them.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the submission of his Department to the War Pensions Appeal Tribunal in the case of Mr. Shaun Rusling, with an explanation for the change in description of his illness from Gulf War Syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [61872]

  Dr. Moonie
  As the papers submitted by Veterans Agency to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal contain details of personal and medical information relating to Mr. Rusling it would not he appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to publish them. I am therefore withholding them in accordance with Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Mr. Rusling was sent a copy of these papers prior to the tribunal hearing.

  Decisions on war pensions are medically certified and aim to reflect case specific facts, the relevant standard or proof and contemporary medical understanding.

  Mr. Rusling first claimed war disablement pension in December 1993 for post-traumatic stress disorder and "Gulf Syndrome", described as a list of non-specific symptoms. Various disorders/symptoms were certified as attributable to service with an award paid but "Gulf Syndrome" was rejected as "not found".

  In December 1996 Mr. Rusling appealed against the rejection of "Gulf Syndrome". Mr. Rusling's case was governed by the relevant war pensions legislation which
  42W
  requires disablement to be accepted unless it can be shown "beyond reasonable doubt" that there is no service link. His case was reviewed and to reflect then emerging evidence and medical understanding of Gulf illness and the war pension standard of proof, the rejected "Gulf Syndrome" was replaced by the WHO International Classification of Diseases 10th ed. diagnostic category, Signs, Symptoms and ill-defined Conditions. This included the symptoms previously claimed under "Gulf Syndrome". Mr. Rusling's award of war disablement pension was increased accordingly. Mr. Rusling was notified of the details of the decision at that time.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf war veterans have been awarded war pensions for(a) chronic fatigue and (b) post viral fatigue syndromes. [61807]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 13 June 2002, 114 war pension awards in respect of chronic fatigue syndrome and three in respect of post viral fatigue syndrome have been made to Gulf war veterans.

  Sri Lankan War Veterans
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government plans to(a) reward financially Sri Lankan soldiers who took part in the Second World War and (b) otherwise assist financially surviving Ceylonese War veterans. [62654]

  Dr. Moonie
  We acknowledge the valuable role played by Sri Lankan veterans in the Second World War. However, we have no plans to provide financial assistance or recognition. Responsibility for the welfare of such veterans passed to the Government of Sri Lanka when the country became independent.

  BioReliance
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact was made between his Department and BioReliance after the visit of his Department's officials in late 2001. [57315]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: Following the visit by representatives from Dstl Porton Down and the Medical Supplies Agency to BioReliance on 4 December 2001, contact with BioReliance in the form of a series of e-mails was instigated by Dstl Porton Down on 14 January 2002.

  There has been no contact between BioReliance and Dstl Porton Down since that date.

  Bullying
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many payments he has made in the past three years to members and former members of HM Armed Forces in compensation for ill-treatment, bullying or harassment experienced while serving; and what the total cost was in each year. [59694]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to the answer 10 June 2002, c. 743]: The table given in the answer was printed under the wrong headings. The correct answer is reprinted.
  43W
  The number of claims settled and the total amounts paid in the past three years to members and former members of HM Armed Forces in compensation for ill-treatment,

  Year

  Bullying/ill treatment

  Sexual harassment

  Racial harassment

  1999–2000

  9 claims settled, £34,533 paid

  2 claims settled, £31,000 paid

  No claims settled

  2000–01

  6 claims settled, £49,165 paid

  3 claims settled. £15,000 paid

  1 claim settled, £50,000 paid

  2001–02

  17 claims settled, £132,373 paid

  1 claim settled, £37,500 paid

  I claim settled, £20.000 paid

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if the Government issues policy guidelines to the Committee on the Grant of Honours. Decorations and Medals; and to whom it is accountable; [59829]

  (2) when he expects Sir Richard Wilson's review of the case for the award of a medal for veterans of the Suez campaign 1951–54 to report; [59828]

  (3) what the terms of reference are of Sir Richard Wilson's review of the case for the award of a medal for veterans of the Suez campaign 1951–54. [59827]

  The Prime Minister
  The terms of reference of the Committee are to consider general questions relative to the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals; to review the scales of award, both civil and military, from time to time, to consider questions of new awards, and changes in the conditions governing existing awards.

  The Committee is the permanent standing committee to which the sovereign looks for advice about the honours system. It is chaired by the Secretary of the Cabinet, and its members are certain permanent secretaries and the private secretaries to the sovereign and the Prime Minister.

  The Committee of Honours and Medals is aware of the past history of the case and of the representations currently being made for a medal. It is considering these representations very carefully.

  China
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met the Chinese(a) Premier and (b) President to discuss Tibet. [59596]

  The Prime Minister
  I raised Tibet with the Chinese Premier, Zhu Rongji, during his visit to the UK in March/April 1998 and with President Jiang Zemin during his visit to the UK in October 1999. I also discussed Tibet with Vice President Hu Jintao when we met on 29 October last year.

  The Government remain of the view that a long-term political solution in Tibet can only be found through dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Tibetan people, including the Dalai Lama. We continue to urge the Chinese to develop such a dialogue, at both ministerial and official level, including at our biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue, the last round of which took place in Beijing on 15 May.
  44W
  bullying or harassment experience while serving are set out in the table.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on giving up Britain's seat on the United Nations Security Council in favour of collective representation by the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [60586]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the Charter of the United Nations only states may be members of the organisation. Therefore, a Security Council seat for the European Union would not be possible. The responsibility and duty of permanent membership of the UN Security Council is accepted by the United Kingdom and welcomed by its partners and allies.

  European Commission
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the call by the President of the European Commission that Britain should give up its place on the IMF and G7 to a representative of the Commission; and if he will make a statement. [60585]

  The Prime Minister
  The Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund are based on the principle of membership by and representation of national Governments. Membership of the G78 is also based on this principle. The European Commission is not represented at the Board of Governors of the IMF, although does participate in G78 meetings on some issues. While the Government will continue to cooperate with European Union partners, and others, to promote growth, stability and poverty reduction world wide, the UK does not support a role for the Commission as the sole representative of the European Union in the IMF and G7.

  Social Issues
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the report prepared by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Social Issues in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [60777]

  The Prime Minister
  We are carefully studying the concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We will take the committee's views into account when we submit our next periodic report and point out to them any inaccuracies in their latest conclusions. The UK has an excellent record of co-operation with UN mechanisms and takes its international obligations very seriously. We will continue to fulfil our reporting obligations under UN human rights treaties we are party to.

  Sport
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish its report on the future of sport; and if he will make a statement. [61290]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's joint study with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport examining long-term sports policy will be published in due course.

  Former President Mandela
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet former President Mandela to discuss his visit to Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow and meeting with Abdul Bassett al Megrahi. [61135]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I have no current plans for a meeting with former President Mandela.

  Beef Imports
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the French President; and if he will raise the issue of the ban imposed by the French Government on imports of beef from the UK. [61328]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to meet the French President shortly. The Government continue to make it clear to the French Government that their ban on UK beef exported under the Date-based Export Scheme is illegal and should be lifted immediately.

  Regulatory Reform
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have direct responsibility for regulatory reform within each Government Department. [61335]

  The Prime Minister
  Each Department involved in regulatory activity has a Minister who is charged with removing any regulations that are outdated or burdensome, and ensuring that new regulations are truly necessary and involve the least burden to business.

  The current Ministers are: Dr. Kim Howells MP (Department for Culture, Media and Sport); Lord Whitty (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs); Lord Hunt of Kings (Department of Health); Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Home Office); Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lord Chancellor's Department); Nigel Griffiths MP (Department of Trade and Industry); John Spellar MP (Department for Transport) Dawn Primarolo MP (HM Treasury); Ian McCartney MP (Department for Work and Pensions).

  The Ministers for the Department for Education and Skills and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster have yet to be decided following the recent reallocation of ministerial duties.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the correspondence between the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office concerning the special 46W
  adviser to the Secretary of State for Defence to which he referred at Prime Minister's questions on 12 June; and if he will make a statement. [62410]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the answers I gave the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) on 12 June 2002,Official Report, columns 858–59.

  Rail Summit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the attendees at the rail summit he held on 28 May. [62574]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of the sea bed disposal of radioactive waste from the United Kingdom in the Hurd Deep near the Channel Islands were discussed during his visit to Jersey on 14 June. [62082]

  The Prime Minister
  This issue was not raised during my visit.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure the continued operation of the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine in Edinburgh. [59298]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine is part of the University of Edinburgh and is reliant on funding from a wide range of sources for both research and training. DEFRA is not a significant funder of CTVM. DEFRA is interested in aspects of veterinary training and funds Veterinary Fellowship programmes at three Veterinary Schools—including one at Edinburgh. We are awaiting the Royal Society Inquiry report which may make recommendations about training.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of farms with countryside stewardship scheme agreements have had their scheme compliance checked during the first year of the agreement by farm visits from her Department's Rural Development Service. [60672]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Payments Agency is responsible for carrying out compliance inspections of countryside stewardship agreements in accordance with EU requirements. EU rules require at least 5 per cent. of agreements to be inspected and selected using a risk based selection criteria. The risk based selection criteria is not specifically related to the year of agreement.
  47W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of countryside stewardship agreements the Rural Payments Agency has visited in each year since the scheme began. [60671]

  Mr. Morley
  The Rural Development Regulation requires member states to undertake on-the-spot compliance checks on at least 5 per cent. of agreements each year. Between 1996 and 2000, just over 5 per cent. of agreements were subject to such checks by MAFF staff each year. The Rural Payments Agency assumed responsibility for these checks in April 2001, after the Regional Service Centres of MAFF were disbanded. Since then, no compliance checks have been undertaken on Countryside Stewardship agreements. The foot and mouth epidemic prevented Agency staff undertaking any checks during the majority of the last calendar year and the early part of 2002. Arrangements for resuming checks on Countryside Stewardship agreements are well advanced.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 654W, on the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, if she will outline how the risk-based selection system works; and what monitoring is in place to identify risks. [60674]

  Mr. Morley
  Risk selection of on-the-spot compliance checks is laid down in the Rural Development regulation, which requires member states to take account of the following factors:the amount of aid involved;
  the number of agricultural parcels and the area or number of animals for which aid is requested;
  changes from the previous years;
  the findings of checks made in past years;
  cases of non-compliance:
  those farmers who are either just above or just below ceilings or limits relevant for the granting of aids;
  replacement of animals.

  Data on risk factors are accumulated for each agreement and fed into a selection programme, which identifies the requisite number of agreements to be inspected for each year's compliance monitoring round. A proportion—currently 75 per cent. to 80 per cent.—of the total number of agreements selected for compliance checks are identified through this risk selection process. The remainder are randomly selected, as required by the Rural Development regulation.

  Ragwort
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if ragwort is covered by the Injurious Weeds Act 1959. [60679]

  Mr. Morley
  I can confirm that common ragwort is one of the five injurious weeds covered by the Weeds Act 1959.

  Biosecurity (South Korea)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice on biosecurity she has issued to British tourists visiting South Korea. [60269]
  48W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 20021: We have increased the number and improved the locations of posters explaining our import controls at the major UK airports. The Football Association agreed to target football fans travelling to the World Cup with advice about the risk of importing foot and mouth disease from South Korea. These initiatives are part of our work to increase public awareness of the current regulations and their importance.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has given to port health officers about the risks of foot and mouth disease being introduced to the United Kingdom by(a) travellers and (b) goods from South Korea. [60270]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We have notified enforcement authorities and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in South Korea so that they take this into consideration when undertaking checks of cargo and passenger baggage. On, 22 May, enforcement officers' search powers were extended to include personal baggage and all commercial containers, whether or not described as food.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken by HM Customs and Excise to reduce the risk of foot and mouth disease being brought into the United Kingdom by travellers from South Korea. [60273]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: HM Customs and Excise support the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and their enforcement agencies in their implementation of import controls designed to protect animal and human health. Customs staff have been alerted to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in South Korea and have been directed to bring any consignments discovered in Customs checks to the attention of the appropriate local health officials.

  Icebergs
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the hazards to shipping, (b) the impact of global warming and (c) changes in sea levels in connection with the floating away of iceberg numbers (i) C19 and (ii) C10 from Antarctica. [58214]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: C19 broke away from the west Antarctic in the last few weeks and is currently drifting slowly north. C10 broke away about five years ago and is currently located at approximately 64 degrees south, 99 east.

  There is an obvious risk to navigation, especially when we consider that a vessel undertaking a "great circle" sailing in the southern ocean will be drawn into high latitudes. However, the risk is minimised by knowledge of the location, size and movement of the icebergs from satellite remote sensing devices, the provision of Maritime Safety Information (MSI) services to ensure that mariners are aware of the danger and the contribution from modern navigation systems.
  49W
  The breaking away of C10 and C19 will not have an impact on global warming. While the break-up of ice shelves is consistent with a warmer world, it is still not clear the degree to which global warming has contributed to the recent break-up of parts of the Antarctic ice shelf.

  C10 and C19 will not cause sea levels to change as the ice was floating in the sea prior to breaking off the ice shelf.

  Departmental Policies (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the activities pursued by her Department that have had a particular impact on the Isle of Wight since 7 June 2001. [57675]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: 'FMD Signposts to Recovery' conference, held (in Berkshire) at the end of June 2001, covered the Isle of Wight interests. This was one of two seminars held in the regions to assist rural businesses in the recovery process from the impacts of foot and mouth disease and the precautionary measures required to contain it. Conference was targeted at advisers and advisory organisations in public and private sectors that regularly provide support, advice or information to rural businesses. Organised from Government Office South East for DEFRA, with, SEEDA (Regional Development Agency), Countryside Agency, SE Tourist Board, NFU and Farm Crisis Network, et.al. Information was provided on a variety of Government sponsored resources from Departments, agencies and partner organisations, e.g. Rural Business Recovery Fund, Farm Business Advisory Service, Countryside Agency Grants etc.

  A seminar on 'Planning and Rural Diversification' was held in January 2002 to cover the two counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (held at Sparsholt College near Winchester). Representatives from the Isle of Wight Unitary Authority as the local planning authority were invited to attend. There were four seminars held in total across the region, in a series resulting from the Government's Action Plan for Farming. The seminars focused on farm diversification and rural business development issues and brought together relevant partners at the regional and local level, to take account of regional needs and variations.

  The Isle of Wight adopted its unitary development plan in May 2001, which had received input from the former MAFF. Any further input on behalf of DEFRA for a review will be made through the Government Office for the South East (GOSE), in conjunction with the interests of other Departments. Some dialogue is expected in respect of implementing national Planning Policy Guidance, notably PPG3 on housing and PPG7 which sets out the Government's objectives for rural areas.

  The South East Rural Affairs Forum has been set up following recommendations in the Rural White Paper. The First meeting of the Group was on the 15 April in Guildford. This Forum gives the opportunity for Rural Stakeholders across the South East to give their views on how rural policy is being delivered in the region. Cllr Harry Rees is a member, who is also a Member of the Isle of Wight Council Executive and other local bodies on the Island.
  50W
  The Countryside Agency, English Nature, Forestry Commission and other Agencies sponsored by DEFRA work with the Isle of Wight AONB which covers a third of the Island. Representatives of the Government Office for the South East Department have attended meetings of the Joint Action Committee on behalf of DEFRA to contribute to the action programme of the AONB.

  Applications for the England rural Development Programme (ERDP) have been received from within the Island constituency. There have been four successful Rural Enterprise scheme projects agreed to date and one Vocational Training Scheme project. There are over 70 hectares supported under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. There are currently seven countryside Stewardship Scheme agreements covering collectively over 225 hectares Approximately 67 ha. are managed with the benefit of Organic Farming Scheme payments.

  Clinics for the promotion of good quality applications under the ERDP are held regularly by the DEFRA Rural Development Service in Reading and Guildford, and have been attended recently by potential applicants from the Isle of Wight who are bringing forward new schemes for rural development.

  In addition to the ERDP there are continuing CAP payments supporting most farms in the constituency.

  Under the Market Towns Initiative a partnership development programme for the Island has recently been supported, including information and advice on Rural White Paper policies in the context of the developing Local Strategic Partnership, and the Vital Villages grant scheme run by the Countryside Agency.

  The Isle of Wight is one of five areas in the South East region that has been awarded new funding under the LEADER+ programme, with European Union support, for experimental development of rural projects and community initiatives. The Local Action Group is currently preparing its plans, under the DEFRA national guidance and with local contracts at the Government Office for the region.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to protect fisheries in British inshore waters from January 2003; and if she will make a statement. [60157]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: I welcome the Commission's proposal to renew without any time limitation the current access arrangements for the six and twelve mile limits and their statement that these provisions have reduced fishing pressure in the most biologically-sensitive areas of the sea and provided economic stability for small-scale fishing activity. The proposal would apply from 1 January 2003 and a decision is due to be taken by the Fisheries Council during the course of this year's review of the Common Fisheries Policy. There remains a consensus among Member States in favour of renewing the limits.

  Wildlife Projects
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent, by project, on the Flagship Species Fund in 2001–02. [61170]
  51W
  Mr. Meacher
  In November 2001, the Department allocated £80,000 to the Flagship Species Fund, to be run by Fauna & Flora International. A total of £70,500 was allocated to nine projects, of which £54,455 has already been spent and the remainder will be spent in the next few months. The grants are as follows.
  Vietnam Primates
  £20,000 towards the conservation of endangered primate species in a National Park in Vietnam, including a feasibility study on mechanisms to establish a community-based ecotourism project.
  Ecuador Spider Monkey
  £15,000 for the conservation of a threatened spider monkey in northwest Ecuador through production of an Action Plan and a series of community-designed conservation awareness materials.
  Pau Brasil
  £8,000 for an educational campaign to support the conservation of Brazil's endangered national tree.
  Mexican Oaks
  £8,000 for the development of conservation initiatives for over 30 oak species that are threatened with extinction in Mexico.
  Bushmeat
  £7,500 to build a guard post to monitor the trade in bushmeat between Nigeria and Cameroon.
  Philippine Teak
  £4,000 for a conservation programme to re-establish a stable natural population of Philippine teak.
  Nigeria
  £4,000 for the conservation of forests in the Taraba and Adamawa States
  Russia
  £2,500 for the conservation of two threatened bat species Thailand
  £1,500 for the conservation of the endangered Siamese crocodile.

  £9,500 has been used towards the administration costs of the Flagship Species Fund. The Fund has already attracted donations totalling £100,000 from BP and Rio Tinto. Negotiations are continuing with a number of other potential corporate sponsors.

  Scientific Working Group on Wild Birds and Nature Conservation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library the minutes relating to the Scientific Working Group on Wild Birds and Nature Conservation. [61164]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I understand this question to relate to the Scientific Working Group which supports the ORNIS Committee which assists the European Commission in an advisory capacity on a range of issues concerning implementation of the EC Wild Birds Directive. This committee is supported by a Scientific Working Group which acts in a consultative capacity on technical matters.

  Any requests for documents produced by the European Commission, including requests for the minutes of the Scientific Working Group, should be made directly to the European Commission. As part of a wider process, the Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Fly Tipping
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many convictions for fly tipping have been obtained in each of the last five years. [56971]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Local authorities and the Environment Agency may prosecute for fly tipping offences. Between 1996 and 2001, the agency recorded prosecutions for general waste offences on a financial year basis. The data do not distinguish fly tipping offences from other waste offences. From 1 April 1999, the agency recorded whether an incident involves the unlawful deposit of waste and whether prosecutions led to convictions or acquittals. This information is given in the tables. No central register is kept of local authorities' prosecutions.

  Prosecutions (England and Wales)

  General waste offences

  Unlawful deposit of waste1

  1996–97

  241

  —

  1997–98

  345

  —

  1998–99

  367

  —

  1999–2000

  342

  219

  2000–01

  439

  225

  2001–02

  —

  264

  Convictions (England and Wales)

  Unlawful deposit of waste1

  1999–2000

  211

  2000–01

  210

  2001–02

  253

  1Prosecutions under section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with district councils about fly-tipping; and if she will make a statement. [60098]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: I have had no recent discussions with district councils specifically about fly tipping. However, these councils are represented by the Local Government Association on the fly tipping stakeholders' forum. The forum, chaired by the Environment Agency, provides an important channel for views on fly tipping to be shared anmong a range of stakeholders, including Government.

  I also attended recently the all party waste group's seminar on environmental crime, which discussed fly tipping, and which was attended by representatives from a number of local authorities.

  Fridges
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what extra funding she is providing to local authorities to deal with the disposal of fridges; when this extra funding will become available; and if she will make a statement. [62561]

  Mr. Meacher
  In December 2001, we announced a payment of £6 million to go to local authorities to cover their costs up until March 2002 for the disposal of
  53W
  refrigerators. We realise local authorities are in need of further funding and intend to make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the compatibility of the Government's commitments concerning the EC Nitrates Directive made in the Action Plan for Farming of March 2000 and the proposal made in her recent consultation document on the Nitrates Directive. [62086]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are fully committed to minimising the extra burden on farmers, consistent with its legal responsibilities. Particular action that we have taken to implement the commitments set out in the Action Programme for Farming of March 2000 includes:Consultation, through the consultation document "How should England implement the 1991 Nitrates Directive?". We are currently carefully considering all the issues raised in the responses to this consultation and will shortly announce which approach will be adopted.
  Development of implementation support for farmers through working with stakeholder organisations to prepare workable guidance and advice, including updates to a series of free guideline booklets for farmers.
  Giving farmers time to prepare for implementation through bringing the Action Programme measures into effect within the new areas on 19 December 2002. As a result, the first closed period, during which the spreading of manures is prohibited, will not be until August 2003.
  We continue to operate a derogation which allows a higher limit than that set in the Directive for spreading nitrates on grassland. Steps are being taken to secure this derogation at EU level.
  The grant rate under the Farm Waste Grant Scheme was increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. of eligible expenditure on 30 November 2000.
  The Government conducted bilateral meetings with member states and found that there is very little support for re-negotiating the requirements of the Nitrates Directive because of the widely held perception that re-examination of scientific evidence will result in tighter legislation.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to commission and publish a veterinary risk assessment of the greater inter-farm movements of manure arising from the proposals in the Government's consultation document on nitrate vulnerable zones. [61594]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no plans at present to undertake a veterinary risk assessment of the inter-farm movement of manure arising from implementing the Nitrates Directive, as such movements already take place and the veterinary risks are addressed in existing guidance for farmers. The general principles of decreasing the risk of spreading disease while transporting manure are included in the free guidance booklets "Guidelines for farmers in NVZs" and "Manure Planning in NVZs" which we intend to send to all farmers newly affected by the Nitrates Directive. They are:

  (1) maintaining a leak and spillage proof vehicle;

  (2) ensuring that the exterior of the vehicle is clean before leaving the farm;

  54W

  (3) spreading manure on arable land or grassland used for forage conservation where possible;

  (4) storing and spreading the manure as per recommendations of codes of good practice.

  EU Meeting (Mallorca)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 21 May 2002.Official Report, column 200W, if she will list the commitments that (a) the UK and (b) the European Union undertook and the timetable for meeting them. [62171]

  Mr. Meacher
  Neither the UK nor the European Union undertook any commitments at the informal meeting of Environment Ministers on 24–26 May in Mallorca. The presidency produced their own conclusions from the discussions on soil protection, which are as follows.

  The Commission adopted their communication "Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" on 16 April 2002, and this formed the background to the discussion at Mallorca. Member states have been considering both the communication and the Mallorca discussion in the Council working group and are likely to adopt conclusions at the June Environment Council to steer the Commission's development of the strategy.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what percentage of(a) large, (b) small, (c) medium and (d) micro businesses have succeeded in NVQ implementation in each of the last 10 years in rural areas. [60863]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information, in the form requested, is not collected centrally. However, the total number of NVQ certificates awarded since their introduction in 1988 is 3,568,046.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the application of the working time directive to fishermen. [61502]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Fatigue is a factor in many fishing vessel accidents. My Department is working with the fishing industry to ensure the sensible implementation of the directive.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the costs to British fishermen of complying with the working time directive. [61503]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My officials are discussing the implementation of the directive with the sea-fishing industry. Because of the nature of the fishing industry in the UK, it is not anticipated that the directive will impose unreasonable financial burdens.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  IT Contracts
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the total expenditure of his Department on IT systems and support in each year from May 1997 to date; how many IT contracts have been let in each of those years; of the other main

  £

  IT support1

  IT goods2

  IT contracts3

  Total

  May 1997 to April 1998

  1,935,324

  2,060,607

  834,804

  4,830,735

  May 1998 to April 1999

  1,834,625

  2,367,885

  1,539,290

  5,741,800

  May 1999 to April 2000

  2,865,038

  2,703,506

  1,001,945

  6,570,489

  May 2000 to April 2001

  1,801,077

  7,646,706

  1,525,558

  10,973.341

  May 20014

  1,194,532

  8,093,482

  1,040,412

  10,328,426

  1Including salaries

  2And services

  3Contracts including maintenance

  4To date

  It is not possible to say without a disproportionate effort where the registered offices of the various companies are based.

  CDC
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she has exercised the powers conferred by the retention of a golden share in the CDC to direct the investment strategy towards the needs of poorer nations. [34757]

  Clare Short
  CDC's investment policy is focused on poorer developing countries, and cannot be changed without the approval of the Special Shareholder.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to her Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed; [59967]

  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to her Department; and what assistance is given by officials in her Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59990]

  Clare Short
  We have made no such appointments.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the public consultations undertaken by her Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60148]

  Clare Short
  Since July 2001 the Department for International Development has completed one public consultation process on a strategy paper for achieving the Millennium Development Goal on hunger. The Department received(a) 119 written replies, which represented (b) about 10 per cent. of those specifically consulted. More than 1,000 people, in the United
  56W
  contracting party in each of those contracts, how many have been (a) companies whose registered office is in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland and (b) foreign companies; and what are the names of the companies falling within category (a). [33675]

  Clare Short
  The total expenditure by my Department on IT systems and support in each year since May 1997 to date is shown in the table.

  Kingdom and internationally, were sent copies of the consultation paper, which was also placed on the DFID website.

  The Department is carrying out three further public consultations on policy papers on: "Energy for the Poor"; "Better Livelihoods for Poor People, the Role of Agriculture"; and "Infrastructure for Poverty Reduction". Responses to these consultations are still being received.

  The Department pursues more focused consultation exercises with outside bodies and experts on particular issues. Recent examples include a strategy for the Department's partnership with the World Health Organisation, and a policy paper on research for poverty reduction. The Department is also participating in a joint international consultation exercise with the World bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the European Commission on policies for linking poverty reduction with environmental management.

  The Department regularly makes available, via its website and through parliamentary and 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. Delegations also regularly consult representatives of civil society during the course of such meetings.

  The Department is currently engaged in its third round of development policy forums across the UK, to share thinking and ideas on key development issues. Over 2,000 representatives from across society—including from NGOs, trade unions, private sector, faith organisations and universities—are participating in the 11 forums in 2002, which are focusing on globalisation and its potential to reduce world poverty. Specifically, participants are debating the themes of trade, environment and the private sector.

  Africa
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes have taken place in the Government's policy and aims for development in Africa since 1 October 2001; and what action her Department has taken with regard to Africa since that date. [61400]

  Clare Short
  DFID's aim is the elimination of poverty. The framework for our action is set out in the 1997 and 2000 White Papers and the recent International Development Act. The UN Millennium Development Goals are the main yardsticks against which we continue to measure progress towards this aim.

  At the country level we believe progress towards development goals is principally the responsibility of African Governments, in partnership with the donor community. The international community is working with developing countries, including in Sub-Saharan Africa, to promote country-led and participatory poverty reduction strategy processes. These processes are intended to develop coherent national policies, agree priorities, and help to develop an institutional framework in which Governments can be held to account by their own citizens and stakeholders. The role of donors is to provide financial and technical support to enhance Governments' capacity to develop and implement these strategies.

  Last October the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) was formally launched. This is one of the most important initiatives to come from Africa in recent years, and has been strongly welcomed by the Government. We are currently working to try to ensure that the response to NEPAD from the international community is both positive and sustained. In particular, we are working within the G8 to develop an Action Plan for Africa which focuses on the key areas of conflict resolution, aid, debt, health, education and trade.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of people at risk of starvation in each country in sub-Saharan Africa; what steps her Department is taking to assist people at risk of starvation in each country in sub-Saharan Africa suffering food shortages; how much money her Department is allocating for humanitarian relief in each of the countries; and how much the spend on these countries has increased since the last financial year. [62091]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working with the international community and African Governments both to assess the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa who are hungry and to build capacity to assess vulnerability. FAO estimates from 1997 indicate that around 187 million people in sub-Saharan Africa do not have enough food. Excluding the on-going conflict in Angola, the immediate emerging crisis is in southern Africa where around 13 million people in six countries are estimated to be unlikely to grow or buy enough food by next March. My Department has recently published a strategy paper "Eliminating Hunger". This sets out our strategy to meet the millennium development goal for hunger and is relevant to the current problems in Africa. Humanitarian relief is only one part of our response, as the principal cause of hunger and starvation in Africa is poverty and the failure of institutions and Governments to provide for the poor and 58W
  vulnerable and react to natural disaster. In the last complete financial year (2000–01) my Department provided £632 million to sub-Saharan Africa. Included within this figure was £44 million for humanitarian assistance. This represents an increase of 31 per cent. in funds allocated to sub-Saharan Africa from the previous financial year. In addition to this, DFID is providing £58 million specifically to help address the current crisis in southern Africa. It is, unfortunately, not possible to provide more detailed figures of the assessments of hunger and humanitarian expenditure in each country in southern Africa without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to help alleviate the famine crisis in southern Africa; and if she will make a statement. [62083]

  Clare Short
  In addition to the £13 million already allocated to direct support for food import and distribution in Malawi and Zimbabwe, we have recently committed £45 million for further support through the World Food Programme and NGOs for food distribution and inputs for the next planting season in Zimbabwe, Malawi Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. These funds will also support information gathering and co-ordination. As well as making our national response, we are working with the relevant UN and regional organisations to ensure that policies are in place to allow commercial and aid imports to flow freely; and we are urging the Zimbabwe authorities through the UN to adopt measures to strengthen the national response in that country.

  We have also provided £2.4 million for humanitarian aid in Angola this year.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she has taken(a) to provide food, (b) to support agriculture and (c) to combat HIV/AIDS in (i) Lesotho, (ii) Mozambique and (iii) Zambia; and what action she has taken to reduce trade barriers with (A) Lesotho, (B) Mozambique and (C) Zambia. [62426]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows.

  Food Aid

  In Lesotho DFID will be providing £1.5 million to the WFP emergency programme and another additional £1.0 million to support the longer-term rehabilitation of agriculture in the three worst affected districts. Mozambique has a surplus of maize in the north, although logistics and traditional trading patterns will result in most of this surplus being exported to adjacent countries mainly Malawi. Several donors are already funding food relief where it is needed in the south. DFID is assessing the needs, but it is likely that we can add more value in Mozambique by assisting with the management of food aid or by focusing on agricultural inputs to improve food security for the next harvest. At the moment we are not engaged in food aid in Zambia.

  Agriculture

  In Lesotho, we are supporting a three year Agricultural Policy and Capacity building Programme (£750,000) in collaboration with other donors to restructure the Ministry of Agriculture and improve its operational effectiveness. We are providing support to CARE (£1.9 million) in two districts where they have been developing a more appropriate extension model that meets the needs of the

  59W
  rural people and empower households and communities. We are providing support to a Pilot Agro-forestry Programme (£214,130), to strengthen the capacity of small-scale nurseries.

  DFID is a key supporter of the Mozambique Government's sector programme in agriculture, ProAgri, which seeks to promote growth and poverty reduction by creating a dynamic agricultural sector. We have also been working for some years with NGOs in agricultural development in Zambezia Province. Much of the impact of the very successful feeder roads programme in Zambezia has also been felt in the agricultural sector, where transport and access to markets are key constraints on growth.

  In Zambia we have provided support for civil society groups working in the drought-prone southern province.

  HIV/AIDS

  DFID has committed £7.6 million over five years to fund a Regional HIV/AIDS Programme channelled through the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Health Sector Co-ordinating Unit (HSCU), specifically earmarked for Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho and Namibia. The programme focuses on developing the capacity within each country and across the region to mount an effective response to the epidemic. The initiative complements an EU funded programme also channelled through the SADC HSCU which is to benefit all member states.

  Mozambique's national HIV prevalence is 12.2 per cent. 1.1 million people are HIV positive. DFID supports the Mozambique National AIDS Council in its multisectoral response (£3.8 million); supports key civil society organisations (£7.6 million), and is supporting the Government to work with young people in and out of school to prevent HIV infection. We are working with the Ministry of Health to provide a broader health sector response to HIV/AIDS (£1.85 million). Jointly with other donors, we are currently providing additional support (£25 million) to the health sector and this funds a significant proportion of Mozambique's essential medicines requirements.

  In Zambia the main support to date has been through the health and education sectors, however, DFID is currently preparing a programme that will provide an additional £20 million to support the national strategic framework.

  Trade

  Considerable DFID effort is allocated towards trade capacity building for developing countries and lobbying for greater market access with EU member states and with the WTO.

  Lesotho, as a member of the Southern African Customs University is part of the recently agreed SACU Free Trade Agreement, it is also a recipient of the Cotonou Agreement trade preferences. DFID has offered support to Lesotho in trade policy negotiations and capacity building through the Africa Trade and Poverty Programme.

  Mozambique and Zambia as least developed countries, both benefit from duty and quota free access for their products into the UK under the EU 'Everything But Arms' initiative, the introduction of which the UK Government strongly supported. They also benefit from the Cotonou
  60W
  Agreement. DFID is working with the Governments in these countries in ways that will help them take advantage of these and new market opportunities.

  Food Strategies
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether an agreed strategy has been reached by OECD countries, the World Food Programme and NGOs, both international and local, on the food strategies affecting southern Africa which take into account the region's political and economic dynamics. [61082]

  Clare Short
  Agreement was reached at a meeting in Johannesburg on 6–7 June on a series of short-term measures to improve availability of food in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland in the period to the next harvest, including commercial food imports, food aid, winter cropping and inputs for the next main planting season.

  The meeting also dealt with the particular problems of Zimbabwe, which accounts for over half of the region's food aid needs. Donors wish to continue supporting the people of Zimbabwe who have been so badly let down by the policies of the ruling party. They are prepared to continue funding food distribution through non-governmental channels, but it is clear that this can only provide part of the solution and that Government must take steps to allow greater participation in the import effort and make the necessary adjustments in economic policy for this to be effective.

  In the longer term food security must be addressed through country level poverty reduction strategies which we are supporting in four of the six countries considered at the meeting.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work her Department is undertaking to ensure that there is(a) accurate information on the country specific food shortages in southern Africa and (b) adequate co-ordination of the humanitarian operation at both national and regional levels in southern Africa. [61087]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the relevant UN organisations and NGOs operating in the region. The main source of information at present is the series of crop and food supply assessments carried out by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Food Programme (available on www.fao.org). We are supporting continuing vulnerability and nutritional assessments to ensure information is available at sub-national level.

  The World Food Programme has set up a unit in Johannesburg to manage the use of transport and regional supplies and to co-ordinate the international effort. We will provide financial and personnel support for the unit.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources her Department will allocate to combat the food shortages in Southern Africa; and what time scale these resources win be intended to cover. [61088]

  Clare Short
  In addition to the £13 million already allocated to direct support for food import and distribution in Malawi and Zimbabwe, we have recently committed £45 million for further support through the World Food
  61W
  Programme and NGOs for food distribution and inputs for the next planting season in Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland. This will be spent up to March 2003; the amount will be reviewed in the light of emerging needs and responses from others.

  We have also provided £2.4 million for humanitarian aid in Angola this year.

  Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had since January 2001 with UN and EU representatives regarding the global clean water supply. [61190]

  Clare Short
  I have had no direct discussions on this matter with UN and EU representatives since January 2001. However, I have worked on this issue with my officials who are in regular contact on water supply, sanitation and water resources issues with counterparts in EU member states, the EC and relevant UN organisations.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on plans to liberalise water services. [61933]

  Clare Short
  1.1 billion people lack access to safe and affordable water supply and 2.4 billion lack access to sanitation. In developing countries poor people often pay far more than the better off for their water. We are committed to improving access to safe and affordable water supply and sanitation services. Partnerships involving the public and private sectors and civil society will be essential to achieve this. Our focus is to support the structuring of these partnerships in a way that responds to the needs of, and ensures benefits for, poor people through pro-poor contracts, good regulatory frameworks, and appropriate tariff structures.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government have taken since 1997 to increase access to clean water in the Third World; and if she will make a statement. [61189]

  Clare Short
  My Department is committed to the Millennium Development Goal of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water, and to a complementary target for access to improved sanitation.

  DFID has an extensive programme of engagement in water supply, sanitation and water resources management through our bilateral support to developing countries. In 2000–01 DFID spent £90.6 million on improving access to water services, an increase of 7 per cent. on the previous year. At an international level we are actively engaged in encouraging policies and practices that will ensure that poor people benefit from improved access to water and sanitation services. DFID's priorities are set out in our strategy paper "Addressing the Water Crisis—Healthier and More Productive Lives for Poor People", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas Party; and how many people attended. [61654]
  62W
  Clare Short: DFID did not hold a departmental staff Christmas party in 2001.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61824]

  Clare Short
  With the exception of those details available publicly in DOD's Parliamentary Companion, none.

  Development Council
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome of the Development Council held on 30 May was; and if she will make a statement. [62896]

  Clare Short
  At its meeting on 30 May, the Development Council, by consensus:agreed conclusions on the external dimension of EU Sustainable Development Strategy and preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development;
  agreed procedural conclusions welcoming a proposal to define a common EU approach to democracy and governance in developing countries;
  debated the reform of EC Development Assistance and the Programme of Action 2002;
  agreed a declaration reaffirming its support for the work of UNFPA; and
  agreed joint resolutions with member states on education and training in the context of poverty reduction in developing countries, and on health and poverty reduction in developing countries; a resolution on water management in developing countries; conclusions on improving EU development response towards ACP crisis and conflict affected countries, and on information and communication technologies in development; and declarations on the World Food Summit, and on the food crisis in southern Africa.

  There were also informal discussions of recent developments in Afghanistan and Sudan.

  Pakistan
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's policy is on the World bank loan to Pakistan agreed on 11 June. [62697]

  Clare Short
  The World bank board has voted in favour of the Second Structural Adjustment Credit ($500 million) to Pakistan. The loan is part of the international package of assistance to Pakistan's Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy, and supports reform measures that have already been taken. The UK made clear at the board meeting that we strongly support the Pakistan reform agenda but we expressed concerns about the risks posed by the threat of war, and the low levels of social and poverty-related expenditures.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Queen's Jubilee Medal
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the cost of awarding the Queen's Jubilee Medal to(a) Yeomen of the Queen's Bodyguard, (b) Gentlemen at Arms and (c) the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland, The Royal Company of Archers. [59655]

  Tessa Jowell
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The medal is being issued to serving members of the armed forces, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the emergency services who completed five years or more reckonable service on 6 February 2002. The holders of the George Cross and Victoria Cross are also receiving the medal. The estimated cost is £7.8 million. The Yeoman of the Queen's Body Guard; Gentleman at Arms; and the Queen's Bodyguard for Scotland, The Royal Company of Archers are not eligible to receive the medal because they are not serving members of the armed forces or emergency services.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Castlereagh Break-in
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the(a) length of employment within a police establishment and (b) security vetting of the former chef who was recently arrested in the United States in relation to the breach of national security at Castlereagh police station. [48986]

  Jane Kennedy
  The criminal investigation into the break-in at Castlereagh is continuing and the Acting Chief Constable has advised me that the PSNI are actively pursuing lines of inquiry. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detail of the incident while the investigation is on-going.

  Staff Pay
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible in each of the last five years. [50299]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total salary costs of each of the non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years:

  £

  1997–98

  Probation Board

  6,212,700

  Juvenile Justice centres

  4,980,382

  Police Service

  496,330,000

  ICPC

  539,000

  1998–99

  Probation Board

  6,578,309

  Juvenile Justice centres

  4,907,237

  Police Service

  502,800,000

  ICPC

  530,000

  1999–2000

  Probation Board

  6,877,930

  Juvenile Justice centres

  4,737,733

  64W

  Police Service

  495,052,000

  ICPC

  539,000

  NI Human Rights Commission

  404,595

  2000–01

  Probation Board

  7,142,880

  Juvenile Justice centres

  4.384,050

  Police Service

  489,152,000

  ICPC

  1319,000

  Police Ombudsman

  2760,000

  NI Human Rights Commission

  524,838

  2001–02

  figures not yet available

  Probation Board

  Juvenile Justice centres

  Police Service

  Police Ombudsman

  NI Human Rights Commission

  519,762

  1 7 months

  2 5 months

  Recruitment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many net additional staff his Department has recruited in each month since June 2001 at(a) executive officer level and (b) administrative level. [52437]

  Dr. John Reid
  In the absence of approved staff complements (approved staff ceilings) being held in the Northern Ireland Office the information as requested cannot be provided. Staffing levels are dictated by administration costs.

  Ministerial Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much has been spent by his Department on training in leadership skills for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52731]

  (2) how much has been spent by his Department on voice coaching for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years; [52707]

  (3) how much has been spent by his Department on training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts for Ministers and officials in each of the last five years. [52746]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are able to take advantage of the programmes for Ministers organised by the Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) in the Cabinet Office. This programme has not delivered training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts or training in leadership skills or voice training.

  Civil servants in the NIO have not received training by the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts or voice coaching. Civil servants have received training courses in leadership but this information has only been recorded separately since 1999–2000. The spend is as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  33,274

  2000–01

  16,520

  2001–02

  23,750

  External Consultants
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much expenditure his Department has incurred in each year since 1997 on employing external consultants to deal with the press and public relations of his Department. [59473]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Office has not employed any external consultants in a press or public relations capacity within the period stated.

  Police Board of Northern Ireland
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the attendance record for(a) elected and (b) non-elected members of the Police Board of Northern Ireland has been at (i) full Police Board meetings and (ii) Police Board sub-committee meetings since the Board went live. [60765]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is provided (by alphabetical order) in the following tables. The reference to sub-committees of the Policing Board has been taken to mean committees of the board, established under paragraph 24 of schedule 1 to the Police (NI) Act 2000. Some committees have sub-committees, details of which have not been included.

  Elected members of Northern Ireland Policing Board

  Number of attendances at:

  Full name

  Board meetings

  Committees

  Number of possible committee meetings

  Mr. Alex Attwood MLA

  10

  9

  9

  Mr Joe Byrne MLA

  10

  12

  12

  Mr. Fred Cobain MLA

  10

  9

  12

  Mr. Sam Foster MLA1

  6

  2

  4

  Mr. William Hay MLA

  10

  6

  8

  Lord Kilclooney MLA

  7

  1

  8

  66W

  Elected members of Northern Ireland Policing Board

  Number of attendances at:

  Full name

  Board meetings

  Committees

  Number of possible committee meetings

  Mr. Alan McFarland MLA1

  6

  5

  5

  Mr. Eddy McGrady MLA

  9

  6

  214

  Mr. Ian Paisley Jnr MLA

  10

  4

  8

  Mr. Sammy Wilson MLA

  10

  11

  14

  1 Appointed from February 2002

  2 Substitutes nominated on six occasions

  Non-elected members of Northern Ireland Policing Board

  Number of attendances at:

  Full name

  Board meetings

  Committees

  Number of possible committee meetings

  Mr, Denis Bradley

  10

  13

  13

  Viscount Brookeborough

  9

  8

  9

  Mr. Brian Dougherty

  10

  7

  7

  Mr. Barry Gilligan

  10

  13

  14

  Mr. Tom Kelly

  8

  4

  5

  Mrs. Pauline McCabe

  9

  15

  16

  Mrs. Rosaleen Moore

  10

  5

  7

  Professor Desmond Rea

  10

  9

  12

  Mr. Suneil Sharma

  6

  12

  16

  Early Release Scheme
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those persons released from prison in Northern Ireland under the terms of the early release scheme have been(a) questioned regarding terrorist-related incidents that have taken place since their release, (b) charged with terrorist-related offences and (c) convicted of those offences. [62306]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information is not held centrally regarding the numbers of people specifically questioned or interviewed in relation to any type of criminal offence.

  To date (14 June 2002), four individuals released early under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 have been charged with scheduled offences while on licence. Of the four, three have been convicted and one has yet to have had the charges against him dealt with.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Network Management Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when Railtrack's Network Management Statement 2002 will be published. [62576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Railtrack and the Rail Regulator.

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2002,Official Report, column, 900W, on London Underground, if he will list the appropriate regulatory clearances required by (a) his Department, (b) London Transport, (c) Transport for London and (d) the INFRACOs, in each case listing the date on which application (i) has and (ii) will be made; and if he will make a statement. [55843]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) The Government submitted to the European Commission on 12 April a notification in accordance with Article 88(3) EC Treaty and Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999.

  (b) I understand that:

  (i) London Underground has undertaken interim reviews and intends to undertake a full review of the final transaction documents with regard to Article 81 EC Treaty when they are in their final form;

  (ii) Satisfactory clearance under Council Regulation (EC) No. 4064/89 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 will need to have been obtained by one of the consortia before the relevant contracts can be implemented. London Underground will wish to know that the other consortium has obtained satisfactory clearance under the mergers provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973;

  (iii) London Underground submitted a revised railway safety case (Version 3.1) to the Health and Safety Executive on 19 December 2001;

  (iv) London Transport requires no additional clearances.

  (c) This is a matter for Transport for London.

  (d) The Infracos are subsidiaries of London Underground.

  Local Bus Services
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that private bus companies continue to provide comprehensive local bus services to small communities. [59208]

  M. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The provision of bus services to small communities is one of the issues we would expect local authorities to consider when drawing up their local transport plans. We encourage local authorities to work in partnership with operators to help meet the public transport needs in their area, and they may also, where necessary, provide funding for bus services that are not being met commercially.
  68W
  My Department also provides support for bus services in small communities in rural areas by means of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and Rural Bus Challenge schemes. These two schemes have been allocated a total of £198 million over the period 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Additional support is provided by the Countryside Agency for small-scale rural transport projects through its Rural Transport Partnership scheme for which £32 million is available for the period 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Traffic Management
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will have discussions with his US counterpart on the measures used there to reduce traffic congestion without increasing taxation; and if he will make a statement. [59108]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United States, at federal and state level, have put in place or tested a range of measures aimed at tackling traffic congestion, such as controlling access to the freeway network and dedicating lanes for buses or high occupancy vehicles, and are investing in telematics to manage road space more effectively. They have also taken steps to improve the management of incidents on major roads. Their approach is broadly similar to that being developed here and in many other western countries.

  There is regular dialogue between this country and the United States on transportation matters, including road traffic management, to share experience and exchange best practice. I look forward to discussing our respective approaches with my US counterpart when the opportunity arises.

  Paddington Rail Crash
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the meeting between his Department and the Paddington Survivors' group on 12 September 2001; and if he will place copies of the minutes in the Library. [59879]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Secretary of State met the Paddington Survivors Group on 12 September to hear their views in advance of the publication on 20 September of part 2 of Lord Cullen's report into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash. Recent allegations that the Secretary of State suggested at this meeting that Railtrack would be taken into administration are without foundation.

  It is not normal practice to place the minutes of ministerial meetings in the House Libraries.

  Channel Tunnel
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 567W, on the channel tunnel, what recent discussions he has had with the French Government regarding the policing resources at Fré;thun; what British policing resources are in place to support anti-intrusion measures; if he will claim compensation from the French Government for the companies affected by asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [60806]
  69W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We continue to discuss channel tunnel issues with France at the highest levels. On 17 May my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke at length with French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. It was a constructive discussion which covered a range of issues, in particular illegal immigration and the policing of the SNCF site in Fréthun. M Sarkozy assured the Home Secretary that the existing policing resources would be maintained. Further bilateral meetings are planned.

  There are no powers for British police to operate on French soil to support anti-intrusion measures at Fréthun. However, we have expressed our willingness in principle to help in any way we can with improvements to physical security. In particular we are willing to provide specialist detection equipment. In the UK, the British Transport Police attend the Dollands Moor freight depot as necessary to detain and process clandestines.

  As far as compensation is concerned, freight operators can seek to enforce EU law on the free movement of goods in the French courts, and this could include a claim for losses caused by the breach of that law.

  Airports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2002,Official Report, column 375W, on airports, what further research has been commissioned and when the research is due to be reported; to whom the results will be published; who has been commissioned to carry out the research; and if he will make a statement. [61531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Further research has been commissioned by the Department to reassess attitudes to aircraft noise in England; their correlation with the Leq noise index; and to examine (hypothetical) willingness to pay in respect of nuisance from such noise, in relation to other elements, on the basis of stated preference (SP) survey evidence.

  The consultation document "The Future of Aviation" (DETR December 2000) explained that further research into the monetary valuation of the effects of noise may be needed to inform charging strategies. The research is designed to underpin the Government's stated principle set out in "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" (Cm3950) that the aviation industry should meet the external costs it imposes.

  The research contract was awarded to a consortium led by the MVA Consultancy last November and is expected to last approximately three years. The work is split into two stages with Phase I focusing on i) the development of the sampling strategy and assessment of the feasibility of using Stated Preference techniques and ii) an initial assessment of the Leq/annoyance relationship. This phase is expected to last until the end of the year. A decision to proceed to Phase II will depend on the Phase I findings. The results of the research will be disseminated widely.

  European Rail Systems
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) terms and conditions, (b) terms of reference and (c) jurisdiction are planned for the European Rail Agency. [61145]
  70W
  Mr. Spellar
  According to the draft proposal, the purpose of the European Rail Agency is "to contribute, on technical matters, to implementation of the community legislation aiming at enhancing the level of interoperability of rail systems and at developing a common approach to safety on the European railway system". Its role would be to establish a source of neutral technical expertise at a European level. It would have no autonomous decision-making powers, but would provide advice and technical support to decisions made by the Commission and member states.

  Consideration of the Agency proposal has not yet started in the Council and its proposed role and governance may change as a result of these discussions.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to promote the inter-operability of EU rail systems; what their approximate cost is; and what timetable is planned for their implementation. [61144]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK is involved in European discussions on the development of interoperability, and the Department, working closely with the Strategic Rail Authority and Health and Safety Executive, and in consultation with the rail industry, will continue to implement and ensure compliance with the relevant directives as appropriate.

  Regulations to implement directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the high-speed trans-European rail network came into force on 16 May 2002. A Regulatory Impact Assessment, which addresses the cost of implementation of these regulations, was placed in the House Library on 25 April 2002. Guidance on the scope and application of the regulations has been published on the Department's website and is also available in printed form.

  Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the conventional trans-European rail network is due to be implemented by March 2003. We shall in due course produce a further Regulatory Impact Assessment to accompany the necessary regulations.

  There is no timetable for making rail systems interoperable. The directives do not require projects to be initiated—the obligation to comply with their provisions only arises where new projects are undertaken. Implementation will, therefore, be gradual.

  Rail Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has had with HM Railway Inspectors in regard to the findings of their inspections of driver management; how many companies were surveyed; what the results were; what changes he plans to the inspection regime; and what response has been received from the companies inspected. [61085]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) inspected the driver management processes in 12 train operating companies (TOCs) and one freight operating company during 2000–01. The findings were published on the HSE's website on 23 January 2002 and were circulated to the Secretary of State, the rail industry and trade unions.
  71W
  The findings were part of a planned three-year inspection programme covering all major TOCs in the Railway Group. The aim of the inspection programme was to assess the robustness of systems covering drivers' competence and fitness with reference to the requirements of the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994. Key areas included recruitment, training, ongoing maintenance of drivers' fitness and competence, safety briefing and monitoring and audit of systems.

  Each TOC received a report containing agreed actions which HMRI required them to pursue. These TOCs are being visited by HMRI during 2002–03 as part of the normal inspection plan to ensure that they have adequately addressed the matters raised.

  In general, the HSE reports that improvements have been made over the past three years in the area of driver training, a significant issue given the large numbers of drivers now being trained. The TOCs have produced action plans that they are working through. HMRI will check that actions agreed with the TOCs are completed as part of normal inspection activity.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 780W, on rail safety, if he will have discussions with the British Transport police on these and other incidents of vandalism on the railway. [62330]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is an operational matter for the British Transport police, the Health and Safety Executive and the railways industry.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the proposal for the introduction of a community safety certificate as outlined in Council Document 5744/02. [60414]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government supports in principle the European Commission's proposals for a community safety certificate for railway undertakings, which are part of a wider package of measures to promote rail safety and facilitate access to the EU rail market. We will take into account the results of our consultation exercise on these measures before reaching a final position.

  Piggyback Trains
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the piggyback trains that won the SRA's freight innovation competition have passed the tests necessary for certification to ensure that they comply with the W6A loading gauge to(a) UIC and (b) Railtrack Group Standards; and when certification was granted. [61277]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA have been assured by Babcock, the manufacturers of the wagon, that it will meet the criteria for W6A gauge. Certification takes place when manufacture is complete. This is expected by the end of September 2002.

  Large Goods Vehicles
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average age is of drivers of large goods vehicles. [61484]
  72W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's latest statistics, for March 2000, indicate that the average age of drivers of large goods vehicles is 42.6 years.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of the road haulage industry about projected shortages of large goods vehicles drivers. [61483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The road haulage industry is responsible for recruiting, retaining and training the workforce it needs, including LGV drivers.

  The Government has discussed on many occasions the challenges the industry is facing through the Road Haulage Forum, and set up over a year ago a separate training sub-group which includes representatives of the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, and the Transport and General Workers Union. The sub-group, which is chaired by Edward Roderick, Chief Executive of Christian Salvesen, met most recently on 24 May.

  Through the main Forum the training sub-group has access to funds from the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund. We have already committed an initial £5 million to a package of measures including an expansion of the Young Drivers Scheme, a demonstration project under Modern Apprenticeships and a feasibility study on transferable training loans. The measures are aimed at helping the industry recruit more young people and protecting employer investment in training.

  Rail Capacity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is for increasing capacity on the London, Tilbury Southend rail line to enable it to meet the Strategic Rail Authority target for passenger numbers; and if he will make a statement. [61097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  C2C, the current franchise operator, has introduced new rolling stock and is considering measures to increase the numbers of passengers travelling. The Strategic Rail Authority has commissioned work on a Capacity Utilisation Policy, which is intended ultimately to cover all rail routes. The objective of this work is to ensure that track capacity is used most effectively so that the optimum number of train paths is made available on each route, enabling the greatest number of trains to run.

  Canvey Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will have discussions on the provision of an additional access road for Canvey Island passing over land to the west of Canvey Island controlled by Thurrock Unitary Authority. [61141]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Working out a satisfactory solution to the problems of Canvey Island is a matter for the local authorities in partnerships with the community, business, transport operators and others, as part of the Thames Gateway proposals. The Department is not in a position to promote schemes in areas where local authorities must take the lead. Therefore, at this stage, the Secretary of State has no plans to hold any discussions on the provision of a third access to Canvey Island.

  Blue Badge Scheme
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many representations were received in response to the consultation discussion paper on the blue badge scheme by the Disabled Person's Advisory Committee; [61915]

  (2) what recommendations were made to the Government by the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee following its study into the blue badge scheme; and if he will make a statement; [61919]

  (3) how many people were (a) charged and (b) convicted of fraud as a result of misuse of blue badge disability vehicle stickers in each year since 1995; [61913]

  (4) when he expects to announce his conclusions on the operation of the blue badge scheme, following the investigation carried out by the Disabled Person's Transport Advisory Committee. [61916]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A total of 307 responses were received to the discussion paper on the blue badge scheme which was issued in December 2001. The Disabled Persons Transport Committee (DPTAC) were asked to look at those responses and they submitted their recommendations to Ministers at the beginning of May. We are currently considering their report and would plan to publish it when we announce a decision on the future shape of the Scheme during this summer. We will then be looking at the mechanics of implementation and consulting again on firm proposals.

  General practitioners have never had the power to issue blue badges. They may be consulted as part of the assessment process but the final decision on eligibility is made by the issuing authority against the criteria listed in The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 [SI 2000/682]. The role of GPs in this procedure is being considered as part of the current review of the Scheme and I would not want to pre-empt our full consideration of DPTAC's report at this stage.

  No records are kept centrally by my Department on the number of charges and convictions for misuse of disabled persons' parking cards, there is no legal requirement for local authorities to collate such data.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to reduce(a) abuse of the Blue Badge Scheme and (b) the use of disabled parking bays by unqualified users. [61343]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Blue Badge Scheme only applies to on-street parking. Local authorities, who are responsible for administering the scheme, have a wide variety of powers available to tackle abuse.

  In terms of the badge:
  it is an offence under section 117 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the badge itself to be misused by a non-disabled person, the maximum fine on conviction being £1,000.
  Local authorities have powers to withdraw a badge if the holder constantly misuses it or allows it to be misused by others.

  In respect of disabled persons parking bays:
  it is an offence under section 47 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to park a vehicle which is not displaying a badge in a designated disabled persons' parking bay.
  74W
  The issues of abuse and misuse of badges are a major part of a review of the scheme that we are currently undertaking. We have already held a wide ranging consultation and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC, our statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people) have considered the responses and have put forward recommendations to Ministers. We are currently considering their report and we hope to be able to make a decision on the way forward during the summer.

  In the meantime, it is open to anybody to bring instances of abuse to the attention of the police, traffic wardens or the appropriate local authority and we will continue to work with these bodies and with organisations representing disabled people to minimise the potential for abuse and misuse.

  Rail Franchises
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 15 October 2001 from the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions,Official Report, column 875W, on rail franchises, what progress has been made; and if he will make a statement. [61840]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing its negotiations with Stagecoach Group plc.

  Braer
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answers of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 935W, on the Braer, what assessment his Department made of the Marine Accidents Investigation Board conclusion that the tanker Braer was seaworthy when it entered British territorial waters. [62250]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has no reason to question the assessment made by the Marine Accidents Investigation Branch that the tanker Braer was seaworthy at the start of her final voyage.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 935W, on the Braer, on what grounds the Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents decided that the logbooks did not constitute new and important evidence. [62251]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Chief Inspector of Marine Accidents carefully examined the copies of the logbooks kept by the shore loading terminal and noted that reference was made to 'steam line problems'. The grounds on which he made his assessment was that while the entries would have been made based on information provided by the ship, the overwhelming evidence from every other source indicates that the problems on board were confined to feedwater pipework and not the steam system. This was freely admitted but did not constitute the vessel being declared unseaworthy.

  The Chief Inspector has, therefore, concluded that the logbooks do not constitute "new and important" evidence to justify the re-opening of the Braer investigation.

  A63
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the inspector's report of the public inquiry into the A63 Melton Junction will be published. [61624]

  Mr. Spellar
  The inspector's report will be published when the Secretary of State announces a decision. This is expected by the middle of July 2002.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public expenditure was invested in(a) roads and (b) local transport in England and Wales in 2001–02; and what is planned for 2002–03. [61167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Provisional figures show that in 2001–02 total public expenditure on strategic roads was £1,685 million; and on local transport (which includes local roads) was £2,824 million. The latter figure includes spending in London, of which some will be funding for London Underground Ltd.

  For 2002–03 planned public expenditure on strategic roads is £1,832 million and on local transport (which includes local roads) is £3,971 million. The latter figure includes spending in London, of which some will be funding for London Underground Ltd.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on(a) roads and (b) other forms of public transport, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [62160]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Figure for years up to 1999–2000 are published in Table 1.16 of Transport Statistics Great Britain (TSGB) 2001, a copy of which is available in the Libraries of the House. Figures for 2000–01 will be published in TSGB 2002 in October.

  Wembley Park Tube Station
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans for the redevelopment of Wembley Park tube station. [62061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 12 March 2002, and printed in Hansard on 19 March 2002,Official Report, columns 237–38W.

  Roads (Noise)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the criteria for establishing priorities for the resurfacing of concrete trunk roads. [61321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) on 17 October 2001, Official Report, columns 1228–29W.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the money allocated for noise reduction work on the motorway network for 2001–02 was spent. [61322]
  76W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Mark Oaten:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recently Parliamentary Question about noise reduction work on the motorway network.
  Traffic noise on the network as a whole is being tackled through programmes of quieter surfacing and noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers. I regret that it is not possible to identify spend solely on the motorway network. However, last year we were asked to spend at least £5m to provide noise mitigation measures across the network as a whole as set out in Hansard (Column 682 in November 1999) and spent £7.2m. Funding for quieter surfaces is allocated as part of our Roads Renewals budget. Last year we spend £252.4m, marginally more than our allocation of £249.3m.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the vehicle capacity was of each leg of the junctions at(a) Vauxhall Cross, (b) Lambeth Bridge/Lambeth Bridge Road, (c) Westminster Bridge/Westminster Bridge Road, (d) Waterloo Bridge/York Road and (e) Trafalgar Square (i) in 1997 and (ii) at the most recent date for which information is available prior to the establishment of the GLA. [62006]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department does not hold this information. The relevant roads were the responsibility of either Westminster city council or Lambeth borough council before the establishment of the GLA. Further information can be obtained from:
  Westminster city council

  Martin Low

  Head of Traffic and Transportation

  Department of Planning and Environment

  City of Westminster

  Westminster City Hall

  64 Victoria Street

  London SW1E 6QP

  Lambeth borough council

  Michael Bridgeland

  Head of Transport and Highways (Interim)

  London Borough of Lambeth

  Blue Star House

  234–244 Stockwell Road

  Brixton Hill

  London SW9 9SP.

  Passenger Carrying Vehicle Conversion
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure that conversions from commercial vans to passenger carrying vehicles, of all sizes, have been completed to meet legal requirements. [61809]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In common with purpose built vehicles, commercial vehicles that are converted to passenger carrying vehicles and are licensed as PSV's are subject to initial testing if they are to be used for hire and reward. All such vehicles are also subject to annual testing and random enforcement checks by either the police or officials from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate Agency.

  Sea Safety
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to liaise with the(a) Secretary of State for Education and Skills and (b) the devolved Parliament and Assemblies to find new ways of promoting Sea Safety and the Sea Smart code. [62435]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) as the executive agency with responsibility for Sea Safety and Sea Smart is currently developing new approaches to improve safety at sea and at the coast and will liaise with the Department for Education and Skills and also the devolved Administrations.

  Within its current business plan the agency has three pilot projects in progress on accident prevention across the leisure and fishing industries to develop suitable methods to improve sea safety and to measure the impact of any new measures.

  Pollution From Ships
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an assessment of the National Audit Office report Dealing with Pollution from Ships published on 12 June; and if he will make a statement. [62548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When read in its entirety, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report "Dealing with pollution from ships" is a soundly based, balanced and well rounded report which recognises the very substantial achievements of my Department and its Maritime and Coastguard Agency in minimising the risk of pollution of the marine environment from ships and, where pollution occurs, in minimising the impact of that pollution on UK waters, coastlines and economic interests.

  The report has much to say that is positive, while also highlighting areas where it perceives that there is work to be done. I welcome the findings contained in the report, and am considering the best way to address the recommendations.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to remove the statutory defence against prosecution it confers upon masters of vessels who take reasonable steps to reduce or stop pollution after their vessels have been damaged. [62547]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the light of the differences between the defences available under the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996, applying to our Pollution Control Zone, and those available under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 when offences take place in UK waters inside our baselines, the Department will consider the alignment of the defences that should apply in both areas. This may require subsequent amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as the defences within the 1996 Regulations derive from an International Convention.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the Merchant Shipping Prevention of Oil Pollution Regulations 1996 to extend their applicability to areas landward of the baseline designating the start of the UK's 12-mile territorial waters. [62546]
  78W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has recommended, in his report "Dealing with pollution from ships", that the Merchant Shipping legislation be revised to ensure that pollution incidents may be prosecuted under the UK's oil pollution regulations, wherever incidents occur within the UK Pollution Control Zone. This recommendation relates to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/2154.

  As the report explains, the 1996 Regulations are concerned with areas seaward from the baseline from which the United Kingdom's territorial sea is measured. Illegal discharges of oil in the internal waters landward of that baseline (including estuaries) can be prosecuted under section 131 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Defences are available under both the 1996 Regulations and the 1995 Act. However those under the 1995 Act are different in some key details from those provided under the 1996 Regulations. In the light of the concerns raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department will consider the alignment of the defences under both the Regulation and the Act. This may involve subsequent amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 as the defences in the 1996 Regulations derive from an International Convention.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 770W, on vehicle registration numbers, whether he intends to extend the vehicle registration number facility to cater for third parties through a regulatory reform order; and if he will make a statement. [62531]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are keen to introduce third party entitlement at the earliest opportunity. We are looking for a suitable legislative slot. The regulatory reform procedure is being considered along with other options.

  Household Statistics
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many households there are in each fire authority area; and what the population is in each area; [60441]

  (2) how many households he estimates include at least (a) one child under four and (b) adult over 65 in each fire authority area. [60446]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 17 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on (i) the population and number of households in each fire authority area, and (ii) the number of households in each fire authority area with at least one (a) child under four and (b) adult over 65. (60445 & 60446)
  The latest available estimates, for the three month period ending February 2002, are given in the table attached.
  These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey.
  79W

  Fire authorities in the United Kingdom—Winter (December to February) 2001–021

  Thousand

  Households

  Population2

  Total

  Including at least one child under 4

  Including at least one adult over 65

  United Kingdom

  59,211

  25,717

  2,716

  6,334

  England and Wales

  52,499

  22,833

  2,407

  5,640

  England

  49,589

  21.578

  2,283

  5,297

  England non-metropolitan authorities

  31,194

  13,519

  1,375

  3,492

  Avon

  1,023

  441

  47

  101

  Bedfordshire

  565

  230

  30

  41

  Berkshire

  778

  322

  38

  66

  Buckinghamshire

  687

  286

  29

  61

  Cambridgeshire

  722

  328

  32

  88

  Cheshire

  965

  417

  47

  103

  Cleveland

  554

  244

  24

  61

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly3

  495

  217

  20

  60

  Cumbria

  476

  216

  19

  56

  Derbyshire

  973

  424

  40

  108

  Devon

  1,082

  506

  43

  140

  Dorset

  682

  301

  26

  103

  Durham

  595

  263

  24

  65

  East Sussex

  753

  346

  29

  107

  Essex

  1,631

  700

  74

  182

  Gloucestershire

  558

  244

  23

  66

  Hampshire

  1,627

  713

  74

  175

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  701

  309

  29

  92

  Hertfordshire

  1,052

  442

  51

  113

  Humberside

  865

  366

  39

  90

  Isle of Wight

  131

  57

  4—

  18

  Kent

  1,597

  689

  75

  181

  Lancashire

  1,406

  626

  61

  158

  Leicestershire

  930

  385

  41

  98

  Lincolnshire

  633

  278

  21

  76

  Norfolk

  806

  350

  29

  109

  North Yorkshire

  742

  317

  26

  92

  Northamptonshire

  625

  260

  35

  58

  Northumberland

  304

  132

  10

  33

  Nottinghamshire

  1,017

  447

  46

  107

  Oxfordshire

  634

  275

  30

  60

  Shropshire

  433

  199

  19

  52

  Somerset

  491

  206

  22

  57

  Staffordshire

  1,044

  443

  52

  113

  Suffolk

  675

  288

  29

  70

  Surrey

  1,076

  452

  54

  115

  Warwickshire

  505

  216

  19

  49

  West Sussex

  757

  332

  32

  102

  Wiltshire

  605

  253

  31

  66

  England metropolitan authorities

  18,395

  8,059

  908

  1,805

  Greater Manchester

  2,566

  1,149

  133

  255

  Merseyside

  1,389

  596

  56

  156

  South Yorkshire

  1,283

  565

  67

  137

  Tyne and Wear

  1,076

  481

  51

  123

  West Midlands

  2,578

  1,084

  130

  272

  West Yorkshire

  2,107

  904

  95

  209

  Greater London

  7,397

  3,281

  376

  653

  Wales

  2,911

  1,255

  123

  344

  North Wales

  651

  277

  29

  70

  Mid and West Wales

  841

  372

  34

  118

  South Wales

  1,419

  606

  60

  156

  Northern Ireland

  1,683

  646

  92

  156

  80W 81W

  Fire authorities in the United Kingdom—Winter (December to February) 2001–021

  Thousand

  Households

  Population2

  Total

  Including at least one child under 4

  Including at least one adult over 65

  Scotland

  5,028

  2,237

  218

  538

  Strathclyde

  2,221

  1,005

  105

  238

  Highlands and Islands

  267

  114

  4—

  31

  Grampian

  514

  218

  19

  50

  Tayside

  374

  175

  14

  49

  Lothian and Borders

  890

  390

  37

  83

  Fife

  349

  151

  18

  36

  Central

  274

  121

  11

  32

  Dumfries and Galloway

  141

  64

  4—

  18

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  2 The populations listed in this table are those used in the context of LFS estimates. They include people resident in private households, student halls of residence and NHS accommodation.

  3 The LFS does not provide for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly separately.

  4 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Fire Appliances
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fire appliances were available in England and Wales on 31 March, broken down by(a) county and (b) London borough. [61375]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 6 December 2001, Official Report, columns 449–50W.

  Departmental Policies (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the activities pursued by his Department that have had a particular impact on the Wycombe constituency since 7 June 2001. [58622]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions was responsible for major programmes of capital investment in transport, housing and urban renewal, and implementing strategic policy objectives, many of which have long-term horizons—the transport 10-year plan, the programme for modernising local government, the urban renewal agenda.

  Many of these programmes will impact on the hon. Member's constituency. For example: Wycombe district council received a Housing Capital Guideline allocation of £1,455,000 for 2002–03 plus an additional Basic Credit Approval of £100,000 based on performance. Wycombe district council received a Disabled Facilities Grant allocation of £228,000. The Secretary of State approved spending on the Cash Incentive Scheme of £154,162 for 2001–02 and £134,417 for 2002–03.

  The hon. Member's constituency would also have benefited from a part of the local single capital pot allocation to Buckinghamshire county council for 2001–02, which totalled £15.171 million. It is for the county council to decide how best to use these funds and what proportion should be used within the hon. Member's consistency.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Women's Organisations
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the women's organisations that have been consulted over proposed legislation by her Department during(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 sessions; and if their responses have been published. [44386]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This Department and its businesses comply with the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation, which was published by the Cabinet Office in November 2000.

  In the course of the 2000–01 and 2001–02 sessions.. this Department consulted widely on proposed legislation. This consultation included the following women's organisations:

  Women's National Commission

  Townswomen's Guild

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Scottish Women's Aid

  Welsh Women's Aid

  Women's Aid Federation of England

  Fawcett Society

  National Board of Catholic Women

  National Council of Great Britain

  The Business and Professional Women UK Ltd.

  WINVISIBLE (Women with Visible and Invisible Disabilities) Southwark Muslim Women's Association

  Waltham Forest Asian Mother's Group

  Cardiff Women in Mind

  Union of Women Teachers

  Birmingham Women's Aid

  National Women's Register.

  All of these women's organisations have responded to one or more of the consultation exercises which covered proposed legislation including: the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000; Pension Credit; the Occupational and Personal Pensions: Simplification of the

  83W
  Disability Discrimination Act and "Towards Inclusion"—Government proposals in response to recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the amount of each means-tested benefit which is unclaimed by(a) all age groups and (b) pensioners for each region within Great Britain. [60187]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested is not available by region. However, the latest estimates for Great Britain, including separate estimates for pensions where appropriate, of the amounts of unclaimed income-related benefits can be found in "Income Related Benefits—Estimates of Take-Up 1999–2000", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Benefits (Payment Methods)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his policy on drawing benefits weekly in cash at a post office. [60845]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 878W.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether every aspect of ONE is being transferred to Jobcentre Plus and will continue to function; and if he will make a statement. [48885]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The ONE pilots are significantly closer to the Jobcentre Plus model than other Jobcentres and social security offices. However, some changes will be necessary to enable them to deliver the full Jobcentre Plus service.

  The main changes to ONE will be the introduction of new management structures and the movement from operating the ONE Work Focused Interview regulations to the Jobcentre Plus regulations that exclude housing benefit and council tax benefit from the range of benefits covered.

  We are encouraging Jobcentre Plus and local authority managers to build on the framework of liaison and service level agreements that already exist. This will help to ensure that the efficient administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, which is so important for many of the people using our services, not least in helping the transition to work.

  Benefits Data (Electoral Roll)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to ensure that computers processing benefit data contain a complete copy of the Electoral Roll; and if he will make a statement. [59211]
  84W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Electoral Roll is a source of information considered by the Department when developing its Information Systems in appropriate circumstances.

  Departmental Policies (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the activities pursued by his Department that have had a particular impact on the Wycombe constituency since 7 June 2001. [58621]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. We are currently undertaking a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent. This is making a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10; promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need and combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and future pensioners.

  Child benefit is now worth £15.74 a week for the eldest child and £10.55 a week for other children; nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Wycombe 12,220 families benefit.

  The number of people in work is at record levels of 28.4 million. Nearly three quarters of working age people are in employment and in Wycombe the proportion in employment currently stands at 80.5 per cent. Unemployment is around its lowest level since the mid 1970s. Our New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, disabled people, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. Nationally well over 600,000 people have been helped into work by the New Deals and in Wycombe over 550 have been helped into work.

  Through Jobcentre Plus we are delivering a single, integrated service to people of working age claiming benefits, with a clear focus on work. In addition to the 56 integrated Jobcentre Plus offices which are already open, we intend to introduce around 225 more integrated offices by April next year including offices in the Wycombe constituency.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. This winter (2001–02) we have made available a winter fuel payment of £200 for each eligible household to help with their heaviest fuel bill. We estimate that around 17,000 older people in Wycombe have received a payment this winter.

  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. Our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.
  85W
  From April 2002 we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  2,000 pensioner families in Wycombe are receiving the minimum income guarantee which helps our poorest pensioners. Some 14,700 pensioners in Wycombe will benefit from this year's increases in the basic state pension of £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples. Those over 75, of whom we estimate there are about 6,000 in Wycombe, may qualify for free TV licences.

  Other reforms include the new pension credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings and the introduction of the state second pension from this April. Both of these initiatives will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners. We have also announced that from October 2003 benefits currently reduced after a hospital stay of six weeks will not be reduced until 13 weeks. This will benefit both pensioners and people of working age.

  Advertising
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department has spent on advertising in 2001–02; which advertising campaigns(a) are running and (b) will begin before the end of the financial year; and what is the estimated final cost of his Department's advertising during 2001–02. [42517]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. Since that time a total of some £25 million has been spent on major campaigns either educating people or alerting them to their rights and responsibilities. The following campaigns began before the end of the 2001–02 financial year and have run into 2002–03:

  Pensions Education

  State Second Pension

  Inherited SERPS.

  An accurate estimate of the Department's final marketing spend for 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the publicity and advertising campaigns run by his Department in each of the last four years, specifying the(a) purpose, (b) cost to public funds, (c) number of staff involved and (d) method of evaluation in each case. [39105]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. Since that time the following major campaigns costing over £250,000 have been run:

  New Deal for Disabled People—£850,000
  A national campaign to launch NDDP, covering press advertising in national and regional titles, supported by a helpline, website and publicity material.
  New Deal 50 Plus—£500,000
  A regional campaign to encourage more of the over-50s into work and to increase their awareness of the local help available.86W
  New Deal 25 Plus—£500,000
  A national campaign to inform the public about changes to the programme through radio advertising, a video and printed materials, supported by research.
  Age Positive—£500,000
  PR (including direct mail and partnerships with regional newspapers, sponsoring an award, exhibitions, research and promotional material) to raise employers' awareness of the business benefits of employing an age-diverse work force.
  Work Incentives—£450,000
  Advertising campaign on local radio to raise awareness of the range of financial initiatives available to those moving from benefits into employment if they meet the qualifying criteria.
  Pension Education—£7,188,000
  A publicity campaign to encourage people to save for their retirement and understand the pension options available to them.
  Second State Pension—£463,000
  Development and implementation of publicity to inform carers about how new state pension rules could help them—linked to the overall pensions education campaign.
  Pensioners' Guide—£729,000
  Production and distribution of a guide on cross-Government help and services for pensioners.
  Winter Fuel Payments—£718,000
  Information for people aged 60 plus and advisers about winter fuel payments and activity reminding them to claim and telling them how to claim for winter 2001 and relevant previous winters.
  Changes to rules on inherited SERPS—£459,000
  Publicity about change to the rules on inheriting the State Earnings-Related Scheme.
  Targeting Fraud—£9,000,000
  A national advertising campaign on television, radio, press and posters to deter dishonest behaviour, reinforced by regional press advertising showing that benefit fraudsters are regularly caught and punished.
  Disability Discrimination Act Awareness—£3,000,000
  A national, regional and trade press advertising campaign to raise the public's awareness of the DDA and specifically to encourage service providers to ensure that disabled people have access to their services.

  Staff number information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Evaluation of all campaigns is routine procedure. Methods of evaluation vary and reflect the objectives of each individual campaign. Programme or product take up and contact data, e.g. telephone calls, e- and white-mail, coupons, website visits are sued to measure shifts in interest and demand. General shifts in awareness, attitude and behaviour are measured through pre- and post-campaign data, as well as tracking research.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many families receive child dependency increases for(a) retirement pension, (b) bereavement benefit, (c) incapacity benefit and (d) invalid care allowance. [58763]
  87W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is in the table.

  Claimants in receipt of child dependency increases

  Numbers in receipt of CD1

  (a) Retirement pension1,3

  16,700

  (b) Bereavement benefit/widow's benefit1,3

  50,600

  (c) Incapacity benefit2,3

  94,400

  Severe disablement allowance2,3

  5,800

  (d) Invalid care allowance4

  46,725

  1RP/BB/WB Source: Pensions Strategy Computer System at 30 September 2001 based on 5 per cent. sample. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100, and exclude the Channel Islands and overseas cases. Figures for bereavement benefit are for those receiving widowed parent's allowance or widowed mother's allowance (42,000).

  2Figures are for IB/SDA recipients at 30 November 2001, and are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system, which excludes a small number of cases held clerically. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3All 5 per cent. samples are subject to sampling variation.

  4Figures from the Invalid Care Allowance Computer System based on a 100 per cent. extract as at 31 December 2001. Figure has been rounded to the nearest five.

  New Deal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will review the administration of the(a) New Deal and (b) Environmental Task Force in Darlington and Doncaster. [53747]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of New Deal, which includes the Environmental Task Force provision in both Darlington and Doncaster, is reviewed at regular intervals as part of the contract review process. Environmental Task Force provision in Doncaster is currently delivered by Doncaster metropolitan borough council. The contract expires in September 2002, having been extended by six months to allow time for competitive tendering for a new three year contract. Environmental Task Force provision in Darlington is currently delivered by YMCA Training Ltd. (Darlington). The contract expires in March 2003.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters(a) he and (b) the chief executive of the Benefits Agency have received from hon. Members about clients of each Benefits Agency local office; and how many (i) clients were dealt with and (ii) residents are covered by such local offices in the most recent year for which information is available. [55182]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Ministers received 12,698 letters from hon. Members during 2001 on both Benefits Agency and other matters relating to the Department for Work and Pensions and the former Department of Social Security. The chief executive of the Benefits Agency received 2,529 letters from hon. Members in 2001. The other information sought is not held in the format requested.

  Consultation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many consultation documents and consultative drafts of legislation have been issued by his 88W
  Department since January 2001; and what proportion of these have observed Criterion 5 of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation. [57008]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. Eighteen consultation documents have been issued since June 2001. These relate to matters which have a national impact, and therefore fall under the remit of the Code of Practice on Written Consultation. All bar two of these consultations was able to give a full 12 weeks for interested parties to respond.

  Relocation (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to relocate executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies under the remit of his Department to Scotland. [47977]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to relocate executive agencies or non departmental public bodies under the remit of his Department.

  Flexible Retirement
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent research he has carried out into flexible retirement. [62796]

  Mr. McCartney
  A research report, "Flexible Retirement—a snapshot of large employer's initiatives" has been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  The report was produced on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions by the Employers Forum on Age. It explores early steps taken by a number of large employing organisations to introduce more flexible retirement policies.

  It forms part of the research carried out for the Age Positive campaign. The campaign promotes to employers the benefits of an age-diverse workforce, and encourages the recruitment and retention of older workers and the adoption of flexible working practices. Evidence from the campaign shows that the business benefits of employing older workers include reduced absenteeism, reduced shrinkage, reduced staff turnover and higher productivity.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answers of 12 March 2002,Official Report, column 959W and of 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 242W, on winter fuel payments, if he has now concluded his discussions with the European Commission about the extent of the United Kingdom's legal obligations under European regulations on winter fuel payments; and if he will make a statement. [62428]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave her on 12 June 2002, column 1286W.

  Motability
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the(a) operations and (b) finances of the Motability Scheme. [61347]

  Maria Eagle
  Motability is an independent charitable company incorporated by Royal Charter. It has overall responsibility for all operations of the Motability Scheme. Finance for the vehicle programmes is provided by Motability Finance Ltd. (MFL), an independent service provider to the charity. MFL is owned by a partnership of six of the major clearing banks, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland (incorporating National Westminster), Barclays, Lloyds TSB, and HSBC, who provide finance for the Motability Scheme at preferential rates.

  Departmental Policies (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the activities pursued by his Department that have had a particular impact on the Isle of Wight since 7 June 2001. [57671]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the Department for Education and Employment. We are currently undertaking a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent. This is making a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:
  eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the positions of those in greatest need; and
  combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and future pensioners.

  Child benefit is now worth £15.75 a week for the eldest child and £10.55 a week for other children; nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in the Isle of Wight 14,550 families benefit.

  The number of people in work is at historically high levels of over 28.2 million, and in the Isle of Wight the proportion of working age people in work currently stands at 70.9 per cent. Unemployment in the Isle of Wight has fallen by 2.5 per cent. over the last year while the number of long-term unemployed, has been cut by over a quarter. Our New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployment, the long-term unemployed, disabled people, the over-50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. Nationally well over 600,000 people have been helped into work by the New Deals and in the Isle of Wight over 1,900 have been helped into work.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. This winter (2001–02) we have made available a winter fuel payment of £200 for each eligible household to help with their heaviest fuel bill. We estimate that around 33,000 older people in the Isle of Wight have received a payment this winter.
  90W
  We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country. Our first priority has been to help the poorest pensioners.

  From April 2002 we will be spending an extra £6 billion a year in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. This includes £2.5 billion more on the poorest third of pensioners.

  4,600 pensioner families in the Isle of Wight are receiving the minimum income guarantee which helps our poorest pensioners. Some 31,400 pensioners in the Isle of Wight will benefit from this year's increases in the basic state pension of £3 a week for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples. Those over 75, of whom we estimate there are about 14,800 in the Isle of Wight, may quality for free TV licences.

  Other reforms include the new pension credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings and the introduction of the state second pension from this April. Both of these initiatives will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners. We have also announced that from October 2003 benefits currently reduced after a hospital stay of six weeks will not be reduced until 13 weeks. This will benefit both pensioners and people of working age.

  Medical Services Contract
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) of 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 374W, on the Medical Services Contract, if he will list (a) each of the key performance targets and the levels of performance against each of those targets, (b) each of the other performance measures and the levels of performance against those measures, (c) each of the further set of quality improvement measures, (d) each of the contractual milestones that have been agreed for each of the key improvement projects, (e) each of the other contractual improvements that have been secured and (f) for each of the last 12 months, the number of occasions on which a financial remedy has been applied to SchlumbergerSema, and the amount on each of those occasions. [60477]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: A copy of the information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Service credits for failure to meet contractual service level targets have been applied in each of the last 12 months. Precise details are commercial in confidence and not disclosed under part 2, paragraph 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60465]
  91W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department's public service agreement is supported by a number of lower level performance targets. These are set out in our service delivery agreement (SDA), the business plans of our agencies and, where appropriate, in the business plans and annual performance agreements of the non-departmental public bodies that are sponsored by the Department.

  The SDA and agency targets are set by the Secretary of State and are rigorously monitored using a process that includes external challenge. The arrangements for monitoring performance against targets are set out in the planning and performance section of the departmental framework.

  The Department sponsors 10 non-departmental public bodies, which perform a number of executive, advisory and tribunal functions at arms-length from the Department. Each of the four executive bodies and one tribunal body has a senior accountable official within the Department who agrees targets and monitors performance against them. The work of the Department's advisory bodies is reported in ad hoc papers or their annual reports.

  A copy of the SDA has been placed in the Library. Copies of the departmental framework, which includes details of the agencies and the non-departmental public bodies, and the other documents are available in the Library.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what estimate he has made of the number of persons likely to contract out of the state second pension scheme within three years of its inception in April; and how many people are contracted out of SERPS; [32877]

  (2) on what basis estimates of future contracting-out from the second state retirement scheme are prepared; and what the confidence limits are for such estimates. [32879]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 6 February 2002]: As a basis for future financial projections, the Government Actuary has assumed that in 2001–02 there were 13.3 million people contracted out of the additional state pension, rising to 13.7 million people in 2004–05. However, many factors can effect the actual level of contracting out and this assumption will be reviewed and updated as necessary as further data become available.

  Projections of national insurance contribution income and benefit expenditure require assumptions of the future level of contracting out from the state second pension. The assumed level of contracting out is estimated by considering data on the level of contracting out through different routes in past years and potential influences on the numbers contracting out in future years, such as the introduction of stakeholder pensions. As with any projections, the assumptions used should not be regarded as precise forecasts of future experience. The potential for change in the projections resulting from variability in the future level of contracting out is considered through sensitivity analysis where appropriate, rather than the use of confidence intervals.

  Source:
  The Government Actuary's Department and "Second Tier Pension Provision 1995–96"—Department for Work and Pensions' Analytical Services Division.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press releases were issued by his Department or its predecessor(a) between I May and 31 December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [40040]

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59469]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. This involved the amalgamation of parts of the Department for Education and Employment (including the Employment Service) with the Department for Social Security.

  It is not possible to disaggregate those press releases issued by DfEE relating solely to employment issues in the period requested. However, the press releases issued by the former DSS and the DWP are as follows:

  Number of press releases

  19971

  197

  1998

  311

  1999

  270

  2000

  411

  2001

  260

  1Between 1 May and 31 December

  Pension Service
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what preparations have been made for the switch-over from the Benefits Agency to the Pension Service on 1 April. [48580]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service was formally launched on 1 April 2002 and will comprise pension centres working with a national local service. The pension centres will roll out in a staged approach over the next few years and some have already opened for business with customers' cases moving out of local offices into the pension centres.

  The pension centres will replace the service that we previously offered through local social security offices and our customers will be able to contact the centres by telephone, post or e-mail.

  Our pension centre in Stockton pension centre Burnley will begin to take minimum income guarantee work from local offices in the Middlesbrough area during June 2002.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide the address of each Pension Service call centre; and, where possible, the date on which each call centre is expected to open for business. [56411]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pension Service will operate from a streamlined network of telephony based contact centres. Design and planning work is progressing to deliver the pension centres to rigorous timescales.
  93W
  At 10 June eight pension centres have begun to take on pensions work from local offices. These centres are starting to establish operations on contact centre lines as planned. The complete service delivery model will not be achieved until the movement of customer cases is complete. Movement of work is scheduled to the end of

  Pension centre site

  The day the first case moves into the new site 1

  Burnley pension centre, Blackburn Road, Simonstone, Burnley BB12 7TG

  4 February 2002

  Dundee pension centre, Claverhouse Industrial Park Estate, East Dundee DD4 9FF

  22 April 2002

  Bath pension centre, Kingsmead House, James West Street, Bath BA1 2DG

  29 April 2002

  Wolverharapton pension centre, Temple Street, Wolverhampton WV2 4AU

  29 April 2002

  Plymouth pension centre, Crownhill Court, Tailyour Road, Crownhill, Plymouth PL6 5UE

  6 May 2002

  Nottingham pension centre, 57–59 Upper Parliament Street, Nottingham NG2 3BZ

  6 May 2002

  Birmingham pension centre, 2104 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham B26 3LQ

  10 June 2002

  Norwich pension centre, Baltic House, Mountergate, Norwich NR1 1QB

  10 June 2002

  Stockton pension centre, Tees Building, 10–16 Bridge Road, Stockton TS18 3BU

  17 June 2002

  Glasgow pension centre, Northgate, 96 Milton Street, Glasgow G4 ODX

  17 June 2002

  Warrington pension centre, Hilden House, 103 Sankey Street, Warrington WA1 1LA

  15 July 2002

  Blackpool pension centre, Mexford House, Mexford Avenue, Blackpool FY2 0XN

  22 July 2002

  Swansea pension centre, Waterside Business Park, Swansea SA6 8AH

  22 July 2002

  Cwmbran pension centre, Glyndwr House, The Mall, Gwent NP44 1XR

  5 August 2002

  Wrexham pension centre, 15–17 Grosvenor Road, Wrexham, Clwyd LL1 1BL

  19 August 2002

  Motherwell pension centre, Trigon Building, Airbles Road, Motherwell ML1 3FA

  3 August 2002

  Dearne Valley pension centre, Unit 2 Callflex Business Park, Dearne Valley, South Yorkshire

  12 August 2002

  Derby pension centre, Holburn House, Wyvern Business Park, Stanier Way, Chaddesden, Derby DE21 6BF

  12 August 2002

  Stockport pension centre, Millennium House, Wellington Road South, Stockport

  16 September 2002

  Leicester pension centre, Yeoman Street, Leicester LEI 1UU

  23 September 2002

  Seaham pension centre, Lighthouse View, Dawdon Business Park, Seaham, County Durham

  30 September 2002

  Walsall pension centre, Government Buildings, Lower Hall Lane, Walsall WS1 1RP

  —2

  York pension centre, Triune Court Office Development, Plot 4, Monks Cross Office Park, York YO32 9GZ

  —2

  Liverpool pension centre, 58 Breckfield Road South, Liverpool L6 5JF

  —2

  Tyneview Park pension centre, Whitley Road, Benton, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE98 1BA

  —2

  1 Refers to the date the first case actually transfers into the pension centre—this is then followed by a phased transfer of cases into the pension centre.

  2 To be confirmed.

  In addition to these there will be another pension centre in the Norwich area.

  As customers cases move a letter is sent to them to let them know that a pension centre is now handling their case and is open for business. Customers should continue to deal with their local social security office until they receive a letter.

  Pensioner Poverty
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 367W, on pensioner poverty, how many pensioners are living in poverty in the Midlothian constituency. [60804]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at February 2002 there were 1,600 customers in receipt of minimum income guarantee in the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

  Around 12,000 winter fuel payments were made last winter to people 60 and over in the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.

  In addition there were 4,500 people over 75 years old who may have benefited from a free television licence in the parliamentary constituency of Midlothian.
  94W
  September. Plans beyond September are still being developed.

  The addresses of the pension centres and the dates from which the first cases transfer from the local offices into these centres are as listed in the table.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, February 2002.

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment.

  Client Group analysis of the population over state pension age at May 2001.

  Pension Entitlement
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer of 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 680W, on pension entitlement, how many cases have been referred to the (a) OPRA, (b) PAS and (c) pensions ombudsman since 1997. [60805]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Pensions Advisory Service (PAS) and the pensions ombudsman can deal with inquiries or complaints that arise from the situation where a public sector employee has had their accrued pension entitlement withdrawn, but they do not keep records that would enable such cases to be individually identified. The Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority has no power to intervene against any employer that has lawfully withdrawn pension entitlements from employees.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to(a) his Department,

  95W
  (b) agencies of his Department and (c) local government carrying out functions within the responsibility of his Department; [52073]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost in the next 12 months of the Budget changes to employers' national insurance contributions to charities working in areas within the responsibility of his Department. [52074]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), on 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 544W.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated level of losses to fraud and corruption was in(a) his Department's Vote 1 budget and (b) his Department's Vote 2 budget for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [54705]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In 1999–2000 the estimated level of loss to internal fraud recorded in the Department's Vote 1 Account was £210,000. Information on the estimated level of loss to external fraud is not available in the format requested.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of ordinary written questions for his Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58980]

  Maria Eagle
  Since the House returned in October we have received double the number of the previous session and by the end of this session we anticipate having dealt with significantly more questions than in any of the last five years. This does of course have an impact on our ability to deal with questions speedily. We are confident that in deciding to table questions hon. Members take into account the impact of their requests on the ability of colleagues to secure answers to their inquiries. Many hon. Members secure information from other sources such as publications by the Department which are available in the Library.

  The information requested is in the tables.

  Proportion of ordinary written questions answered within five working days

  Number of questions received

  Per cent. answered within five working days

  2001

  June

  73

  53.42

  July

  166

  66.48

  September

  7

  71.43

  October

  256

  19.53

  November

  364

  15.93

  December

  201

  38.81

  2002

  January

  258

  21.32

  February

  245

  13.06

  March

  274

  20.44

  April

  147

  19.73

  May

  74

  50.00

  96W

  Proportion of named day questions given a substantive answer on that day

  Number of questions received

  Per cent. given a substantive answer on that day

  2001

  June

  27

  96.30

  July

  103

  73.79

  September

  2

  100.00

  October

  100

  81.00

  November

  189

  60.32

  December

  89

  62.92

  2002

  January

  154

  54.55

  February

  79

  54.43

  March

  142

  35.92

  April

  78

  44.87

  May

  42

  71.43

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the guidance notes prepared for his officials on answering written parliamentary questions, for what reason officials are advised to consider whether the question is friendly; whether considerations of friendliness affect the content of written replies; and if he will revise this guidance. [61773]

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library the guidance provided to departmental civil servants for the preparation of written answers to parliamentary questions. [62002]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance for officials on answering parliamentary questions,(a) before and (b) after recent amendments. [62005]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Guidance notes have been produced for many years to assist officials who help prepare answers to parliamentary questions. Until now they have been produced by officials without clearance by Ministers. The reference in the guidance notes to the question being "friendly" is not appropriate and has been deleted. I have also reviewed the guidance and some amendments have been made.

  Copies of the guidance, before and after this change was made, have been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59305]

  Maria Eagle
  The Cabinet Office publishes a report to Parliament each year on the volumes of correspondence received by Departments. For information for 2001, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Leslie) on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 677W. Copies of previous reports are available in the Library.

  Press and Public Relations
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much expenditure his Department has incurred in each year since 1997 on employing external consultants to deal with the press and public relations of his Department. [59468]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. Since that time there has been no expenditure on external press and PR consultants specifically to raise the profile of the Department, only to assist in the marketing of important Welfare to Work programmes such as New Deal and Age Positive.

  Refurbishment Projects
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59770]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Within DWP there are over 100 refurbishment projects either in progress or likely to start within the next six months. The vast majority of these are connected with the introduction of Jobcentre plus and involve the refurbishment of offices to meet Jobcentre Plus requirements.

  To ensure that these projects procure only certified timber that is obtained lawfully from sustainable sources we are following guidance issued by DEFRA. We have requested that documentary evidence be supplied to us by contractors to support all statements made concerning the supply of timber. We intend to audit such information to ensure compliance with Government policy.

  Departmental Recruitment (Older People)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of those employed in benefit offices are over 55. [48705]

  Mr. McCartney
  [holding answer 15 April 2002]: From April 2002, benefits are paid through Jobcentre Plus and the Pensions Service. The percentage of staff aged over 55 in these agencies is 7.32 per cent. and 7.48 per cent. respectively.

  Since the Department's creation last year, staff in DWP, (other than senior civil service) have had the opportunity to continue their employment beyond the age of 60 up to 65.

  The Department's Diversity and Equality policy statement makes an explicit commitment to nondiscrimination on age grounds. DWP is keen to make the most of the talents and experience of older staff and offers a range of working arrangements such as flexible working hours, part-time working patterns and other options which may suit their needs.

  We have been looking at ways of further encouraging the recruitment of older workers. At the end of last year the Employment Service worked with colleagues in the Benefits Agency to develop a customised "gateway" to prepare New Deal 50plus customers for jobs in DWP. The initiative proved successful with 20 of the 21 participants subsequently taking up jobs in DWP with the Benefits
  98W
  Agency. The success of the initiative has been widely communicated internally throughout the Department, and promoted to other civil service Departments. Under the new Deal 50plus programme we are able to specifically target people from that age group and give them fixed term contracts with us, and permanent posts subject to them passing a fair and open recruitment competition.

  In July 2002 DWP will be extending its use of the New Deal 50plus programme to support its staff recruitment. Guidance will be issued across DWP to raise the profile of the programme and to encourage managers to use this alternative form of recruitment.

  Reviews, Task Forces and Advisory Groups
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer on 17 December 2001 to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)Official Report, column 151W and to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 22 April 2002, Official Report, column 62W, what (a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since May 1997; what their membership is; and what reports they (i) have published and (ii) are preparing to publish. [63042]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information is given in tables, copies of which are in the Library. They show all reviews, task forces and advisory groups with external members which have been established since May 1997.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the profile of the hon. Member for Northavon referred to in section 4.3 of his Department's guidance notes on replies to written questions. [61774]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place the dossier of personal details held by his Department relating to the hon. Member for Linlithgow in the Library. [61882]

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61825]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Department does not compile personal profiles on MPs.

  We do have access to parliamentary reference works such as Dod's and in order to provide, in a cost-effective way, such reference information to the large number of officials drafting parliamentary answers we subscribe to Parliamentary Monitoring Services Ltd. (PMS).

  Copies of the career profiles from PMS for the hon. Member for Northavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61000]

  Yvette Cooper
  The hon. Gentleman is referred to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002, at column 130W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [61028]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information relating to financial year 2002–03 is not available.

  The information requested for the financial year 2001–02 is in The Lord Chancellor's Departments, Departmental Report 2001–02 Cm5408, which was published on 13 June 2002.

  Patricia Austin
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the reasons given by Mr. Justice Burgess for awarding exemplary damages to Patricia Austin of Belfast in May. [60858]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A civil bill was issued on behalf of Patricia Austin in respect of a claim against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, for assault and battery. The case came on for hearing, at Belfast County Court, on 30 April 2002 before His Honour Judge Burgess. Judgment was reserved.

  On 14 May 2002 a written judgment was delivered in open court. The judgment included the following statement: "It is also a case where exemplary damages are appropriate, absorbing the role of aggravated damages".

  The plaintiff was awarded a Decree for £8,500.00.

  Nether party to the proceedings has lodged an appeal against the order of the court.

  The reasons for the Judge's decision are set out in that judgment. It would be in appropriate for me to comment further on the Judge's decision.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff there are in his Department, broken down by ethnicity. [60576]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department and its agencies (the Court Service and the Public Guardianship Office) employed a total of 12,849 people as at 15 May 2002. The table shows the staff numbers broken down by ethnicity. The data the Department is representing is for the pre-census ethnic classifications. The Department has begun to incorporate the new ethnic background 100W
  classification this year. All new employees are being surveyed using the new classifications and a re-survey of all staff is planned during the latter part of this year.

  Number of employees

  Permanent

  Casual

  Grant total

  White

  9,741

  134

  9,875

  Black

  615

  8

  623

  Asian

  586

  10

  596

  Other

  104

  6

  110

  Not given

  1,324

  321

  1,645

  Grand total

  12,370

  479

  12,849

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of ordinary written Questions for her Department were answered within a week of tabling in each month since June 2001; and what proportion of questions for named day received a substantive answer on that day in each month since June 2001. [58978]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  340 of the 899 ordinary written questions that were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department between 1 June 2001 and 24 May 2002 were answered within one week of being tabled, the detailed breakdown of monthly figures are as follows.

  Month

  Ordinary written question answered within a week of being tabled (per cent.)

  June 2001

  71.43

  July 2001

  68.18

  October 2001

  70.07

  November 2001

  38.71

  December 2001

  81.14

  January 2002

  35.93

  February 2002

  25.25

  March 2002

  46.67

  April 2002

  9.09

  May 2002

  46.77

  Performance in April 2002 was atypical because one hon. Member asked 122 questions which required a great deal of co-ordination. Unfortunately they we all answered two days late.

  In addition the Lord Chancellor's Department answered substantively 226 of 413 Named Day questions on the nominated day, representing 54.72 per cent.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department if(a) her Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59457]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department and its agencies (the Court Service and Public Guardianship Office) are committed to equality of opportunity, and therefore have recruitment policies that ensure candidates are not discriminated against on grounds of age when being considered for jobs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Credit Card Fraud
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on trends in credit card fraud over the last 10 years; [59179]

  (2) what steps he is taking to tackle credit card fraud. [59180]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government recognise that plastic card fraud has been a large and rapidly growing problem in the United Kingdom (UK) since the mid-1990s, with losses having increased from £165 million in 1992 to £411.4 million' in 2001. The steep rise has been caused by high levels of organised card crime alongside increases in the number and usage of payment cards.

  Significant work is under way to combat plastic card crime. The Home Office has held discussions with the finance and retail sectors and the police to establish and promote best practice in protecting cards. A major initiative which has emerged is the planned introduction of microchips into payment cards to help authentication. This is to be combined with the introduction of PIN codes in place of signatures. The banking industry foresees that by 2005 the technology will have eliminated up to 80 per cent. of plastic card fraud in the UK.

  The Government are pleased that the banks and retailers are committed to introducing new technology that is so vital in fighting plastic card fraud. The UK has been leading the world in creating a global standard for chip and design that guarantees very high levels of security whenever consumers use their cards. It is vital that we use this technology to combat fraudsters who find it all too easy to forge genuine cardholders' signatures.

  The Home Office is also supporting a two-year pilot of a unique policing unit, the Dedicated Cheque and Plastic Crime Unit. The unit, based in London, is working closely with the banking industry to reduce organised card and cheque fraud across England and Wales. It is estimated that savings of up to £16 million per year may be achieved in each year of operation.

  Source:

  1 APACS Fraud in Focus 2002.

  Cycling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to deter adults from cycling on pavements in residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [59595]

  Mr. Denham
  Cycling inconsiderately or irresponsibly on the pavement is an offence under section 72 of the Highways Act 1835.

  Enforcement of the legislation is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. They are best placed to assess the nature and cause of specific local problems, to determine how most effectively to address them and to decide the best allocation of resources between different priorities. Short intensive enforcement campaigns are occasionally conducted to deal with persistent cycling offenders.
  102W
  To help the police deal with cyclists who use the pavement inconsiderately or irresponsibly, we are taking powers in the Police Reform Bill to enable Community Safety Officers (CSOs) to issue fixed penalty notices for this offence.

  We recognise that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, cycle on pavements because they are afraid to cycle on the road. The cycling infrastructure and environment are currently being improved as part of our National Cycling Strategy, and the improvements will help reduce the incentive to cycle on the pavement.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that local partners in crime and disorder partnerships must be consulted by the chief constables on significant changes in policing practice; and if he will make a statement. [60593]

  Mr. Denham
  Under Section 96 of the Police Act 1996, police authorities, in consultation with their chief officers, are already required to obtain the views of the people in their area on its policing and their co-operation in crime prevention.

  As one of the responsible authorities under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, charged with drawing up and delivering a local crime and disorder reduction strategy, I would expect the police, as a matter of good practice, to discuss with their local partners any significant changes in policing which might affect how the partnership delivers its crime and disorder reduction strategy.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were granted leave(a) to enter and (b) to remain as refugees during March following a successful asylum appeal; and if he will make a statement. [60537]

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

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of persons granted leave(a) to enter and (b) to remain as refugees during March following a successful asylum appeal had had their asylum appeals disposed of as defined in section 94(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 within (i) 28 days, (ii) two months, (iii) three months and (iv) more than three months prior to the issue of papers granting leave to enter or remain; and if he will make a statement. [60538]

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

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers entered the United Kingdom lawfully in each year since 1997. [61333]
  103W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I regret that information on the entry routes of asylum seekers, and whether they entered the United Kingdom lawfully, is not available. In 2001, 64 per cent. of applications for asylum were made in-country and 36 per cent. were made at port.

  The 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees recognised that people trying to escape persecution often relied upon the use of false documents and unusual means of travel. Article 31 of the convention provides that refugees should not have any penalties imposed upon them as a consequence of entering the country of refuge illegally in order to seek sanctuary, provided that they travel to that country directly from their own country, present themselves to the domestic authorities without delay and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

  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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were made at UK(a) airports and (b) ports in each year since 1997. [61330]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The information requested for the periods April 2000—March 2001 and April 2001—December 2001 is shown in the table. I regret that this information is unavailable for previous years, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  At port asylum applications1,2

  Period

  Airport

  SeaPort

  Rail

  Total

  April 2000–March 2001

  10,850

  5,455

  5,335

  21,640

  April 2001–December 2001

  9,635

  1,740

  5,790

  17,165

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five

  2 Principal applicants only

  This information was taken from manual counts of asylum applications taken at port, which do not reconcile with the quarterly asylum statistics published on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offers he has received within the last two months of potential sites for asylum accommodation centres. [62422]

  Beverley Hughes
  Site searching for Accommodation Centres has continued since we made our initial announcement about the shortlist, as we said it would. In addition to the sites we have identified ourselves, a number have been put forward by potential bidders. We will not be putting into the public domain details of such sites unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of the Accommodation Centre.

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last visited the City of Nottingham Division of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [60592]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) regularly visits police forces. His most recent visit to Nottinghamshire police was on Thursday 18 April 2002 and it included time at the central police station in Nottingham.

  Cemeteries
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the research on burial space and the state of cemeteries will be published; and what follow-up action will be taken; [60809]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the work of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group; who is on it; what its terms of reference are; how many times it has met; when it will next meet; what it has discussed; what it has done; and when it will have completed its work; [60808]

  (3) when the Government will publish the public consultation on burial legislation. [60810]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of the membership of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group are listed. The Group has met three times, and has the following terms of reference:To provide good practice advice on the provision, management, and maintenance of burial grounds; and
  To produce advice on good burial practice and procedures, and to make recommendations for any appropriate policy and legislative change.

  The agreed minutes of the Group's meetings will be published, and I will arrange for copies to be sent to the hon. Member. Consultation on burial legislation and related matters depends on approval of a draft document to be considered at the next meeting at the end of September. The Group is committed to reporting progress to Ministers by December 2002.

  The research work was completed earlier this year. The report will be published shortly following peer review, and its findings will be used to inform further work. In addition, planning for the survey of burial grounds is well advanced, with a pilot exercise expected later this summer.

  Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group Membership

  Association of Burial Authorities

  Association of Private Crematoria and Cemeteries

  Board of Deputies of British Jews

  Cemetery Research Group, University of York

  Churches Funerals Group

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission

  Confederation of Burial Authorities

  Council for the Care of Churches

  Cremation Society of Great Britain

  Cruse Bereavement Care

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  105W

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport English Heritage

  English Nature

  Federation of British Cremation Authorities Health and Safety Executive

  Home Office

  Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration

  Local Government Association

  Muslim Council of Great Britain

  National Assembly for Wales

  National Association of Local Councils National Association of Memorial Masons National Federation of Cemetery Friends Society of Local Council Clerks

  Welsh Local Government Association.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have made complaints about IND since I January. [60570]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) hold a central record of written complaints about staff conduct and since 1 January 2002 have received a total of 180 formal complaints concerning individual members of staff. The Directorate does not currently keep records of complaints made about operational matters. However, IND is in the process of setting up a single point of contact for all written and e-mailed complaints as part of a drive to improve the accessibility of information to customers generally. This will enable complaints to be accurately recorded, monitored closely and improvements made to the level of service provided, as a result.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 604W, on appeals, how many cases were sent from IND to the Immigration Appellate Authority in 2001. [60613]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data from the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) show that the IAA received 58,285 immigration and asylum appeals from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in 2001. The majority (47,905) was asylum appeals.

  Haslar Detention Centre
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees have been allocated to Haslar Detention Centre in the last year; how many have been granted political asylum; how many have been given exceptional leave to remain; and how many have been deported. [60397]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 March 2002. As at that date, 135 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained at Haslar Immigration Removal Centre.

  I regret that statistics showing the total number of detainees allocated to Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in the last year, and the requested information on
  106W
  the outcome of their cases could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 June 2002 will be published on 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each NDPB or agency sponsored by his Department, whether they have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age, and that age. [59334]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: It is for individual non-departmental public bodies (NDPB's) to determine their own policies about age-limits of those they employ, in accordance with existing equal opportunities legislation and good practice guidelines, but no Home Office NDPB operates a restrictive policy on considering applicants for employment below retirement age.

  Agencies are bound by the provisions of the Civil Service Management Code, section 2.1, which states
  "Civil Service equal opportunities policy provides that all eligible people must have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of age, disability, gender, martial status, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, or (in Northern Ireland) community background".

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the several letters from the hon. Member for Woking on DANGA, born 9 November 1973, ref. D1009062 and B554916. [60515]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 10 June 2002.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inter-departmental steering group working on the review of statistics on administration of criminal justice is expected to report; what the group's membership is; and what the members' sponsoring authorities are. [59339]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The report from the review of statistics on the administration of criminal justice in England and Wales is due to be published as a consultation document on the National Statistics website shortly.

  The review is being conducted by Denis Allnutt, and is steered by a trilateral project board chaired by Andy Maultby (Lord Chancellor's Department). The project board includes officials from the Home Office (Research. Development and Statistics Directorate, Criminal Justice Joint Planning Unit, and Criminal Justice Information Technology Directorate), the Crown Prosecution Service, the Court Service, and an independent member—Professor Ken Pease (Huddersfield University).
  107W
  The funding authority for the review is the Home Office.

  Counter-terrorism
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the allocation to West Mercia constabulary for police activity on counter-terrorism measures of the extra funding announced on 10 June. [61282]

  Mr. Denham
  Forces in the West Midlands, including West Mercia police, received funding allocations based on careful assessments of their current requirements and commitments to provide an enhanced counter-terrorist capability. The overall level of funding allocated to police forces in the West Midlands region for counter terrorism purposes has been made public but to break this down further in public announcements could compromise security.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the funds he is allocating to police forces in Yorkshire for counter-terrorism measures will be given to North Yorkshire police in respect of the policing of Fylingdales. [61306]

  Mr. Denham
  Forces in Yorkshire, including North Yorkshire police, have received additional funding based on detailed assessments of their current requirements to provide an enhanced counter-terrorist capability. The overall level of funding allocated to police forces in Yorkshire for counter-terrorism purposes has been made public but to give specific information about resources for the policing of specific sites such as the Fylingdales could potentially compromise security.

  Juvenile Crime
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of juvenile crime was linked to the use of(a) alcohol and (b) drugs in each of the last 10 years. [61102]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Information about the proportion of juvenile crime linked to alcohol or drugs misuse in each of the last 10 years is not available.

  We are, of course, aware that both alcohol and drugs misuse can be a significant factor in juvenile offending. Studies, such as the MORI Youth Survey published by the Youth Justice Board, provide a useful picture of the association between frequent drinking, drugs misuse and offending behaviour among young people. The 2002 MORI Youth Survey, published in May, while showing that a large proportion of young people have tried alcohol, shows clearly that those who admit to committing a criminal offence are likely to drink more regularly than those who do not. The survey similarly shows that young people who have committed a criminal offence within the previous 12 months are significantly more likely to have taken illegal drugs than those who have not offended.

  Street Crime Action Team
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police forces and
  108W
  (b) basic command units have been asked to supply information to the Street Crime Action Team; on what topics and with what frequency. [61182]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Government are committed to reducing street crime.

  In April 2002 the Government launched the 10 Force Robbery Reduction Initiative across the 10 police force areas with the highest levels of recorded robbery and snatch theft.

  The 10 forces are: the Metropolitan police, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Avon and Somerset, South Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Thames Valley, and Lancashire. 133 basic command units (BCU) fall within these force areas. 82 per cent. of all street crime was recorded in those areas in the 12 months to March 2001.

  As part of the initiative the Home Office Street Crime Action Team is in regular contact with the 10 forces on the full range of topics affecting reaching the goal of a sustainable reduction in street crime.

  Police Standards Unit
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Standards Unit for the police was established; how much has been spent on the unit; how much he expects to have been spent within the first 12 months; and what the anticipated annual running costs thereafter will be. [61178]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The first members of the Police Standards Unit started in post on 9 July 2001. To date £709.000 has been spent on the unit. It is anticipated that the cost of running the unit in the first 12 months will be around £789,000. The expenditure for 2002–03 has been forecast to be in the region of £3.1 million for running costs. Running costs for the unit thereafter have been forecast at £3.6 million per annum.

  Immigration
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants have entered the United Kingdom and sought citizenship in each year since 1992. [61332]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The available information relates to the total number of people who have applied for British citizenship each year.

  The table shows the total number of applications for British citizenship received for the period of January 1992 to December 2000 inclusive. This includes a handful of applications made outside the United Kingdom.

  I regret that it is not possible to identify the year in which these people entered the United Kingdom as immigrants, but in order to qualify for British citizenship almost all applicants will have been residing in the United Kingdom for at least three years, and in many cases longer.

  Information on citizenship is published annually in the statistical bulletin "Persons Granted British Citizenship", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library and from the RDS website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds.

  109W

  Applications for British citizenship received in the United Kingdom, 1992–2000

  Number of persons

  Applications received1

  1992

  38,070

  1993

  42,680

  1994

  48,275

  1995

  53,390

  1996

  61,800

  1997

  66–000

  1998

  68,030

  1999

  67,400

  2000

  262,475

  1 Includes a handful of applications made outside the United Kingdom

  2 Revised

  Firearms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many firearms, by category, were held by each police force in each of the last five years; [61849]

  (2) how many firearms have been ordered by each police force over the last 12 months. [61848]

  Mr. Denham
  I am advised by the Association of Chief Police Officers that this information is not held centrally. It could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  People Trafficking (Sexual Exploitation)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that persons who have entered the United Kingdom and are found to be victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation are automatically granted exceptional leave to remain. [60825]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not our policy to grant routinely exceptional leave to remain to victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Each case is considered in the light of its own individual circumstances, including any compassionate factors which may be put forward. The fact that someone has been brought here against their will might be one such factor, but we will take into account all other relevant issues, including the age, health and length of stay of the applicant.

  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" outlined proposals for supporting victims of exploitation. Where such people are willing to assist the authorities in bringing traffickers to justice, special arrangements may be made for their protection. The Government intends to develop "best practice" to distinguish victims in genuine need and to provide them with appropriate help and support, whether they are allowed to remain here or are returned to their own countries.

  The Government is committed to tackling people trafficking and exploitation. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Clause 118) proposes a new 14 year penalty for a person convicted of facilitating the entry of an individual for the purposes of prostitution.

  Pirated Entertainment
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been commenced against(a) sellers, (b) distributors and
  110W
  (c) producers of pirated (i) video cassettes, (ii) CDs and (iii) DVDs in each of the last five years; and how many have been successful. [59681]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Channel Tunnel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken at the UK end to reduce the use by illegal immigrants of the channel tunnel to enter the UK. [60241]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Immigration Service deploys a range of new detection technology to combat clandestine entry through the channel tunnel and other routes. Carbon dioxide and heartbeat detectors are in operation in Dover and Coquelles and two x-ray scanners deployed there by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for the purpose of detecting contraband have regularly found clandestine entrants during their searches. These two scanners are shortly to be supplemented by two gamma ray detectors purchased by the Immigration Service and all four scanners will be manned by joint Customs/Immigration Service teams.

  In addition, the Immigration Service is about to begin the next phase of its procurement programme and is looking to deploy additional detection devices in the United Kingdom and some continental ports. Searches are already conducted in some of those ports by ferry and port operators and the Immigration service is currently considering how best to assist them in their efforts, possibly by lending additional detection equipment.

  The recent resurgence of clandestine entry via the SNCF rail freight site at Frethun requires additional security measures to be taken to secure the site. Following discussions, SNCF have undertaken to introduce measures to improve security as a matter of urgency.

  In the forthcoming Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill the Government are seeking to amend the Civil Penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to bring about a more flexible, but enforceable penalty regime. The object of the Civil Penalty is to persuade those responsible for vehicles and other transport to secure and check them properly to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants. The Civil Penalty provisions apply equally to rail freight and freight shuttle wagons operating through the tunnel and since its introduction in clandestine entry on the Eurotunnel freight shuttle service has reduced dramatically.

  Departmental Functions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the functions of his Department that have been(a) market tested and (b) outsourced in each of the last five years, specifying the (i) money saving and (ii) percentage saving in each case. [43003]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information on Home Office functions that have been market tested and
  111W
  outsourced in each of the last five years specifying the money and percentage saving in each case is as follows:

  Function

  Year

  Monetary saving (£)

  Percentage saving

  Prison management

  2000–01

  4.5 million

  18

  Prison shop

  2000–01

  1 million

  27

  Security guarding services

  1997

  1380,000

  18.8

  1 Figures at net present value (NPV) over three years.

  Note:

  The calculation of net present value is intended to express all future cash flows associated with a procurement in their present day values.

  I am sure the savings for the taxpayer occurred by this will be welcomed by the hon. Member.

  Street Robbery (London)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures for street robberies in London for the most recent year for which figures are available and the five preceding years showing separately how many such robberies in each year were of mobile phones. [46207]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 March 2002]: Details of robbery of personal property have been collected centrally at the police force area level since 1 April 1998. Details of robbery of mobile phones are not routinely collected centrally.

  Offences of robbery of personal property, for the Metropolitan police area

  Year ending March

  Number of offences

  1998–99

  23,062

  1999–2000

  32,068

  2000–011

  37,023

  1 A boundary change on 1 April 2000 meant figures are not directly comparable with previous years.

  The street crime initiative represents a step-change in cross-Government action to tackle street crime with a focused programme of action in the 10 police force areas where the problem is most acute.

  Work that was already under way to support police in the 10 worst areas was brought forward to begin in April. This is supported by a cross-Government action group that works across the criminal justice system and the whole of Government in a concerted effort to tackle any obstacles to cutting street crime. The purpose of the group is to identify and support the implementation of actions which all the various agencies can take to tackling the problem of street crime, working together to bring about both an immediate and a sustainable long-term reduction.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts the Home Office has with consultants; what level of professional indemnity insurance is standard in contracts with small consultants; whether he can make exceptions to the level of professional indemnity insurance; and what recent discussions he has had with other Government Departments about the level of professional indemnity insurance. [50843]
  112W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The Home Office currently have in use 88 consultancy contacts.

  The level of professional indemnity insurance set is commensurate with the level of risk and type and value of contract.

  As with previous Administrations it is not Government practice to provide details of meetings with other Government Departments.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the internal structure of the HMIC with specific reference to the research, quality and analysis activity. [51631]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) is led by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Keith Povey. The 43 forces in England and Wales are inspected by four Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMIs), based in regional offices covering the North, London and East, Wales and Central and South regions.

  Of 128 staff, 61 are members of the regional teams. 38 of those are seconded police officers, the remainder being civil servants for seconded civilian support staff.

  HMIC is funded directly by central Government and expenditure is controlled by the central unit at Queen Anne's Gate.

  Regional HMIs direct the inspections in their areas following an annual risk assessment of all forces to determine how best use can be made of HMIC resources to help improve police effectiveness. All inspections are based on national standards-based protocols to ensure consistency.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to criminal injuries compensation scheme applications on behalf of infants who have sustained catastrophic brain damage as a result of having been shaken by a third party in the last three years, how many applications are outstanding; of these how many have(a) outstanding decisions on liability and (b) decisions accepting liability in principle: what is (i) the longest delay and (ii) the average delay since the application was lodged; of payments made in each of the last three years, what was (a) the average value, (b) the lowest value and (c) the highest value; how many of those decisions which accept liability in principle are awaiting care reports from the applicants' advisers; what the average cost of a care report is; what contribution towards the cost of a care report is offered by the CICS; in cases where a decision has been made accepting liability in principle where a care report has been supplied (1) how many have resulted in additional care questions for the applicants' advisers, (2) what the average cost of the care report was and (3) what contribution was made towards the cost of the care report; what his policy is towards the requesting of additional expert evidence at the expense of the applicants; whether it may be accepted

  113W
  that a case clearly exceeds the maximum award without the need for a care report; and if he will make a statement. [57649]

  Hilary Benn
  With respect to questions(a) and (b), (i) and (ii), and A, B and C, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) advises that it does not have a classification on its casework database corresponding to these specific types of case. To answer those questions accurately would accordingly require the individual examination of every case where the victim was a young child at the time of injury. That could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  It can take a considerable time to complete the assessment of compensation payable in individual cases that involve severe or complex injuries. However, once eligibility has been established in principle, CICA may make interim awards, for example in respect of the care needs of a severely injured child.

  CICA obtains and meets the cost of all the reports it considers necessary to inform a fair and accurate assessment of an application. No applicant is required to provide reports. However, some do provide reports in support of their view of the award that they should receive. Where the Authority considers reports or other information submitted by an applicant to be inaccurate, inadequate, or out of date, it may propose that supplementary information be provided at the applicant's expense.

  Generally, CICA does not reimburse the cost of care or other reports, commissioned by applicants or their representatives. However, CICA will make interim awards of compensation so that an applicant has the funds to pay for any specialist report that he or she may wish to obtain. The Authority is not routinely told the cost of care reports commissioned by third parties. And the records held by CICA of the cost of reports that it has paid for do not differentiate between care reports and others. Consequently CICA has no centrally held data from which to derive the average cost of a care report.

  Where it appears that the combination of the tariff award and the assessment of special expenses is highly likely to exceed the Scheme limit of £500,000 per case, CICA will usually concentrate on the main heads of claim to shorten the process involved in reaching the determination. However, where the victim is a severely injured young child the process of assessment may be complicated by considerations such as life expectancy and difficulty in reaching a firm long-term prognosis.

  In such cases the local authority's assessment of care needs and details of what it will provide free of charge are an essential part of the corresponding assessment of costs under the Tariff Scheme. This is because local authorities tend to provide services to children without charge, and paragraph 35(d) of the Scheme specifies that the reasonable costs of care services may be provided for in an award of compensation only where they are not available free of charge from the national health service, local authorities or any other agency.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there have been in the(a) Avon and Somerset force and (b) the East
  114W
  Somerset force in each reporting period since 1980—81: and how many are planned for each reporting period to 2004–05. [56231]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Information on police numbers for Avon and Somerset constabulary is set out at Table A. Details of strength for the East Somerset Division have been provided by the Chief Constable (Mr. S C Pilkington QPM) and are set out in Table B.

  Mr. Pilkington has informed me that figures for the East Somerset division prior to 1996 have been archived and are not readily available.

  He has further informed me that the planned strength for 2002–03 is 3,187 for the whole force, but that there is no separate figure for East Somerset. There are no predicted figures for years beyond 2003.

  Police force performance does not depend solely upon the number of officers available. The proposals in the White Paper "Policing a New Century: A blueprint for Reform" set out a radical and ambitious programme of reform, with the overall aim of reducing crime and the fear of crime and to tackle anti-social behaviour. The test of success will be whether the measures being put in place will make a real difference to the quality of life of individuals and communities up and down the country.

  Table A

  Avon and Somerset—Police strength 1980–81 to 2000–02

  As at 31 March

  Police numbers

  1981

  2,953

  1982

  3,011

  1983

  2,970

  1984

  2,997

  1985

  2,982

  1986

  2,958

  1987

  3,009

  1988

  3,013

  1989

  3,014

  1990

  3,094

  1991

  3,092

  1992

  3,081

  1993

  3,068

  1994

  3,033

  1995

  3,000

  1996

  2,981

  1997

  2,989

  1998

  2,976

  1999

  2,999

  2000

  2,934

  2001

  2,960

  2001 (30 September)

  3,040

  Table B

  East Somerset division—police strength 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  As at 31 March

  Police numbers

  1997

  231

  1998

  243

  1999

  241

  2000

  235

  2001

  240

  2001 (30 September)

  249

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the mandate of the Committee on the system for comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin Convention (Eurodac) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [58453]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Committee established by Article 23 of the EURODAC Regulation assists the Commission in accordance with Articles 5 and 7 of the Council Decision laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (199/468/EC).

  Article 22 of the EURODAC Regulation specifies that the EURODAC Central Unit may be charged with carrying out statistical tasks on the basis of data processed at the Central Unit, other than those already specified in Article 3(3) of the Regulation. In these circumstances the additional statistical measures are to be adopted in accordance with the procedure of the Committee. All the important implementing powers were reserved to the Council, such as agreement on the EURODAC Implementing Rules, which were adopted by Council on 28 February 2002.

  The EURODAC system is not yet operational. There are no immediate plans for the Committee to meet, but if it does the United Kingdom will be represented by a Home Office official and an official from the United Kingdom Permanent Representation in Brussels. The work of the Committee is funded by the European Community budget and travel costs to attend Committee meetings are met by the European Commission. The Home Office pays a subsistence allowance to cover attendance at a Committee meeting.

  The Commission is required to prepare annual reports on the implementation work of the Committee, which are submitted to the Council and European Parliament. The reports are also published on the EUROPA internet website. I do not see a need for further measures to increase the Committee's accountability and transparency.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that police force computers contain a complete copy of the electoral roll on their local force computers; and if he will make a statement. [59260]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR's) Electoral Legislation and Administration Branch, Democracy and Local Leadership Division have published, for consultation, draft Regulations under section 9 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 in relation to access to, and supply and sale of, electoral registers held and maintained by Electoral Registration Officers (EROs).

  Under these regulations the police forces in Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad
  116W
  and the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO)) will be able to request, free of charge, copies of the full electoral roll. The information contained may be used for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the criminal law.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether individuals who consent to the police taking their(a) fingerprints and (b) DNA samples are informed that if consent is withdrawn then the fingerprints or samples might not be destroyed; and if he will make a statement. [59268]

  Mr. Denham
  The police have the power to take fingerprints and non-intimate DNA samples, with or without consent, from people in police custody who are charged with, informed they will be reported for, or convicted of a recordable offence. In these cases individuals are informed as part of the custody process that their DNA and fingerprints will be subject to speculative database searches and may be retained indefinitely.

  DNA samples given voluntarily for the purposes of elimination are only retained if the volunteer has given written consent. In such cases, the volunteer signs a statement giving their consent. The statement also informs them that consent cannot later be withdrawn. Fingerprints taken for elimination purposes may also be retained if the volunteer has given written consent. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended) retained fingerprints and DNA samples can only be used for the purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) vehicle, (b) criminal record and (c) combined vehicle/criminal checks were undertaken on the Police National Computer in the last year; and how many checks in other categories were undertaken. [59267]

  Mr. Denham
  From April 2001 to March 2002 a total of 26,546,892 vehicle inquiries were undertaken on the Police National Computer (PNC). A further 136,966 Vehicle Online Descriptive Searches (VODS) were also made. VODS are searches based on partial information.

  Over the same period, 32,337,776 inquiries on names were made, with a further 67,631 inquiries on names descriptive searches using QUEST, a PNC application that identifies criminal records from partial descriptive details.

  The PNC database does not have the facility to carry out combined vehicle/criminal record checks.

  Checks in other categories include stolen property inquiries (99,256 checks) and property descriptive searches (2,572 checks).

  CCTV, Arthurs Hill
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when funding approval was given for a CCTV scheme in Arthurs Hill, Newcastle; and how much funding has been drawn down for it. [59195]
  117W
  Mr. Denham
  We announced funding approval for a project in the Arthurs Hill area of Newcastle under the second round of the Reducing Burglary Initiative in May 2000. The project, between the Northumbria police and Newcastle city council, received a grant of £137,000 to cover the costs of a range of interventions, including Close Circuit Television (CCTV) schemes and other target hardening measures. Out of the grant, a total of £133,493 has been claimed. The project has been highly successful, having achieved a 20 per cent. reduction in burglaries in the Arthurs Hill area and a 50 per cent. reduction in Richardson Road.

  Street Crime
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidences of street crime were reported(a) to the police in Lancashire and (b) in each police authority area in Wales in each year since 1997. [58836]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded offences of robbery between April 1997 to March 2001 for Lancashire and each police authority area in Wales are set out in the table.

  Recorded offences of robbery 1997 to 2001 (April to March)

  Financial year April to March

  Police force

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Lancashire

  887

  982

  1,058

  1,224

  Dyfed Powys

  33

  42

  28

  23

  Gwent

  160

  173

  216

  244

  North Wales

  118

  127

  146

  163

  South Wales

  475

  511

  519

  460

  Note:

  New Home Office counting rules were introduced in April 1998. This change to recording practices is estimated to have added an additional one per cent. to the level of recorded robbery in England and Wales.

  The Home Office routinely publishes statistics on recorded crime on a yearly basis including the offence of robbery (both against the person and against commercial premises). The latest publicly available recorded crime statistics cover the period April 2000 to March 2001.

  Police Officers (Devon and Cornwall)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of officers who were employed by the North Devon and Cornwall police force five years ago are Devon and Cornwall police officers this year; and if he will make a statement. [59302]

  Mr. Denham
  North Devon and Cornwall are constituent parts of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. I am told by the force that the precise information requested is not available, but 69 per cent. of officers in Cornwall and 60 per cent. of officers in North Devon were serving officers with Devon and Cornwall Constabulary five years ago. I am also told that, in the force as a whole, 73 per cent. of officers have more than five years service.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have left the Devon and Cornwall police force in each of the past 10 years; and of those who have left, how many(a) retired,
  118W
  (b) left for medical/health reasons, (c) had their employment terminated and (d) left for other reasons; and if he will make a statement. [59367]

  Mr. Denham
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects information annually about wastage from the police service. Figures for Devon and Cornwall for nine years from 1992 to 2000–01 are set out in the table. Reliable figures are not available for years earlier than 1992.

  Ordinary retirements

  Medical retirements

  Dismissed/required to resign

  Other reasons1

  Total wastage

  19922

  56

  40

  4

  14

  114

  19932

  64

  49

  4

  10

  127

  1994–95

  69

  25

  7

  11

  112

  1995–96

  98

  27

  0

  9

  134

  1996–97

  93

  21

  5

  14

  133

  1997–98

  88

  22

  9

  14

  133

  1998–99

  76

  20

  2

  21

  119

  1999–2000

  92

  20

  1

  29

  142

  2000–01

  94

  15

  4

  25

  137

  1 Other reasons includes deaths in service, transfers to other forces and voluntary resignations.

  2 1992 and 1993 figures are for calendar years. Others figures are for financial years.

  Special Constables
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of voluntary constables was in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [59301]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of special constables in England and Wales from 1991 to 2001 are given in the table. From 1990 to 1995, statistics on the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales were collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. These were compiled at the end of the calendar year until 1993, and then for the financial year 1994–95. Since 1995, these statistics have been collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. They are compiled at the end of March and September each year.

  Number of special constables

  December 1991

  17,543

  December 1992

  19,035

  December 1993

  20,573

  March 1995

  20,026

  September 1995

  19,655

  September 1996

  19,451

  September 1997

  19,163

  September 1998

  17,296

  September 1999

  15,727

  September 2000

  13,487

  September 2001

  12,068

  Sources:

  Figures to March 1995 supplied by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), figures from September 1995 supplied by Home Office Research. Development and Statistics Directorate.

  The Government are committed to reversing this decline in numbers. As we outlined in the White Paper, the current police reform process is an opportunity to achieve a stronger, increasingly professional special constabulary. Measures to achieve this include: a new headline role focusing on intelligence led patrolling and

  119W
  crime reduction initiatives; a new national foundation training package for special constables; joint Home Office/ Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering recruitment, management and deployment of specials; new conditions of service and conduct regulations.

  In January 2002 we ran a press campaign targeting specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular police service. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), we will also be working with employers to encourage them to support employees who are specials—in particular by giving them extra paid leave to carry out their police duties.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were actively working in Devon and Cornwall in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [59300]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of special constables in Devon and Cornwall since 1992 are given in the table. From 1990 to 1995, statistics on the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales were collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. These were compiled at the end of the calendar year until 1993, and then for the financial year 1994–95. Since 1995, these statistics have been collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. They are compiled at the end of March and September each year.

  Number of special constables

  December 1992

  946

  December 1993

  1,067

  March 1995

  1,142

  September 1995

  1,079

  September 1996

  1,133

  September 1997

  1,079

  September 1998

  916

  September 1999

  908

  September 2000

  836

  September 2001

  780

  Notes:

  Figures to March 1995 supplied by HMIC.

  Figures from September 1995 supplied by Home Office Research.

  Development and Statistics Directorate

  The Government is committed to reversing the decline in the number of special constables. As we outlined in the White Paper, the current police reform process is an opportunity to achieve a stronger, increasingly professional special constabulary. Measures to achieve this include: a new headline role focusing on intelligence led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives; a new national foundation training package for special constables; joint Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers good practice guidance covering recruitment, management and deployment of specials; new conditions of service and conduct regulations.

  In January we ran a press campaign targeting specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular police service. And as my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary recently announced at the Confederation of British Industry, we will also be working with
  120W
  employers to encourage them to support employees who are specials—in particular by giving them extra paid leave to carry out their police duties.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables were employed in Hampshire in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [60009]

  Mr. Denham
  The numbers of special constables in Hampshire since 1992 are given in the table. From 1990 to 1995, statistics on the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales were collected by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC). These were compiled at the end of the calendar year until 1993, and then for the financial year 1994–95. Since 1995, these statistics have been collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate. They are compiled at the end of March and September each year.

  Number of special constables

  December 1992

  587

  December 1993

  611

  March 1995

  598

  September 1995

  549

  September 1996

  519

  September 1997

  681

  September 1998

  747

  September 1999

  720

  September 2000

  500

  September 2001

  444

  Notes:

  Figures to March 1995 supplied by HMIC.

  Figures from September 1995 supplied by Home Office Research,

  Development and Statistics Directorate.

  The Government is committed to reversing the recent decline in the number of special constables. As we outlined in the White Paper, the current police reform process is an opportunity to achieve a stronger, increasingly professional special constabulary. Measures to achieve this include: a new headline role focusing on intelligence led patrolling and crime reduction initiatives; a new national foundation training package for special constables; joint Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) good practice guidance covering recruitment, management and deployment of specials; new conditions of service and conduct regulations.

  In January 2002 we ran a press campaign targeting specials as part of the national recruitment campaign for the regular police service. And as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Blunkett) recently announced at the Confederation of British Industry, we will also be working with employers to encourage them to support employees who are specials.

  World Cup
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many football supporters resident in the West Midlands have been banned from travelling to the FIFA World cup. [59269]

  Mr. Denham
  Fifty-five of the 1,031 individuals currently subject to banning orders preventing travel to the 2002 World cup finals are resident in the West Midlands Police Authority area.
  121W
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representatives of UK law enforcement agencies will be present in Japan and South Korea during the FIFA World cup. [59270]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of English police officers deployed in Japan and South Korea for the World cup finals cannot be revealed for operational reasons.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been refused permission to leave the United Kingdom to attend the World cup football matches in view of their possible involvement with violence. [60705]

  Mr. Denham
  1,032 people have been prevented from travelling to the World cup in accordance with the conditions of their football orders.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council House Transfer
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council tenants voted(a) for and (b) against their home to be transferred from council ownership in the current year. [61153]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are 29 local authorities on the 2001–02 housing stock transfer programme. A total of 227,228 votes have been cast in tenants' ballots, with 132,567 voting for and 94.661 voting against transfer. 24 authorities hope to transfer as part of the 2002–03 programme. There has been one tenants' ballot so far, in which 3,038 tenants voted, with 1,721 voting for and 1,317 voting against transfer.

  Homelessness
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on eradicating bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless people; if this will exclude the use of hotel accommodation; and when full implementation will be achieved. [61093]

  Mr. McNulty
  In March this year the then Secretary of State announced a £35 million programme to ensure that by March 2004 no homeless family with children is in a bed and breakfast hotel for more than six weeks. High using local authorities have submitted action plans showing how they will reduce numbers and length of stay for homeless families with children, including the applications resources to support them. These are currently under consideration and it is expected that announcements will be made shortly.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give special financial assistance to Castle Point borough council to meet its statutory responsibility for statutory homelessness in the borough; and if he will make a statement. [61095]

  Mr. McNulty
  In responding to the March 2002 report "More than a roof', the Government announced that they would allocate £125 million in 2002–03 to tackle homelessness. The Government have already provided local authorities with an additional £8 million per annum in Revenue Support Grant to help them meet their new statutory obligations under the Homelessness Act 2002.122W
  All housing authorities will also receive a share of an additional £10 million in 2002–03 to enable them to deliver our proposed Order to extend the priority need groups under part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

  On 14 March 2002, authorities were invited to submit proposals to the new Homelessness Directorate in my Department for funding for local homelessness strategies These are being considered at the moment.

  E-commerce
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress the Government have made towards meeting the objective that the UK be the best environment in the world for e-commerce by 2002. [55872]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  In December 2001 the e-Minister and e-envoy published the second Annual UK Online report detailing progress made towards meeting this objective. This report is available on the office of the e-envoy's website—http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk.

  Park Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what provisions regarding Park Homes he plans to include in a housing Bill; and if he will make a statement. [61511]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently considering the options for changes to the law that would implement the undertakings given by the Government in their response to the Park Homes working party report.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he is making in implementing recommendations of the Park Homes working party which do not require legislation; and if he will make a statement. [61510]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have, in the last twc years, issued good practice guidance to local authorities on harassment and illegal eviction, and site licensing. Research is planned to review the model standards on which site licences are based, and consultation on this is likely.

  We are closely consulting with bodies representing home owners and park owners on such matters as amending the industry's voluntary written statement to clarify and improve the terms of agreements between home owners and park owners.

  A study of the economics of park homes, recommended by the Park Homes working party, is in its final stages and is likely to be published in late summer.

  Permitted Development Rights
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to change the regime of permitted development rights in so far as they affect the activities of the Land Access and Recreation Forum; and if he will make a statement; [61509]

  (2) what plans he has to change the planning regime for game and clay pigeon shoots; and if he will make a statement. [61507]
  123W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) published research on 12 September 2001 on the impact of provisions relating to the temporary use of land, including land used for motorsports and game and clay pigeon shooting. It addressed matters such as impact on local amenity and the environment, for example in terms of litter, noise and relationships with other land uses in the area.

  On 24 January 2002 DTLR issued a consultation paper on possible options for change to the current temporary use provisions. The paper put forward six options for change as well as inviting proposals for alternative options. The closing date for responses was 24 April 2002. Responses are currently being analysed. The views of all those who responded will be considered before any decisions are made on the future of the temporary use provisions.

  Travellers
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures his Department is taking to tackle the problem of illegal encampments by travellers; and if he will make a statement. [61918]

  Mr. McNulty
  The ODPM is working closely with other Government agencies to develop policies and initiatives towards the management of unauthorised encampments by travellers.

  New guidance, issued jointly with the Home Office, on Managing Unauthorised Camping is due to be published later this year.

  Councillors' Interests
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he gives to local authorities on public access to the register of interests of councillors. [61625]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The statute requires that copies of the register of members interests be kept available at an office of the authority for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable hours, and that the authority must publicise the address at which the register is kept and inform the Standards Board for England that such copies are available. Informal advice on conduct issues, including on where additional copies of the register may be kept by parish councils, is given in the new ethical framework bulletins, which until April were published by the Department and are now the responsibility of the Standards Board.

  Millennium Dome
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the potential return to the Exchequer from the dome disposal agreement. [61996]

  Mr. McNulty
  As indicated when the deal agreed between English Partnerships and Meridian Delta Ltd. and Anshutz Entertainment Group was announced on 29 May, the expected value of the deal to English Partnerships is up to £550 million cash, over the whole period of the deal up to 2025, or around £240 million net present value, assuming the full scheme is developed.
  124W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the Millennium Commission funded pier adjoining the dome site is included in the disposal agreement. [61997]

  Mr. McNulty
  No, it is not.

  Fire Service (Traffic Accidents)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of fire service call-outs were to deal with road traffic incidents in each of the last five years. [61852]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows road traffic accidents as a percentage of all incidents attended by fire brigades. Figures relate to England and Wales.

  Percentage

  1996

  3

  1997

  3

  1998

  4

  1999

  4

  20001

  4

  1Provisional

  Retail Premises
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to give local authorities the power to fine the landlords of retail premises that consistently fail to ensure that their shop-fronts are regularly cleaned and properly maintained. [61917]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The issue of local authorities' ability to intervene where shop-fronts are poorly maintained and unkempt is being considered by a cross-Government review of the powers and responsibilities that govern all aspects of public spaces and local environments. The review will publish its findings, with recommendations for specific reforms, as a consultation document in the autumn.

  Furthermore, the draft Local Government Bill, on which we are currently consulting, contains provisions to allow local authorities and business rate payers to work together to put in place local improvements, such as to the street environment.

  Local Government Employees (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to produce a code of conduct for local government employees; and if he will make a statement. [61990]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following discussions with the Local Government Association, the Employers Organisation and public sector unions, we are now drawing up a draft code on which we intend to consult during the summer.

  Cornish Language
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the case for the specifying of the Cornish language in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [62594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had no discussions with colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this issue but, as the lead Department for the Charter, they are aware of the position on the Government's assessment of the case for specifying the Cornish language.
  125W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answers of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 216W, and 19 March 2002, Official Report, column 227W, on the Cornish language, when his Department will complete its assessment of the case for specifying the Cornish language within the provision of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. [62611]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I appreciate and share fully the hon. Member's interest in reaching a timely conclusion on this issue. Unfortunately, completion of the Government office for the south west's report was delayed but I expect finally to receive it before the end of this month. I can assure the hon. Member the report will receive urgent attention.

  Second Homes
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he received on his Department's consultation document on second homes and council tax since January. [62588]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We received 443 responses to our consultation.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the response to his Department's consultation document on council tax and second homes this year. [62589]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are considering the way forward in the light of these responses. An analysis of the responses has been placed on our website at www.local.odpm.gov.uk

  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what timetable he has set for the implementation of a removal of the right of second home owners to council tax discounts; [62587]

  (2) when he intends to bring forward legislation to allow local authorities the power to remove the 50 per cent. council tax discount for second home owners. [62590]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our consultation paper "Council Tax: Proposed changes for second homes and long term empty homes" was published in November last year. The consultation period closed on 15 February. We are considering the way forward and hope to announce final decisions shortly.

  Social Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what financial and other incentives the Government have provided to social housing providers developing new accommodation units provided on a shared equity basis in each of the last five years for which records are available. [62591]

  Mr. McNulty
  Funding is provided through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) and Local Authority Social Housing Grant (LASHG) to assist registered social landlords in developing units for sale on shared ownership terms. The table shows the funding provided in each of the last five years.126W

  £ million

  ADP

  LASHG

  Total

  Outturn

  1998–99

  83.74

  8.52

  92.26

  1999–2000

  72.92

  13.71

  86.63

  2000–01

  95.48

  20.19

  115.67

  2001–02

  85.72

  30.95

  116.67

  Allocation

  2002–03

  149.05

  1—

  149.05

  1Not available

  Architects
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish the protection of the title of architect, as recommended by the 1993 Warne report; and if he will make a statement. [61881]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government currently has no proposals to abolish the protection of the title, architect, as recommended by the 1993 Warne report. This would require amendment of the Architects Act 1997, and any future proposal to make such an amendment would require extensive public consultation.

  Regional Government Finance
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has given the North East Assembly on spending Government funds given to it under the Strengthening Regional Accountability Initiative. [62550]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has awarded the North East Assembly £1.7 million under the regional chambers fund for strengthening regional accountability: £500,000 in 2001–02 and £600,00 in each of 2002–03 and 2003–04. In July 2001, the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued guidance to the North East Assembly on the operation of the fund. The guidance was updated and re-issued in February 2002; a copy is in the Library. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has also issued funding agreements to Northumberland county council, the North East Assembly's accountable body, in respect of 2001–02 and 2002–03 and 2003–04 combined.

TREASURY

  State Aid Approvals
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if funding for which state aid approval is granted is automatically included in the public sector accounts; [61271]

  (2) if he will list the criteria by which it is determined whether funding for which state aid approval has been granted is included in the public sector accounts. [61270]

  Mr. Boateng
  Public sector accounts include the income and expenditure of all organisations classified to the public sector by the Office for National Statistics.

  State aid approval does not affect how expenditure is recorded in public sector accounts.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced; [61042]

  (2) what the (a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61643]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury's Public Service Agreement set out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement set out the key steps towards delivery of those targets Each year the Treasury publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money—and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60928]

  Ruth Kelly
  Data on staffing levels are not available for the dates requested as they are collected twice a year only, as at 1 April and 1 October. We are currently in the process of collecting the data for 1 April 2002.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 13 June.

  Public Expenditure
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of total public expenditure per head excluding defence was in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales for each of the last five years. [61858]

  Mr. Boateng
  Total identifiable public expenditure per head in England, Scotland and Wales is shown in table 8.1 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03 (Cm 5401). Identifiable spending excludes defence and some other spending that is deemed to be for the benefit of the United Kingdom as a whole and not identifiable as for the benefit of a particular country.

  Overseas Investment
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much UK overseas investment was in each year since 1996 broken down by each main region of destination. [61861]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on UK investment abroad since 1996 by region of destination. I am replying in his absence. (61861)
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not compile a full geographical breakdown of the United Kingdom's financial account (which contains the United Kingdom's investment flows), although some information is available for the direct investment component. A geographical breakdown of UK foreign direct investment abroad is published annually in the Foreign Direct Investment Business Monitor (MA4), copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England concerning the legal action of the liquidators of BCCI against the Bank of England. [62187]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor meets regularly with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a range of issues.

  Consultation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new steps his Department took in 2001–02 to consult the users of its services about their wishes and expectations; and if he will publish the findings. [47306]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: The main service provided directly to the public by the Treasury is the provision of information.

  In 2001–02 the Treasury consulted the public on the development of our website—the main vehicle by which we provide information—the results of which were fed into the site relaunch in November 2001. In 2002–03 we intend to consult regular users (financial professionals, journalists and members of the general public) of the main Treasury website, specifically to find out how they would like the site to develop in the future.

  The Treasury are currently consulting on the development, in conjunction with Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, of a new website aimed specifically at young people, but also which should also be of general public interest, explaining the work of the Chancellor's Departments in a more general way than is possible via the main website.

  The Treasury also provides information on topical subjects such as third world debt in response to letters from members of the public requesting this information.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many computers were replaced in his Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60734]

  Ruth Kelly
  In the financial years 1999–2000. 2000–01 and 2001–02, HM Treasury replaced about 1,000 desktop computers.

  Treasury attempts to sell off its redundant IT equipment wherever possible. The following details the sales over the last three years.

  Year/company

  Value of sales (£)

  1999–2000

  Computers for U Ltd. (now CFU Ltd.)

  26,000

  Logstat Computer Services

  8,500

  London Computer Auctions

  8,000

  RD Computers

  6,000

  OCM Business Systems

  3,000

  Technologic LSI (Europe) Ltd.

  1,000

  2000–01

  Computers for U Ltd. (now CFU Ltd.)

  8,500

  JB Computer Brokerage

  7,500

  129W

  Year/company

  Value of sales (£)

  2001–02

  CFU Ltd.

  5,000

  JB Computer Brokerage

  500

  Over the last three years the numbers of HMCE PC and laptop replacements were as follows:

  Year ended

  Replacements

  31 March 2000

  1,850

  31 March 2001

  3,611

  31 March 2002

  16,395

  Prior to 31 March 2000 disposals were at local management discretion. A national scheme was established whereby charities in each region were invited to request replaced equipment and collect it at their own expense. Unusable equipment was discarded. Security and environmental factors were taken into consideration at all times. The cost incurred in disposal was minimal and related mainly to the time of the departmental staff involved.

  On 31 March 2000 ownership of HMCE desktop and laptop computers passed to ICL (now Fujitsu Services) under a PFI contract. The contracted service charge covers replacement and disposal costs as well as provision of the day to day services. Fujitsu Services operate a Second Time Around Replacement (STAR) system, whereby renovated equipment is deployed as far as economically possible to reduce costs. During 1999, the Inland Revenue replaced all its PCs, laptops, servers and printers under a major programme known as Infrastructure 2000 (i2K). The aims of the programme were to introduce a common, market-centred infrastructure platform and to meet Year 2000 security requirements. Some 60,000 terminals were installed during this period (the largest NT installation in Europe at the time). Under i2K, a large percentage of the Department's existing IT kit was upgraded, refurbished and redeveloped as part of the deals negotiated with equipment suppliers. Because of this and the massive scale of the i2K programme (cost over £200 million), specific costs on disposal of individual items for the financial year 1999–2000 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Since the successful delivery of i2K, the Department has operated a rolling programme of replacing IT kit. During the last two financial years, we have replaced the following numbers of PCs:

  2000–01: 4,957

  2001–02: 23,297.

  During this period, the Department has employed RD Computers Ltd. and DataServ-CES to dispose of IT equipment. The cost of disposals was:

  2000–01: pound;55,158

  2001–02: £199,751.

  However, income from sales of redundant IT kit during the same period were:

  2000–01: £204.886

  2001–02: £635,758.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61002]
  Mr. Boateng: Reliable estimates for 2002–03 spending to 31 may are not available. Estimated outturn spending figures for 2001–02 can be found in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2002–03, published in May 2002 as Command Paper 5401.

  Financial Services Compensation Scheme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the exemption of voluntary organisations from the Financial Services compensation scheme. [61870]

  Ruth Kelly
  The purpose of the Financial Services compensation scheme is to mitigate the losses of eligible claimants when a firm is unable to meet claims against it. Whether a firm is "voluntary" is not a criterion for scheme participation.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives of the insurance industry concerning the availability of insurance cover for the National Air Traffic Service. [61104]

  Ruth Kelly
  (holding answer 13 June 2002]: Third party war and terrorism insurance for National Air Traffic Services is available through the Government's Troika insurance scheme. The scheme is currently due to come to an end on 30 June 2002. Discussions are continuing with the insurance industry and in Europe on arrangements beyond that date, although no discussions have been held with National Air Traffic Services themselves.

  Ministerial Visits (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in his Department to Wales since 1997; and when he next intends to visit Wales. [62080]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers have visited Wales on a number of occasions since 1997. My right hon. Friend last visited Wales on 23 May, but has no immediate plans for a further visit.

  Women (Employment Statistics)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the total employment rate for women with dependent children aged(a) 0–4, (b) 5–10 and (c) 11–15 years has changed since 1989, broken down by (i) full and part-time work and (ii) women with (A) higher, (B) other and (C) no qualifications; and how the employment rate varies in each region. [61862]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  131W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 June 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment rates for women with dependent children. I am replying in his absence. (61862)

  Table 1: Employment rates1 of women by age of youngest child2, by Standard Statistical Region3—Springs (March to May) 1989 and 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Employment rate (%)

  Women aged 16–59

  With youngest dependent child aged

  All

  0–4

  5–10

  11–15

  16–18

  Without dependent children

  Spring (March to May) 1989

  United Kingdom

  65.9

  39.6

  65.0

  73.1

  74.9

  72.8

  Great Britain

  66.2

  39.5

  65.4

  73.6

  75.3

  73.2

  England

  66.9

  40.0

  66.5

  74.2

  76.3

  73.9

  Northern region

  62.8

  38.0

  644

  75.6

  72.8

  67.8

  North West

  64.2

  42.9

  65.7

  72.4

  73.0

  70.1

  Yorks and Humberside

  63.3

  38.3

  66.7

  71.3

  75.0

  69.2

  East Midlands

  68.5

  44.2

  68.3

  77.9

  67.2

  75.2

  West Midlands

  64.4

  34.6

  62.4

  73.4

  75.4

  72.3

  East Anglia

  70.1

  44.9

  68.3

  82.2

  70.2

  76.3

  Greater London

  66.4

  37.5

  60.1

  64.8

  77.4

  75.4

  Rest of South East

  70.9

  39.8

  71.0

  78.9

  82.9

  78.2

  South West

  69.1

  43.3

  70.0

  75.2

  78.5

  74.8

  Wales

  60.8

  38.6

  62.7

  69.1

  64.3

  65.5

  Scotland

  62.7

  35.4

  56.9

  71.1

  70.9

  70.3

  Northern Ireland

  53.5

  41.0

  52.3

  52.7

  63.7

  58.8

  Spring (March to May) 2001

  United Kingdom

  69.3

  53.9

  69.9

  75.0

  80.3

  72.3

  Great Britain

  69.6

  53.9

  70.1

  75.3

  80.6

  72.6

  England

  69.9

  53.7

  70.3

  76.0

  80.2

  73.2

  Northern region

  64.6

  47.6

  69.2

  71.8

  79.8

  66.4

  North West

  68.9

  57.7

  71.2

  72.8

  78.9

  70.7

  Yorks and Humberside

  69.2

  55.4

  72.1

  77.9

  75.2

  70.7

  East Midlands

  70.0

  56.3

  72.8

  77.5

  81.7

  71.7

  West Midlands

  68.3

  51.3

  68.5

  72.6

  84.3

  71.8

  East Anglia

  74.9

  56.1

  78.2

  77.2

  85.8

  78.3

  Greater London

  64.2

  43.0

  58.9

  67.1

  67.9

  71.2

  Rest of South East

  74.1

  57.8

  73.1

  81.1

  80.2

  77.7

  South West

  74.3

  57.7

  75.5

  83.3

  91.1

  76.4

  Wales

  63.3

  47.7

  68.6

  68.4

  80.4

  64.7

  Scotland

  69.8

  60.6

  68.2

  73.3

  84.9

  71.3

  Northern Ireland

  60.0

  52.5

  65.5

  65.7

  73.8

  59.1

  Change, spring 1989 to spring 20014

  United Kingdom

  3.4

  14.3

  5.0

  2.0

  5.4

  -0.6

  Great Britain

  3.4

  14.4

  4.7

  1.7

  5.3

  -0.5

  England

  3.0

  13.7

  3.8

  1.8

  3.9

  -0.7

  Northern region

  1.8

  9.6

  4.8

  -3.9

  7.1

  -1.4

  North West

  4.7

  14.8

  5.5

  0.4

  5.9

  0.7

  Yorks and Humberside

  5.9

  17.1

  5.4

  6.6

  0.2

  1.5

  East Midlands

  1.5

  12.2

  4.5

  -0.4

  14.5

  -3.5

  West Midlands

  3.9

  16.6

  6.1

  -0.7

  8.9

  -0.5

  East Anglia

  4.8

  11.2

  9.9

  -5.0

  15.6

  1.9

  Greater London

  -2.2

  5.6

  -1.2

  2.3

  -9.5

  -4.2

  Rest of South East

  3.2

  17.9

  2.1

  2.3

  -2.8

  -0.5

  South West

  5.3

  14.3

  5.5

  8.1

  12.6

  1.6

  Wales

  2.6

  9.1

  5.9

  -0.6

  16.1

  -0.8

  Scotland

  7.1

  25.3

  11.2

  2.2

  14.1

  1.0

  Northern Ireland

  6.5

  11.5

  13.3

  13.0

  10.1

  0.3

  1Women in employment as a percentage of all women

  2Children aged under 16 and those aged 16–18 in full-time education

  3Estimates are given for Standard Statistical Regions (SSRs) as Government Office Regions (GORs) are not available prior to spring (March to May) 1992

  4Percentage points

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey
  132W
  The attached tables provide estimates of employment rates for working-age women with dependent children, for the three month periods ending May 1998 and May 2001.

  These estimate are from the Labour Force Survey and are not seasonally adjusted.
  133W

  Table 2: Employment rates1 of women by full-time/part-time status2 and age of youngest dependent child3; United Kingdom; springs (March to May) 1989 and 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands and per cent.

  Women aged 16–59

  With youngest dependent child aged

  All

  0–4

  5–10

  11–15

  16–18

  Without dependent children

  Spring (March to May) 1989

  All persons (thousands) (=100%)4

  16,666

  3,029

  2,098

  1,466

  474

  9,598

  In full-time employment (%)

  38.2

  12.6

  19.7

  30.3

  37.1

  51.6

  In part-time employment (%)

  27.6

  27.0

  45.2

  42.6

  37.8

  21.1

  Spring (March to May) 2001

  All persons (thousands) (=100%)4

  17,479

  2,997

  2,366

  1,569

  567

  9,979

  In full-time employment (%)

  39.4

  17.9

  25.5

  36.9

  43.7

  49.4

  In part-time employment (%)

  29.8

  35.9

  44.4

  38.1

  36.6

  22.9

  Change, spring 1989 to spring 20015

  In full-time employment

  1.2

  5.4

  5.8

  6.6

  6.7

  -2.3

  In pan-time employment

  2.3

  8.9

  -0.8

  -4.6

  -1.2

  1.8

  1Women in full-time/part-time employment as a percentage of all women

  2The definition of full-time/part-time is based on respondents' self-assessment

  3Children aged under 16 and those aged 16–18 in full-time education

  4Base for percentages includes women who did not state their full-time/part-time status

  5Percentage points

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 3: Employment rates1 of women by highest qualification level and age of youngest dependent child 2; United Kingdom; springs (March to May) 1989 and 2001; not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands and per cent.

  Women aged 16–59

  With youngest dependent child aged

  All

  0–4

  5–10

  11–15

  16–18

  Spring (March to May) 1998

  All persons (thousands)3

  16,666

  3,029

  2,098

  1,466

  474

  9,598

  Higher qualifications4 (%)

  80.9

  63.8

  82.7

  87.2

  88.6

  85.4

  Other qualifications5 (%)

  69.6

  40.2

  68.7

  76.9

  78.4

  78.6

  No qualifications (%)

  55.3

  26.6

  54.7

  66.0

  65.8

  60.2

  Spring (March to May) 2001

  All persons (thousands)3

  17,479

  2,997

  2,366

  1,569

  567

  9,979

  Higher qualifications4 (%)

  84.7

  73.3

  85.6

  88.6

  88.3

  87.0

  Other qualifications5 (%)

  70.8

  54.3

  71.9

  78.5

  84.5

  74.2

  No qualifications (%)

  55.3

  26.6

  54.7

  66.0

  65.8

  60.2

  Change, spring 1989 to spring 20016

  Higher qualifications4

  3.8

  9.5

  2.9

  1.4

  -0.2

  1.6

  Other qualifications5

  1.2

  14.1

  3.2

  1.6

  6.1

  -4.4

  No qualifications

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1Women with each qualification level who are in employment as a percentage of all women with the relevant qualification level

  2Children aged under 16 and those aged 16–18 in full-time education

  3Includes women who did not state their qualifications

  4Higher qualifications are those above GCE A-level or equivalent

  5Other qualifications are those of GCE A-level or equivalent or lower and includes miscellaneous qualification which cannot be classified

  6Percentage points

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Ministerial Attendance (Select Committee)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he willreply to the First Special report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee Session 2001–02, on the attendance of a Minister from the Treasury before the Transport and Local Government Committee. [61086]
  134W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Government expect to respond to the report soon.

  Privatised Industry Regulators
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responsibility he has for setting Government policy with regard to the independence of the economic regulators of the privatised utilities. [62301]
  135W
  Mr. Boateng
  Primary responsibility for the Government's policy on specific regulated industries rests with the relevant Secretary of State.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from(a) the DTLR, (b) the SRA, (c) the Office of the Rail Regulator and (d) train operating companies with regard to the Government's policy towards the independence of the economic regulators of the privatised utilities. [62302]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers receive representations from a variety of organisations and individuals on a regular basis.

  Responsibility for the Government's policy on railways rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I refer the hon. Member to an answer the Secretary of State gave on the subject of rail regulation on 12 June.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60907]

  Ruth Kelly
  There has been no expenditure for HM Treasury for press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02, there is no planned expenditure for 2002–03.

  Inland Revenue (Penalties)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of penalty is charged against those failing to submit returns to the Inland Revenue; how many businesses have received these penalties against them over the past three years; and what the total amount received by the Exchequer as a result of these fines was. [61312]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue charges late filing penalties for Self Assessment (SA), Corporation Tax Self Assessment (CTSA) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax. SA taxpayers failing to submit returns by the filing date are charged a £100 penalty and a second £100 penalty if they have not filed six months after the due date. The Inland Revenue can also seek penalties of between £10 and £60 a day at the discretion of the Tax Commissioners on SA taxpayers who persist in not filing a return. Employers and contractors failing to submit a PAYE return are charged a penalty of £100 per month the return is later for each 50 employees or subcontractors. Companies that are late in filing their CTSA returns are charged £100 if they file less than three months after the filing date, £200 if they are between three and 18 months late (if the company files late on three consecutive occasions, these penalties increase to £500 and £1,000 respectively), 10 per cent. of their unpaid tax if they are 18 months to two years late and 20 per cent. of their unpaid tax if they are more than two years late in filing. Businesses may be liable to submit a return as employers, or under the SA or CTSA regulations. But these regulations also include non-business taxpayers such as employees taxed at the higher rate who are within SA. The Inland Revenue does not distinguish between penalties charged on businesses and other types of taxpayers, so the figures that follow are for all penalties within SA, CTSA and PAYE.
  136W
  The first table shows the number of penalties raised by the Inland Revenue from late filing penalties on returns over the last three financial years.

  Penalties raised in the financial year ended:

  Head of Duty

  1999

  2000

  2001

  PAYE1

  130,000

  120,000

  150,000

  SA2

  1,400,000

  1,600,000

  1,500,000

  CTSA3

  170,00

  180,000

  220,000

  1Rounded to the nearest 10,000

  2Rounded to the nearest 100,000

  The second table shows the total amount paid in respect of penalties over the last three account years (these run from November to October and are periods over which the Department's annual accounts are calculated).

  Penalties paid (£) in the account year ended:

  Head of Duty

  1999

  2000

  2001

  PAYE1

  14,200,000

  14,400,000

  15,100,000

  SA1

  29,400,000

  33,000,000

  36,200,000

  CTSA1

  14,400,000

  18,000.000

  25,300,000

  1Rounded to nearest £100,000

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to prevent the issuing of penalty notices for £0 by the Inland Revenue. [61880]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue have no plans at present to stop issuing penalty notices for nil.

  Page I of the tax return states that the return should reach the Inland Revenue by 'the later of 31 January and 3 months after the date the notice [to make the return] was given, at the latest, or you will be liable to an automatic penalty of £100'.

  The issue of a penalty notice lets the customer know that a penalty has been incurred. The nil penalty notice gives the customer who knows the return is late (and has no tax liability) confirmation that the penalty is capped at nil. As the penalty may not remain at nil (if, for example, the customer amends the return or tax becomes payable following an inquiry) it is important that the customer is aware that a penalty has been incurred.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional(a) income tax and (b) VAT which would be paid if the basic state pension was raised to £120 a week for the single pensioner and £150 for married couples in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [61256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated income tax yield wold be some £2.8 billion in 2002–03 and £3.3 billion in 2003–04. The VAT yield would depend on what pensioners decided to do with the increase.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations and outside bodies which were in receipt of grant in 1997–98 are no longer; what the annual saving is(a) individually and (b) in aggregate;

  137W
  which organisations and outside bodies which were not in receipt of grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is (i) individually and (ii) in aggregate. [62047]

  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregate figure for government grants to private organisations and individual was £28.6 billion in 2000–01 (the last year for which full outturn data are available) compared with £24.8 billion in 1997–98. This excludes social security payments classified as grants in the national accounts as grants and includes lottery grants.

  Detailed analysis of departmental spending is contained in Departments' annual reports. Comprehensive data on individual grant recipients are not centrally available.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to extend the reduction in corporation tax for incorporated companies announced in the Budget to unincorporated businesses; and if he will make a statement. [61790]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 106W.

  Pricing Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advanced pricing agreements(a) have been made and (b) were in force with multinational companies in each year since 1996; and in how many cases each year enforcement action or penalties were taken in transfer pricing disputes. [62024]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Advanced pricing agreements

  Year to 31 March

  Agreements made

  Agreements in force

  1996

  3

  8

  1997

  2

  10

  1998

  3

  13

  1999

  2

  15

  2000

  10

  25

  2001

  11

  36

  Transfer pricing issues are dealt with across the IR network, and a variety of enforcement action is taken or proposed, but in most instances information is eventually provided voluntarily, without the need of formal proceedings. Specific records are not maintained. No penalties were taken in respect of transfer pricing disputes.

  Financial Action Task Force
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries are listed as non co-operating countries and territories under the Financial Action Task Force process; which countries have been identified as not co-operating with the new recommendations to tackle terrorist financing; how he estimates that non-compliance will affect the UK's relationship with such countries; and if he will make a statement. [62326]
  138W
  Ruth Kelly
  The following countries and territories are currently listed as non co-operative in the fight against money laundering: Cook Islands, Dominica. Egypt, Guatemala, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Niue, Philippines, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. The list will be reviewed and updated at the forthcoming FATF plenary to be held 18 to 21 June. The FATF has issued a self-assessment questionnaire concerning observance of the eight special recommendations on terrorist financing to both FATF and non-FATF members and will be considering the results at its forthcoming meeting. Countries and territories on the FATF's list have generally worked positively with the FATF to improve their anti money laundering systems and the UK has provided help and support on a bilateral basis to several countries on the list.

  Self-employment Tax Claims
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the number of false self-employment tax claims in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [62343]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. An individual's employment status for tax and national insurance purposes depends on the terms and conditions under which that person is engaged. Where the Inland Revenue discovers that someone is working on terms which should mean they are employed but are being treated incorrectly by their employer as self-employed then the employer may have to meet extra tax and national insurance liabilities for past years, interest and penalties. In cases of fraud or evasion, the Inland Revenue may prosecute.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been taken to deal with the level of false self-employment tax claims; how much has been spent investigating such claims in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [62342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue aims to ensure that the law on employment status is applied even-handedly across all sectors of industry. As part of its compliance strategy, the Revenue's local employer compliance review teams consider employment status issues when undertaking reviews to ensure employers and contractors are compliant with the tax and national insurance laws generally. No accurate estimate of the cost of the employment status element of these reviews is possible.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the cost of false self-employment tax claims in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [62340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he plans to take to combat the falsification of tax claims by the self-employed; and if he will make a statement. [62341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue aims to ensure that the law on employment status is applied even?handedly across all sectors of industry. As part of its compliance strategy the Revenue's local employer
  139W
  compliance review teams consider employment status issues when undertaking reviews to ensure employers and contractors are compliant with the tax and national insurance laws generally.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of working families tax credit claimants(a) per constituency and (b) per head of population per constituency. [62645]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of recipients of working families tax credit in each constituency, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W.

  I understand from the Office for National Statistics that they do not currently produce population estimates for parliamentary constituencies. I am therefore unable to estimate the number of recipients per head of population in each constituency.

  Climate Change Levy
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on businesses within the retail industry. [61313]

  John Healey
  All of the revenue from the climate change levy is recycled back to business through NIC cuts and support for energy efficiency. While the levy package is broadly revenue neutral to business as a whole, the effects on any specific sector will depend on a number of factors, including:The future energy consumption of firms in the sector and the use they make of levy funded energy efficiency support.
  Employment levels in those sectors and the benefits received from the levy-funded national insurance contribution cuts.
  What use firms in that sector make of electricity generated from levy exempt renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power.

  Customs (Coach Searches)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many coaches returning from trips abroad have been stopped by Customs and Excise, in the past year for searches to be carried out; and what locations away from ports have been used for such searches. [62088]

  John Healey
  The information is not available in the format requested. Customs keep records on search of person and aggregate data on seizures but do not routinely record every instance in which an officer stops a person or vehicle.

  The majority of Customs anti-smuggling searches of international traffic take place at the port, on Port Authority premises. Customs do, on occasions, undertake intelligence-led anti-smuggling work away from the ports (eg intercepting targets on motorways) usually working with the police.

  NHS Auditors
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what functions will be fulfilled by the NHS 140W
  auditors referred to in his budget statement; and how these will differ from the current functions, in respect of the NHS, of the (a) National Audit Office and (b) Audit Commission. [51935]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is proposed that the new commission for health care audit and inspection will include as its principal roles:

  Inspecting all national health service hospitals;

  Licensing private health care provision;

  Conducting NHS value for money audits on a national basis;

  Validating published performance assessment statistics on the NHS, including waiting list information;

  Publishing star ratings for all NHS organisations with the ability to recommend special measures where there are persistent problems;

  Publishing reports on the performance of NHS organisations both individually and collectively;

  Independent scrutiny of patient complaints;

  Publishing an annual report to Parliament on national progress on health care and how resources have been used.

  In relation to the NHS, the main responsibilities of the Audit Commission currently are to:

  Appoint auditors to audit the accounts of health bodies

  Prescribe the way in which auditors act through a Code of Audit Practice

  Set a scale of audit fees payable, and

  Carry out 'value for money' studies on the provision of services by audited bodies.

  The 'value for money' work is currently carried out at the national level by the Audit Commission and, as part of the local audit of NHS bodies, by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission.

  In future the Audit Commission value for money work carried out at both the national and local levels will be transferred to the new body. The Audit Commission will retain responsibility for the financial audit of NHS bodies.

  The current role of the National Audit Office in relation to the NHS will remain unchanged. They will continue to audit the summarised accounts of the NHS; to ensure that public money has been spent for the purposes which Parliament intended; to hold the Department accountable for the way it uses taxpayers' money, and to conduct a number of value for money investigations each year.

CABINET OFFICE

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the non-departmental public bodies, covered by the "Quangos: Opening the Doors" document, indicating(a) those that hold annual open meetings, (b) those that release summary reports of meetings, (c) those that invite evidence from members of the public, (d) those that allow public access to their records and (e) those brought within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [62271]

  Mr. Alexander
  The 1998 publication, "Quangos, Opening the Doors", set out proposals for all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), where appropriate, to be more open and responsive to the public. The information
  141W
  requested is not currently available but it is my intention to publish later this year in the Cabinet Office's publication "Public Bodies 2002" new information on: annual open meetings; release of summary reports of meetings; registers of members' interests; NDPB ombudsmen; whether annual reports are to be published; and whether the appointments to the NDPBs are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60535]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has no performance targets other than those public service agreements (PSA) agreed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review and listed in document Cm 4181—Public Service Agreements 1999–2002. Some of these targets were subsumed into new public service agreements, agreed as part of the Spending Review 2000, and are listed in document Cm 5119. Copies of both documents are held in the House of Commons Library.

  The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), which is an executive agency of the Cabinet Office, and the Central Office of Information (COI), which is an executive agency and separate Government department, both report through the Cabinet Office.

  GCDA

  The strategic performance targets for GCDA are published annually in the agency's annual report and accounts. Copies of these are held in the House of Commons Library, or can be accessed via the GCDA website.

  Key performance targets for GCDA are set annually by the Minister when he approves the agency's corporate and business plans. These were announced on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 677W.

  The chief executive is directly responsible to the Minister for ensuring that the agency achieves its performance target. Quarterly performance reports are submitted to the Minister via the Agencies Unit of the Cabinet Office, and the Permanent Secretary.

  COI

  Details of performance targets for COI are listed in the COI's annual reports and accounts. Copies of these are held in the House of Commons Library, or can be accessed via the COI website.

  Targets are formulated by the COI chief executive, submitted for approval by the Minister, and notified to Parliament.

  The five-year corporate plan sets out the COI's main strategic objectives and the means of progressing towards them. This is rolled forward and updated each year by means of a corporate plan and annual business plan. These plans are commercially sensitive and are not published. However, published targets for 2001–02 were announced on 3 May 2001. Targets for the period 2002–03 will be announced shortly.
  142W
  The chief executive is directly accountable to the Minister for ensuring that the agency achieves its performance targets. Quarterly performance reports are submitted to the Minister via the Agencies Unit, and the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office.

  The achievement against targets is audited by the National Audit Office as part of its audit of COI's annual report and accounts.

  None of the non-departmental public bodies are executive; therefore they are included within the main departmental targets.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61005]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) gave to the hon. Member on 17 June 2002.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who the members of the Better Regulation Task Force are; what their other occupations are; and what the date of their appointment was. [580061

  Mr. Alexander
  [pursuant to the answer 21 May 2002. c. 290]: I regret that the information provided was incorrect—one member of the Better Regulation Task Force, Rex Symons, was not included.

  A register of members' interests is available on the task force website at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/TaskForce/members.htm.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Members' Travel Costs
  John Mann
  To ask the President of the Council what percentage of hon. Members' UK travel costs were for travel(a) by car, (b) by rail and (c) by aeroplane in the last financial year for which figures are available. [62357]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  For the financial year ended 3 I March 2002, hon. Members' UK travel costs for(a) car, (b) rail and (c) aeroplane were £3,231,432 (50 per cent.), £1,784,303 (27 per cent.) and £1,507,598 (23 per cent.) respectively.

HEALTH

  Paediatric Pathology
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were working in paediatric pathology in(a) March 1997, (b) March 1998, (c) March 1999, (d) March 2000, (e) March 2001 and (f) March 2002. [61456]
  143W
  Mr. Hutton
  The numbers of doctors working in paediatric pathology is not collected centrally. Census data are collected on 30 September of each year and the 2002 census will be available early 2003.

  Paediatric pathology is a sub-specialty of histopathology. The numbers of doctors working in histopathology is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical consultants within the histopathology speciality, England

  At 30 September

  Number

  1997

  770

  1998

  830

  1999

  840

  2000

  860

  2001

  920

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  We continually review future requirements for trained specialists as part of the national health service's new multi-disciplinary work force planning processes. These will look at the requirements for doctors alongside other staff focusing on the potential for new ways of working and developing new roles.

  The children's care group work force team will be reviewing paediatric services as part of its role in supporting the children's national service framework team in developing the work force aspect of the new national service framework.

  Hip Replacements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of an elective primary hip replacement in each NHS(a) trust and (b) hospital was in 2000–01. [61436]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of national average costs related to specific treatments and procedures for 2000–01 are to be found in Reference Costs 2001, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Medical Education
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on medical education post reductions in relation to the strategic alliance between the Department of Health and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. [61466]

  Mr. Hutton
  The strategic alliance for health and social care was concluded between the Department and the higher education funding council for England in April 2002. It will build on existing arrangements for consultation and liaison between the Department and the higher education funding council for England.

  Within the framework of the strategic alliance the Permanent Secretary of the Department and the chief executive of the higher education funding council for England will be meeting on 3 July 2002. Delivery of the medical school expansion programme, a key element of the NHS Plan, will be among the issues to be discussed.
  144W
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meeting he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss the implications of staffing reductions at medical schools. [61463]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regular meetings take place at official and ministerial level between the Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills (DFES). I am scheduled to meet with my hon. Friend the Minister of State at DFES on 26 June and staffing levels at medical schools will be among the issues to be discussed.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role medical schools have in implementing the National Plan's human resources priorities. [61469]

  Mr. Hutton
  Medical schools have an important role in implementing the NHS Plan human resources priorities. In particular, the implementation of medical school expansion will support the increase in the number of medical school places outlined in the Plan.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical students have graduated in each of the last five years; and how many in each year worked within the NHS upon graduating. [61433]

  Mr. Hutton
  The numbers of graduates from English medical schools in each of the last five academic years is shown in the table. The graduates referred to in the answer will almost all have entered medical school between autumn 1991 and autumn 1996.

  Academic year

  Number of English medical school graduates

  1996–97

  3,025

  1997–98

  3,261

  1998–99

  3,097

  1999–2000

  3,373

  2000–01

  3,286

  In order to become fully registered with the General Medical Council, all medical school graduates need to satisfactorily complete a year as a Pre-Registration House Officer (PRHO). Virtually all graduates of English medical schools undertake their PRHO year in the national health service.

  The number of PRHOs in the NHS in England in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Academic year

  Number of PRHOs in post

  1996–97

  3,356

  1997–98

  3,447

  1998–99

  3,543

  1999–2000

  3,641

  2000–01

  3,685

  Birmingham Care Consortium
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he and Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of the Birmingham Care Consortium in the last two months. [61454]
  145W
  Jacqui Smith
  None. I wrote to Mr. M. R. Grimson of the Birmingham Care Consortium on 7 May 2002 about the consortium's negotiations with Birmingham city council on care home fees.

  Career Grade Doctors
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-consultant career grade doctors are employed in the NHS in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [61431]

  Mr. Hutton: Available data are shown in the table.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS): Non-consultant career grades

  England at 30 September 2001

  Number

  Associate specialist

  1,630

  Clinical assistant

  5,030

  Hospital practitioner

  930

  Staff grade

  4,970

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 medical and dental work force census

  Nursing Applicants
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas nursing applicants are awaiting admission to the UK nursing register; and if he will make a statement. [61156]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are currently 5,800 overseas applications awaiting a decision from the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) regarding entry to the UK nursing register. The NMC has a programme of action to clear these outstanding applications.

  Foot Care
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 142W, on foot care, how many (a) professions and (b) projects were covered by the £3 million allocated for 2001–02. [61518]

  Mr. Hutton
  In August 2001, 13 universities and colleges, in partnership with 11 work force development confederations were identified as "first wave" sites for the modernisation of allied health professions education. The professions included in the first wave are:

  Physiotherapy

  Occupational Therapy

  Radiography

  Chiropody/Podiatry

  Speech and Language therapy.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 142W, on foot care, what amount was spent on education and training programmes for podiatrists and chiropodists. [61517]

  Jacqui Smith
  The spend for England and also the South East on pre-registration training programmes for podiatrists and chiropodists, excluding bursaries, together 146W
  with the student population figures, are shown in the following tables. Information on student bursary spend is no longer collected.

  £000

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Total spend (England)

  5,668

  6,654

  Spend (south-east)

  1,296

  1,677

  1Actual spend

  2Forecast spend

  Note:

  The forecast spend is subject to final outturn

  Source:

  Financial and Workforce Information Return (FWIR) November 2001

  2000–011

  2001–022

  Student population (England)

  921

  1,038

  Student population (south-east)

  251

  278

  1Actual student population

  2Forecast student population

  Note:

  The forecast spend is subject to final outturn

  Source:

  Financial and Workforce Information Return (FWIR) November 2001

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), of 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 691W, on chiropody, how many of the 6,500 proposed extra professionals will be chiropodists. [61941]

  Jacqui Smith
  As at 30 September 2001 there were 3,400 more qualified therapists and other professional staff than at 30 September 1999. Of these, 190 (6 per cent.) are chiropodists. We would expect this proportion of chiropodists to be broadly similar in 2004.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for an appointment with an NHS chiropodist, broken down by health authority., on I May in each year since 1996. [60724]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect waiting times or numbers of people waiting fan appointment with an national health service chiropodist.

  Residential/Nursing Home Beds
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing home beds were available in England, broken down by local authority, at the end of each year since 1996–97. [61776]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the total number of residential care beds, shown by local authority, and information on the total number of nursing care beds are shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  National Health Service Pensions Agency
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken by the National Health Service Pensions Agency(a) to identify and (b) to pursue and recover overpayments. [61344]
  147W
  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Pensions Agency operates internal controls to ensure the correct pension benefits are being paid, including periodic checks on entitlement to ongoing pension payments. As reported in the resource accounts for the NHS pension scheme the agency also takes part in the national fraud initiative co-ordinated by the Audit Commission, to ensure pension payments were still being made to the individual originally entitled to the pension.

  Once overpayments have been identified, the agency has a special team who pursue recovery in accordance with the guidance in Government Accounting. Where necessary, cases are referred to solicitors for recovery, or, in cases involving fraud, to counter fraud specialists in the Department or the police.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest available figures for the number of people waiting more than six months for in-patient treatment in Dorset. [62569]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is collected centrally at trust level. The information for the Dorset area is shown in the table.

  In-patient waiting list data for NHS trusts in Dorset, as of 30 April 2002

  NHS trust

  Total waiting list

  Number waiting over six months

  Dorset health care

  0

  0

  Poole hospital

  2,207

  4

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch hospitals

  3,377

  64

  West Dorset General hospitals

  1,856

  5

  Source:

  DH monthly returns

  April 2002 is the most recent month for which information is available.

  Number of children looked after at 31 March 2001 by ethnic origin and Government region

  Ethnic origin

  All children

  White

  Mixed rate

  Asian or Asian British

  Black or Black British

  Other ethnic groups

  England

  58,900

  48,200

  3,800

  1,100

  4,000

  1,800

  North East

  3,400

  3,300

  110

  1—

  10

  1—

  North West

  7,300

  6,600

  410

  120

  100

  60

  Merseyside

  2,400

  2,200

  90

  1—

  150

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,500

  5,800

  420

  150

  70

  20

  East Midlands

  4,100

  3,700

  350

  60

  70

  20

  West Midlands

  6,500

  5,200

  450

  220

  380

  170

  South West

  4,900

  4,500

  240

  20

  100

  90

  Eastern

  5,200

  4,700

  260

  70

  100

  100

  London

  11,000

  5,700

  1,100

  410

  2,800

  900

  South East

  7,700

  6,500

  350

  100

  290

  420

  Figure has been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality.

  Notes:

  Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  All figures over a thousand have been rounded to the nearest hundred; other figures rounded to the nearest ten.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) agency staff, (b) positions unfilled for (i) one month and (ii) three months and (c) staff in children in care settings there were in each quarter of each of the last three years. [61368]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not collect information on the numbers of agency staff who work in child care settings. Information about the number of child care positions unfilled is not collected on a regular basis. Ad hoc surveys have been undertaken in the past which have determined the vacancy rates in child care posts in social services departments or in the private sector. The last survey undertaken in this area was for 'Community Homes for Children Looked After' run by local authorities in England and Wales, and it was undertaken in 1999. This survey stated that in England the overall full-time and part-time vacancy rates were both 10.3 per cent.

  However, local authority social services departments in England complete an annual return giving information about the staff they employ as at 30 September. The data from this return gives the number of whole time equivalent staff employed in child and family services as follows:

  Number of staff

  1999

  38,005

  2000

  38,505

  2001

  38,195

  Notes:

  The actual numbers of staff employed by local councils are greater than the above figures as some of these staff work only part-time. The above figures do not take into account those central and strategic staff and certain other categories of staff who provide more generic services across a range of council responsibilities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) percentage and (b) number of children in care in each (i) region and (ii) health authority broken down by ethnic background, in each of the last five years. [61353]

  Jacqui Smith
  Data available at 31 March is shown in the following tables. Data is not available for any years prior to this.
  149W

  Percentage of children looked after at 31 March 2001 by ethnic origin and Government region

  percentage

  Ethnic origin

  All children (=100%)

  White

  Mixed race

  Asian or Asian British

  Black or Black British

  Other ethnic groups

  England

  58,900

  82

  6

  2

  7

  3

  North East

  3,400

  96

  3

  1—

  0

  1—

  North West

  7,300

  91

  6

  2

  1

  1

  Merseyside

  2,400

  89

  4

  1—

  6

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,500

  90

  6

  2

  1

  0

  East Midlands

  4,100

  88

  8

  1

  2

  0

  West Midlands

  6,500

  81

  7

  3

  6

  3

  South West

  4,900

  91

  5

  0

  2

  2

  Eastern

  5,200

  90

  5

  1

  2

  2

  London

  11,000

  52

  10

  4

  25

  8

  South East

  7,700

  85

  5

  1

  4

  5

  1Figure has been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality.

  Notes:

  Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  All figures over a thousand have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the(a) number of children placed and (b) reasons for children being placed in (i) foster care and (ii) care for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [61357]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of foster placement during the years ending 31 March 1997–2000, by the reason for being looked after recorded for the first episode of the first foster placement started during the year

  Reason for being looked after

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All children

  32,900

  33,300

  32,400

  32,700

  No parents

  350

  460

  540

  640

  Abandoned or lost

  940

  980

  1,100

  1,300

  Family or child homeless

  250

  230

  240

  250

  Parent(s) in prison

  440

  400

  430

  410

  Breakdown of adoptive family

  90

  70

  70

  90

  Preliminary to adoption

  460

  500

  480

  440

  Parent's health

  3,900

  4,000

  3,500

  3,000

  Parents/families need relief: child with disabilities

  230

  260

  250

  200

  other

  7,800

  7,300

  6,100

  5,700

  Abuse or neglect

  10,000

  11,200

  12,200

  13,400

  Concern for child's welfare

  2,700

  2,600

  2,700

  2,700

  Own behaviour

  1,400

  1,300

  1,200

  1,100

  Accused or guilty of an offence

  710

  800

  740

  690

  At request of child

  730

  640

  590

  530

  Other

  2,900

  2,500

  2,200

  2,400

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for England.

  2. Year ending 31 March.

  3. Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  4. Number of children starting a new period of foster placement during the year exceeds the number of children starting to be looked after in the year in a foster placement. Some children starting a new period of foster placement in the year will actually have started to be looked after in a previous year.

  5. All numbers over 1,000 have been rounded to the nearest 100; other figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.
  150W

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of placements during the years ending 31 March 1997–2000, by the reason for being looked after recorded for the first episode of the first placement started during the year

  Reason for being looked after

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All children

  44,300

  44,900

  44,800

  45,800

  No parents

  520

  600

  810

  1,100

  Abandoned or lost

  1,200

  1,200

  1,400

  1,700

  Family or child homeless

  400

  350

  390

  340

  Parent(s) in prison

  480

  430

  500

  450

  Breakdown of adoptive family

  120

  100

  110

  130

  Preliminary to adoption

  570

  620

  640

  610

  Parent's health

  4,200

  4,300

  3,800

  3,400

  Parents/families need relief: child with disabilities

  520

  530

  610

  490

  other

  9,600

  9,000

  7,900

  7,400

  Abuse or neglect

  13,600

  15,300

  16,800

  18,200

  Concern for child's welfare

  3,500

  3,400

  3,600

  3,500

  Own behaviour

  2,400

  2,300

  2,100

  2,000

  Accused or guilty of an offence

  1,900

  2,000

  1,800

  1,800

  At request of child

  1,100

  930

  760

  760

  Other

  4,300

  4,000

  3,700

  3,900

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for England.

  2. Year ending 31 March.

  3. Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  4. Number of children starting a new period of placement during the year exceeds the number of children starting to be looked after in the year, as some children starting a new period of placement in the year will actually have started to he looked after in a previous year.

  5. All numbers over 1,000 have been rounded to the nearest 100; other figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Number of looked after children who started one or more periods of placements uring the years ending 31 March 2001, by the recorded Category of Need for the first placement started during the year

  Type of placement

  Category of Need

  Foster placements

  All placements

  All children

  29,800

  41,700

  Abuse or neglect

  15,800

  22,000

  Disability

  610

  1,100

  Parent's illness or disability

  2,700

  3,200

  Family in acute stress

  3,200

  4,100

  Family dysfunction

  3,800

  5,200

  Socially unacceptable behaviour

  1,500

  2,900

  Low income

  280

  320

  Absent parenting

  1,900

  2,900

  151W
  Notes:

  1. Figures are for England.

  2. Table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  3. Number of children starting a new period of placement during the year exceeds the number of children starting to be looked after in the year, as some children starting a new period of placement will have started to be looked after in a previous year.

  4. All numbers over 1.000 have been rounded to the nearest 100; other figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) types and (b) number of prescriptions of medication that have been given to children in care over the last five years. [61361]

  Jacqui Smith
  The details of prescriptions given to individual children are contained in confidential health records which do not identify children as being in care. While individual carers will be aware of the type and number of prescriptions given to a child, this information is not available for aggregation.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) percentage and (b) number of children in care in each (i) region and (ii) health authority broken down into (a) mental and (b) physical disability, in each of the last five years. [61352]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on mental disability of children in care is not held centrally. The other information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) percentage and (b) number of children in care in each (i) region and (ii) health authority (A) had an abortion and (B) gave birth while in care in each of the last five years. [61359]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not currently collected at national level. One survey of care leavers showed that a quarter had a child by the age of 16. A robust method for collecting data on births among looked-after-children is being developed as part of the national indicator set for monitoring the teenage pregnancy strategy.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of stay in(a) foster care and (b) children in care settings has been in each of the last five years. [61356]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Average duration of placements, of looked after children, ceasing during the years ending 31 March 1997 to 2001, by type of placement

  England

  Average duration (days)

  Type of placement

  Foster placements

  All placements

  1997

  216

  210

  1998

  213

  215

  1999

  231

  223

  2000

  231

  228

  2001

  256

  248

  Note:

  The table excludes children looked after under a series of short-term placements.
  152W

  Carers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department will develop a fund to help local authorities produce tailored care packages to back up the results of carers' assessments under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. [62541]

  Jacqui Smith
  The development of carers services is being kept under review as part of the overall development of services for older people.

  Fostering
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each local authority the average amount paid to a foster family per week for each child fostered in each of the last five years. [61338]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available centrally.

  Cardiac Surgeons
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cardiac interventionists there were in the UK who are able to perform percutaneous coronary interventions using stints; and how many vacancies exist for(a) one month, (b) one to three months and (c) three months or longer; [61360]

  (2) how many cardiac surgeons there are in the UK who are able to perform open heart surgery; and how many vacancies have existed for (a) one month, (b) one to three months and (c) three months or longer. [61367]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  As at September 2001, the number of cardio-thoracic surgeons in England was 204. We are unable to ascertain how many of these surgeons perform percutaneous coronary interventions using stents or open heart surgery.

  The three month vacancy rate for cardio-thoracic surgery is shown in the table.

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2001 Vacancies in England for consultants in the specialty—cardio thoracic surgery

  England

  Three month vacancy rates (%)

  1.6

  Three month vacancies (wte)

  0

  Staff in post

  (wte)

  180

  (hc)

  200

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are vacancies as at 31 March 2001 which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  2. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post from the September 2000 medical and dental work force census (whole time equivalent).

  3. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, 0 being between 0–5.

  4. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  5. Due to rounding calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  Source:

  Department of Health Vacancy Survey 2001

  Department of Health medical and dental work force Census 2000
  153W

  Music Therapy
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department gives for the use of music therapy to assist people with disabilities. [62090]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is happy to fund voluntary organisations who have an interest in the use of music therapy to assist disabled people. For instance, the Musicspace Trust received a two-year section 64 project grant in 1999–2000 to 2000–01.

  In addition to this, the national health service and councils with social services responsibilities provide a wide range of services for disabled adults and children, and these can include, for example, music or art activities in day centres, but we do not keep detailed central records about these activities.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the National Care Standards Commission has not dealt with requests made by Ravenscroft Nursing Home, Yelverton for dual registration. [61873]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) took over responsibility for the regulation of all care homes in England on 1 April 2002, including care homes not previously required to register.

  In the case of Ravenscroft Nursing Home, I understand that the current provider is already registered with the NCSC and that a Mr. and Mrs. O'Carroll are applying for registration with the NCSC in order to take over the care home. I understand that there has been some delay in processing the application due to a number of factors. Partly because the original application was submitted on out-of-date registration forms and had to be resubmitted, and, regrettably, because the NCSC mislaid the revised application in the 11,000 received at that time. However, the documentation has now been received and is satisfactory. Mr. and Mrs. O'Carroll's interview with the NCSC has been arranged for 17 June and, once Criminal Records Bureau checks have been received, a final decision will be made about registration.

  Adoptions (Macedonia)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been adopted from Macedonia in the last 10 years for which figures are available: and if he will make a statement. [62557]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect figures on the total number of children being brought from overseas for adoption each year. Figures are only held for those adoptions involving a home study assessment in the UK.

  Department records indicate that only one adoption application for Macedonia has been processed in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the procedures involved in adopting children from Macedonia. [62558]
  154W
  Jacqui Smith
  The procedures for adopting a child from Macedonia are broadly the same as for adopting a child from any overseas country. Before any person may adopt a child they must first be assessed by an approved adoption agency as being suitable to adopt. As part of the approval process a home study report is prepared and presented to an adoption panel for approval. Following this, the report is then endorsed by the agency's decision maker and forwarded to the Department where a certificate of eligibility to adopt is prepared in line with the Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001.

  In the case of an application to adopt a Macedonian child, the completed home study and the certificate of eligibility to adopt are sent to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in Macedonia. The Ministry of Labour and Social Policy will then seek to identify a suitable child for the applicants. If a match is made, the applicants may then make arrangements to travel overseas and adopt the child. The applicants will then apply for entry clearance, in the normal way, to enable them to bring the child into the UK for the purposes of adoption.

  On their return to the UK the applicants must notify their local social services department of their intention to adopt with 14 days. As Macedonia is not included on the list of countries whose adoption orders are recognised in the UK, an application will need to be made to a UK court to re-adopt the child.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total savings to public funds of the Private Finance Initiative contract for the old age psychiatry services for the Stockport NHS Trust by comparison with a non-Private Finance Initiative alternative. [49521]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Stockport National Health Service Trust business case justifying the individual schemes estimated the annual net savings in present value terms (for example all future costs and benefits discounted to their present values) compared with publicly funding the scheme as follows:

  Net present costs of public sector comparator (PSC) v. PFI option

  £000

  Private finance initiative

  3,350

  Public

  3,379

  Annual savings in net present value terms

  29

  Percentage difference—0.9

  Correspondence
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden dated 19 February concerning cancelled operations in Hull and the East Riding. [50609]

  Mr. Hutton
  A reply was sent on 11 June.

  Wanless Report
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to expand medical and nursing
  155W
  schools as a result of the Wanless report; what estimate he has made of how many extra doctors and nurses will be registered to be trained as a result of the report; and if he will make a statement. [52441]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report 'Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View' (the Wanless report) does not make any recommendations on increasing the number of students entering medical or nurse training. The Government and higher education institutions are midway through the process of delivering the increased numbers of students entering medical and nursing training that were announced in 1998 and the NHS Plan. By 2004 the number of students entering nurse training will be 5,500 a year more than in 1999 and by 2005 the number of students entering medical school will be almost 2,150 a year more than in 1997.

  Following the spending review settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, work force plans will be finalised once the public service agreement targets are agreed in summer 2002.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies were approached with regard to the supply of smallpox vaccines; and what information was included in the specification sent to these companies. [53949]

  Mr. Hutton
  Detailed confidential discussions were held with five major pharmaceutical companies who were known to have vaccine manufacturing capability either in the UK or in Europe. The companies approached were Acambis, Aventis Pasteur, Glaxo Smith Kline, RIVM and PowderJect. Our requirements for vaccine strain, timing and delivery and the need to meet current vaccine manufacturing guidelines were made clear to each of the companies and confirmed in writing. Each of the companies was then given time to submit their responses.

  £

  Name of voluntary organisation

  Name of project

  Amount

  SIGN

  "Education and employment training for deaf people with mental health problems"

  99,000

  Turning Point

  "Starting point: Routes to work for people with mental health problems"

  286,428

  Working Well Trust

  "On Line"—Professional IT training and support for people who have mental health problems, including help with job search and vocational advice

  92,000

  Southside Partnership

  "Mentally disordered offenders prison discharge support"—Includes help for mentally disordered offenders to find employment

  150,000

  Total

  627,428

  Primary Care Premises
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many of the GP premises due to be modernised work will have been(a) started and (b) completed by 1 April; and
  156W

  Mental Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly patients have received community-based psychiatric provision in each of the last five years. [56958]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of first contacts with patients aged 65 and over by community psychiatric nurses is set out in the table.

  Community psychiatric nurses—number of first contacts with patients aged 65 and over, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Thousand

  Number of persons

  1996–97

  146

  1997–98

  152

  1998–99

  162

  1999–2000

  158

  2000–01

  154

  Further information about patient contacts with community psychiatric nurses is contained in the statistical report "Patient care in the community, Community Psychiatric Nursing, summary information for 2000–01, England". A copy of the summary is in the Library and also available on the Department website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/kc570001.

  Older people also receive other community-based psychiatric services, either as well as or separately from services from community psychiatric nurses, but information is not available on the numbers receiving other services.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is being made available to organizations in the voluntary sector working to promote employment of people with mental health problems as set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health. [61323]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Over the period 1998–99 to 2003–04 the Department has awarded funding of £627,428 through the Section 64 general scheme of grants to the following mental health voluntary organisations to support national projects that are designed to help improve employment opportunities for people with mental health problems.

  what financial resources will be needed to complete this work by March 2004; [56942]

  (2) how many of the new one-stop primary care centres will have been (a) started and (b) completed by 1 April; and what financial resources will be needed to complete this work by March 2004. [56945]
  157W
  Mr. Hutton
  Data are collected only on completed premises developments and associated capital spend. As set out in the NHS Plan, up to £1 billion will be invested in the primary care infrastructure to refurbish substantially or replace up to £3,000 general practitioners' (GP) premises and develop 500 one-stop primary care centres. Outturn figures for 31 March 2002 show that 1,098 GP premises were refurbished or replaced, and 70 one-stop primary care centres were in place.

  Hospital Beds (Northumberland)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the bed capacity was of each community and cottage hospital in Northumberland in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [56935]

  Jacqui Smith
  Bed capacity data by individual hospital site are not collected.

  Home helps employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England as at 30 September, 1992–2001 (whole time equivalents)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon

  1,275

  1,050

  1,100

  1,075

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  245

  220

  220

  225

  210

  255

  0

  245

  210

  210

  Barnet

  230

  60

  220

  255

  240

  170

  175

  155

  120

  185

  Barnsley

  420

  390

  365

  340

  1—

  260

  240

  225

  225

  2—

  Bath and North East Somerset UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  135

  130

  125

  140

  145

  130

  Bedfordshire (old)

  490

  415

  515

  530

  445

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  235

  225

  200

  180

  180

  Berkshire

  590

  515

  580

  505

  680

  680

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bexley

  270

  290

  345

  365

  350

  360

  315

  340

  0

  0

  Birmingham

  1,320

  1,450

  1,690

  1,575

  1,475

  1,670

  1,490

  1,435

  1,105

  1,250

  Blackburn with Darwen UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  155

  175

  120

  100

  Blackpool UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  195

  155

  130

  100

  Bolton

  340

  325

  345

  365

  350

  370

  375

  380

  395

  365

  Bournemouth UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140

  145

  140

  110

  110

  Bracknell Forest UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  40

  40

  30

  Bradford

  695

  715

  725

  665

  625

  590

  600

  655

  540

  475

  Brent

  110

  315

  310

  275

  250

  250

  570

  0

  0

  0

  Brighton and Hove UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  145

  170

  165

  105

  Bristol UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  465

  460

  535

  555

  555

  570

  Bromley

  245

  250

  275

  295

  350

  330

  215

  200

  175

  160

  Buckinghamshire (old)

  530

  565

  790

  810

  925

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  565

  520

  540

  410

  355

  Bury

  210

  210

  210

  205

  210

  200

  265

  185

  205

  200

  Calderdale

  390

  305

  305

  320

  310

  335

  290

  245

  240

  225

  Cambridgeshire (old)

  470

  515

  515

  550

  415

  430

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  460

  380

  200

  215

  Camden

  275

  270

  210

  190

  170

  170

  180

  165

  105

  85

  Cheshire (old)

  865

  815

  775

  750

  625

  585

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  480

  515

  525

  535

  City of London

  15

  15

  20

  25

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  15

  Cleveland

  730

  720

  875

  660

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  480

  450

  465

  380

  390

  340

  0

  0

  0

  15

  Coventry

  360

  240

  345

  315

  315

  270

  260

  200

  180

  170

  Croydon

  245

  245

  300

  210

  210

  190

  190

  175

  165

  140

  Cumbria

  500

  505

  545

  0

  410

  415

  440

  445

  605

  715

  Darlington UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  70

  65

  30

  30

  Derby UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  325

  300

  295

  295

  280

  Derbyshire (old)

  1,405

  1,135

  1,130

  1,090

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  930

  930

  945

  930

  900

  Devon (old)

  920

  945

  955

  955

  835

  800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  505

  425

  395

  440

  Doncaster

  465

  510

  545

  515

  510

  505

  370

  385

  335

  250

  Dorset (old)

  535

  515

  605

  580

  610

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  265

  220

  260

  255

  215

  Dudley

  310

  285

  300

  310

  245

  240

  270

  210

  270

  280

  Durham (old)

  945

  860

  920

  725

  740

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  600

  500

  510

  365

  Ealing

  225

  250

  260

  250

  200

  130

  75

  110

  110

  100

  East Riding of Yorkshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  250

  190

  125

  110

  80

  East Sussex (old)

  630

  625

  630

  565

  560

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  275

  260

  265

  265

  250

  Enfield

  310

  210

  215

  200

  195

  180

  165

  165

  145

  130

  Essex (old)

  1,405

  655

  525

  555

  1.480

  1,150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  815

  620

  590

  635

  Gateshead

  340

  335

  415

  415

  390

  350

  405

  485

  360

  365

  158W
  Information on the average daily number of available beds for national health service trusts in England is on the Department website www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalativity.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2002,Official Report, column 616W, what information on home helps is held by his Department; and if he will publish it. [57470]

  Jacqui Smith
  The table gives the number of home helps (excluding home help organisers) employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England as at 30 September in each year between 1992 and 2001. Home helps employed by the private sector are not included, even if doing work contracted by councils.
  159W

  Home helps employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England as at 30 September, 1992–2001 (whole time equivalents)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Gloucestershire

  495

  500

  550

  545

  415

  300

  295

  295

  305

  295

  Greenwich

  290

  285

  260

  260

  220

  235

  190

  170

  170

  160

  Hackney

  380

  340

  310

  320

  265

  240

  220

  205

  165

  140

  Halton UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  65

  80

  80

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  260

  310

  305

  280

  255

  140

  225

  140

  120

  115

  Hampshire (old)

  955

  990

  1,010

  875

  855

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  620

  480

  525

  475

  350

  Haringey

  255

  195

  195

  0

  45

  215

  145

  165

  100

  120

  Harrow

  240

  215

  230

  235

  235

  220

  245

  195

  200

  170

  Hartlepool UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  115

  115

  100

  85

  50

  Havering

  255

  290

  265

  320

  155

  150

  135

  125

  105

  95

  Hereford and Worcester

  655

  670

  630

  520

  405

  365

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  85

  150

  90

  85

  Hertfordshire

  820

  730

  585

  745

  565

  445

  445

  375

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  285

  320

  320

  285

  0

  275

  210

  160

  175

  330

  Hounslow

  225

  140

  160

  150

  125

  105

  100

  95

  90

  85

  Humberside

  1,200

  1,445

  1,150

  1,220

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight UA

  150

  0

  80

  80

  120

  65

  165

  150

  150

  145

  Isles of Scilly

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Islington

  250

  235

  235

  425

  330

  330

  0

  155

  135

  80

  Kensington and Chelsea

  145

  160

  135

  145

  165

  135

  120

  85

  95

  90

  Kent (old)

  660

  140

  125

  105

  85

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  180

  160

  135

  Kingston upon Hull UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  405

  215

  175

  165

  155

  155

  Kingston upon Thames

  95

  90

  80

  80

  70

  70

  50

  0

  65

  65

  Kirklees

  545

  480

  545

  170

  285

  295

  270

  255

  425

  445

  Knowsley

  90

  95

  95

  120

  0

  0

  60

  120

  110

  115

  Lambeth

  450

  375

  150

  340

  340

  235

  160

  105

  0

  95

  Lancashire (old)

  1,635

  1,665

  1,905

  1,685

  1,540

  1,565

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  795

  0

  0

  10

  Leeds

  1,600

  1,450

  1,535

  1,520

  1.480

  1,450

  1,415

  1,475

  1,420

  1,390

  Leicester UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  255

  215

  185

  155

  140

  Leicestershire (old)

  690

  815

  890

  710

  700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  395

  310

  335

  425

  275

  Lewisham

  370

  345

  350

  325

  295

  290

  225

  225

  220

  210

  Lincolnshire

  525

  520

  550

  550

  625

  555

  485

  200

  255

  160

  Liverpool

  845

  840

  900

  1,040

  955

  900

  865

  865

  780

  690

  Luton UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  120

  115

  100

  125

  135

  Manchester

  700

  735

  720

  660

  650

  585

  540

  515

  455

  415

  Medway Towns UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  55

  35

  25

  Merton

  215

  205

  210

  205

  190

  170

  170

  155

  140

  0

  Middlesbrough UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  185

  155

  140

  135

  110

  110

  Milton Keynes UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  235

  230

  200

  190

  135

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  515

  435

  425

  415

  470

  395

  440

  465

  470

  420

  Newham

  385

  335

  270

  190

  215

  230

  245

  205

  35

  100

  Norfolk

  985

  1,025

  1,190

  1,095

  1,130

  1,075

  1,010

  975

  910

  880

  North East Lincolnshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  255

  250

  185

  190

  130

  95

  North Lincolnshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  110

  100

  105

  95

  100

  North Somerset UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  165

  165

  155

  145

  150

  165

  North Tyneside

  360

  360

  360

  350

  345

  310

  325

  345

  345

  335

  North Yorkshire (old)

  795

  740

  750

  790

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  625

  525

  515

  560

  535

  535

  Northamptonshire

  375

  375

  385

  385

  225

  220

  165

  50

  165

  125

  Northumberland

  485

  525

  610

  570

  445

  475

  335

  320

  405

  430

  Nottingham UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  320

  315

  260

  Nottinghamshire (old)

  1,200

  1,245

  1,280

  1,150

  1,245

  1,010

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  745

  610

  550

  540

  Oldham

  355

  310

  320

  280

  295

  310

  275

  265

  250

  235

  Oxfordshire

  525

  545

  505

  485

  555

  430

  460

  475

  475

  415

  Peterborough UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  65

  30

  40

  Plymouth UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220

  225

  145

  120

  Poole UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  110

  100

  85

  80

  85

  Portsmouth UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  125

  120

  115

  105

  95

  Reading UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  90

  80

  70

  Redbridge

  225

  1—

  165

  155

  195

  180

  145

  135

  110

  105

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  180

  220

  195

  180

  1—

  145

  Richmond upon Thames

  185

  235

  195

  200

  185

  185

  0

  145

  150

  130

  Rochdale

  440

  440

  375

  400

  390

  310

  330

  305

  145

  280

  Rotherham

  375

  375

  345

  335

  310

  295

  295

  305

  295

  280

  Rutland UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30

  25

  25

  15

  15

  Salford

  375

  505

  510

  505

  520

  485

  495

  505

  330

  300

  Sandwell

  420

  410

  430

  365

  450

  440

  350

  320

  335

  165

  Sefton

  340

  355

  315

  290

  260

  240

  240

  230

  195

  160

  Sheffield

  1,505

  735

  700

  700

  970

  805

  810

  800

  750

  735

  Shropshire (old)

  265

  245

  235

  235

  200

  180

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  105

  90

  95

  Slough UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140

  100

  105

  75

  160W 161W

  Home helps employed by councils with social services responsibilities in England as at 30 September, 1992–2001 (whole time equivalents)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Solihull

  185

  190

  200

  185

  185

  170

  140

  130

  120

  105

  Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  425

  435

  260

  210

  220

  South Gloucestershire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  170

  160

  165

  160

  145

  125

  South Tyneside

  230

  235

  235

  240

  230

  225

  180

  190

  230

  215

  Southampton UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140

  135

  180

  110

  110

  Southend UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  135

  150

  120

  100

  Southwark

  285

  265

  265

  280

  265

  230

  210

  180

  150

  0

  St. Helens

  340

  340

  305

  310

  285

  335

  315

  365

  265

  260

  Staffordshire (old)

  1,400

  1,415

  1,485

  1,355

  1,295

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -

  Staffordshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  760

  665

  650

  710

  625

  Stockport

  370

  350

  280

  365

  360

  310

  295

  280

  280

  245

  Stockton on Tees UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  155

  210

  165

  165

  140

  125

  Stoke-on-Trent UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  245

  240

  225

  205

  205

  Suffolk

  555

  655

  705

  625

  600

  540

  555

  620

  385

  400

  Sunderland

  480

  480

  515

  455

  475

  585

  715

  540

  345

  410

  Surrey

  455

  450

  395

  490

  435

  405

  360

  355

  325

  310

  Sutton

  210

  165

  170

  170

  155

  155

  145

  120

  115

  95

  Swindon UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105

  90

  0

  10

  35

  Tameside

  390

  350

  365

  310

  290

  260

  225

  215

  205

  125

  Telford and Wrekin UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  45

  40

  35

  Thurrock UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  105

  50

  50

  Torbay UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  75

  75

  90

  110

  Tower Hamlets

  165

  165

  160

  160

  225

  165

  145

  145

  150

  140

  Trafford

  305

  330

  330

  345

  330

  330

  320

  305

  315

  295

  Wakefield

  445

  360

  430

  450

  450

  470

  455

  410

  425

  360

  Walsall

  245

  240

  235

  230

  210

  215

  205

  215

  195

  185

  Waltham Forest

  445

  335

  360

  355

  325

  285

  285

  235

  225

  215

  Wandsworth

  440

  445

  410

  335

  325

  275

  245

  215

  205

  185

  Warrington UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  90

  75

  65

  Warwickshire

  465

  445

  415

  365

  370

  405

  365

  330

  330

  480

  West Berkshire UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  150

  120

  40

  West Sussex

  750

  775

  870

  865

  815

  815

  795

  540

  595

  485

  Westminster

  305

  325

  305

  330

  300

  0

  285

  290

  295

  2—

  Wigan

  405

  440

  400

  390

  365

  290

  295

  285

  300

  285

  Wiltshire (old)

  330

  265

  460

  420

  440

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire (remaining)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  470

  235

  220

  0

  2—

  Windsor and Maidenhead UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80

  85

  80

  45

  Wirral

  500

  515

  615

  550

  580

  500

  435

  410

  325

  290

  Wokingham UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65

  75

  25

  40

  Wolverhampton

  390

  275

  375

  385

  420

  375

  340

  230

  235

  30

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  255

  265

  300

  265

  York UA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  210

  210

  200

  150

  135

  120

  England

  54,255

  50,745

  52,685

  49,810

  47,750

  46,315

  42,885

  39,775

  35,630

  33,020

  1Not available

  2Five or less

  Note:

  Due to local government reorganisation, not all authorities were in existence for the whole period covered by the table

  Source:

  Department of Health annual return SSDS001

  Overseas Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual(a) salary and (b) support costs are of his Department's director of international recruitment for health services. [58031]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The director of international recruitment was on detachment from her post as executive nurse director at Hammersmith Hospitals National Health Service Trust. This secondment finished on 30 April 2002. The trust publishes salary details of its senior staff in its annual report. A budget of £154,000 was secured for 2001–02 to fund salaries, travel and support costs to the director.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government are taking to ensure that 162W
  epilepsy deaths and SUDEP are reduced as far as possible; [60085]

  (2) if he will undertake a national confidential inquiry into sudden epilepsy deaths in order to obtain data on this condition; and if he will make a statement on the quantity of data he has collated on SUDEP. [60081]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department recently welcomed the national sentinel audit of epilepsy-related death. The Government-funded project reviewed the official records of people who died from an epilepsy-related death in the UK between September 1999 and August 2000. During that period, 2,412 deaths were reported where epilepsy was mentioned on the death certificate.

  The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. The audit makes recommendations for improving epilepsy services. The Department has given a

  163W
  commitment to consider these and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to reduce the number of epilepsy-related deaths.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government are doing to address the deficiencies they have identified in the care and management of people with epilepsy. [60083]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are undertaking a range of initiatives to improve services for the care and management of people with epilepsy. For example, we have:Provided funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to develop a 'National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy', which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to national health service purchasers, providers and service users.
  Provided funding for the national sentinel audit of epilepsy-related death, which was published in May 2002. The chief medical officer has given a commitment to develop an action plan to reduce the level preventable deaths from epilepsy within three months of publication.
  Asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a clinical guideline (due in summer 2004) for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by a technology appraisal (due autumn 2003) of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.
  Announced that the national service framework for long-term conditions (NSF) is expected to develop standards of care for specific neurological conditions, including epilepsy. The NSF is expected to be published in 2004. Implementation is expected to start from 2005.
  Developed the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will include people with epilepsy.
  Provided funding to the National Society for Epilepsy for its 'Living Well' project. The project aims to promote independent living by providing locally based short-term courses for people with epilepsy to develop self-help and self-management techniques.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve the(a) monitoring and (b) prevention of sudden deaths owing to epilepsy. [61341]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently welcomed the publication of the Government-funded 'National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death'. The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. The Department has given a commitment to consider the recommendations of the audit and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to improve epilepsy services and reduce the number of preventable deaths from epilepsy.

  The Department is also undertaking a range of initiatives to improve services for the care and management of people with epilepsy. For example, we have:
  Provided funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to develop a 'National Statement of Good Practice for the Treatment and Care of People who have Epilepsy', which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good
  164W
  quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to national health service purchasers, providers and service users.
  Asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a clinical guideline (due in summer 2004) for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by a technology appraisal (due autumn 2003) of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.
  Announced that the national service framework for long-term conditions (NSF) is expected to develop standards of care for specific neurological conditions, including epilepsy. The NSF is expected to be published in 2004. Implementation is expected to start from 2005.
  Developed the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will include people with epilepsy.
  Provided funding to the National Society for Epilepsy for its 'Living Well' project. The project aims to promote independent living by providing locally based short-term courses for people with epilepsy to develop self-help and self-management techniques.

  Newborn Hearing Screening
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 738, on neonatal screening, when his Department will make an announcement setting out a timetable for the national implementation of universal newborn hearing screening. [60107]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The newborn hearing screening pilot was the first phase of a national roll-out of the service. The pilot phase has provided important information, about the impact on audiology and other support services, and has provided the data which will enable us to plan a national roll-out to a sensible, feasible time scale ending with full implementation by the end of 2004–05.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) representations the Department has received following the announcement that continence pads would be provided free of charge to all care home residents from October 2001; and if he will make a statement; [60094]

  (2) what proportion of the amount made available for NHS continence services for 2003–04 will be earmarked for (a) continence adviser recruitment, (b) continence adviser training, (c) continence pads and (d) other continence products and services; [60093]

  (3) whether an equivalent amount to the money made available in the period April 2002 to April 2003 for NHS continence services for self-funding residents will be made available for non self-funding residents post April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [60097]

  (4) what factors were taken into consideration when deciding to allocate the initial £6 million for NHS continence care in the period October 2001 to April 2002 to all care home residents; [60095]
  165W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds will be made available for NHS continence services in the period(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [60092]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available as specific budgets of health authorities and primary care trusts for continence services are not determined centrally. They receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.

  The level of funding made available for continence provision is therefore a local decision. It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services

  The details of a transfer of resources from local authorities to cover nursing care/continence from 2003–04 will be the subject of a separate consultation over the summer.

  No representations were received about continence payments for self funders.

  The £6 million figure was arrived at on the basis that approximately two thirds of the population receiving nursing care in care homes (over 40,000) are incontinent and this figure represents an average cost to the national health service of providing continence services to them.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding has been made available in the last 12 months to promote management of continence by(a) constituency and (b) region. [59114]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information requested relating to funding by constituency and region is not available centrally. Specific budgets of health authorities and primary care trusts for continence services are not determined centrally. They receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.

  £6 million of the £100 million allocated to national health service funded nursing care from 1 October 2001 was for the continence needs of self-funders who had previously had to pay nursing homes for continence services. £12 million will be available to the NHS for this year's 2002–03 full year costs for this group.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the staffing establishment is at the National Care Standards Commission; what the annual costs are of running it; how many nursing and residential homes were inspected by the NCSC in April and May; and if he will make a statement as to the reasons for delays in dealing with applications; [61348]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the application form for nursing and residential homes to be registered; and if he will explain what the procedure for registration is; [61350]

  (3) what the estimated time is for the National Care Standards Commission to send out application forms for (a) residential and (b) nursing homes to register, if they
  166W
  are sent first or second class; how long on average it has taken to inspect (i) nursing and (ii) residential homes which have applied for registration; who carries out the inspection; what the criteria for inspection are; and how the criteria differ from the local inspection previously carried out by local authorities; [61351]

  (4) if he will make a statement as to why the costs for registration and inspection of nursing and residential homes have risen since 1 April. [61349]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) took over responsibility for the regulation of all care homes in England on 1 April 2002, including care homes not previously required to register. The NCSC is responsible for regulating care homes in accordance with national minimum standards to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection for the most vulnerable people in society.

  The NCSC is currently dealing with a heavy load of applications under the new arrangements and there is some delay in dealing with some applications. The NCSC is taking steps to deal with this and expects the average time for processing applications to reduce as the number of applications comes down to more normal levels.

  The NCSC's staffing establishment is 2,352 of which 1,874 staff are currently in post. As this is the NCSC's first year of operation, we have no historical data as yet on actual running costs of the NCSC. However, the NCSC is planning its work for 2002–03 on the basis of a budget of £131 million revenue and £1.5 million capital. The NCSC's programme of inspections was not expected to get fully under way before June 2002 due to factors such as completing office accommodation moves and information technology set-ups, transferring staff, finalising inspector training and giving due notice to providers of the inspections. Nevertheless, from the information currently available, 66 inspections were carried out in April and 612 in May. 2,034 inspections are planned for June.

  Application forms for registration are usually sent out by first class post. Information is not available on the times taken to send out packs containing application forms. Requests for packs are responded to within two working days where possible, although some delays have occurred due to a higher than planned volume of demand requiring forms to be reprinted. Information is currently not available on the times taken to inspect nursing and residential homes which have applied for registration, but this will become available later this year.

  Details of registration procedures and application forms for nursing and residential care homes are available on the NCSC's website www.carestandards.org.uk

  Regulatory fees for care homes increased on 1 April this year. This is the first increase in fees since 1 May 1998. The increase reflects the effects of inflation on the value of fees but also our longer-term aim of moving to full cost recovery. Despite this increase, care homes currently only pay 31 per cent. of the actual cost of registration and inspection. We recognise that fees are not the only extra cost of the new regulatory system to care homes. We are increasing total resources available for social services by an average of six per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years (2003–04 to 2005–06). These increases follow average annual real

  167W
  terms increases of more than three per cent. between 1996–97 and 2002–03 including a 3.6 per cent. real terms increase this year (2002–03). These substantial increases in resources, in particular over the next three years, will enable local authorities to deliver the improvements to social services to which the Government are committed. It also means that local authorities have the resources they need to purchase services at realistic prices.

  Under the previous regulatory system, care homes were inspected by around 250 local authorities and health authorities each applying its own, sometimes contradictory, local conditions for registration. This system had been criticised over several years for lacking independence, consistency and coherence. The NCSC will, by contrast, inspect care homes using national standards. Due to the large number of different standards set under the previous regulatory system, I cannot say in detail how national standards may differ from them. This will vary from area to area. However, national standards were widely consulted on and the finalised standards were set at a level already being met or exceeded by many providers and which others should be able to meet over time.

  National Service Framework for Long-term Health Conditions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if neurology will be included in the remit of the national service framework for long-term health conditions; and if he will make a statement. [60087]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently confirmed that the national service framework for long-term health conditions will focus on developing standards of care for specific neurological conditions and some of the generic issues relevant to people with a long-term condition.

  Care Budgets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projections he has made of numbers of(a) long-term care beds, (b) nursing and residential beds and (c) acute care beds; what implications this will have for funding arrangements for care budgets (i) in general and (ii) with respect to continence care; and if he will make a statement. [60086]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 871W. The projections published by the Personal Social Service Research Unit also include projections of long-stay beds in hospital. Projections of general and acute beds are contained in "Delivering the NHS Plan", copies of which are available in the Library.

  In planning expenditure on long-term care, we need to take into account a number of other factors beyond the numbers of beds. People generally prefer to be supported in their own homes and so we are developing services which promote greater independence. As announced in the Budget, we are increasing the resources for personal social services by six per cent. in real terms in each of the next three years. This will ensure that councils have the resources that they need to purchase good quality services for the people that they serve. The organisation and
  168W
  provision of continence services, and the manner in which they are delivered, is a matter for primary care trusts and NHS trusts. They are under an obligation to provide these services where the need exists, in light of resources and local priorities.

  Epsom Hospital
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conditions as to future usage were applied to the handover of the Epsom hospital cluster sites to the NHS; and whether covenants remain which require areas of the sites to be used for specific purposes. [60239]

  Jacqui Smith
  No conditions were attached to the future usage of land in the Epsom cluster not do any covenants apply.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), of 15 May 2002.,Official Report, column 735W, on hospital discharges, (1) if he will set out the target number of the maximum number of beds blocked following the 20 per cent. reduction of bed blockers as proposed in, Delivering the NHS Plan, paragraph 8.10; [60814]

  (2) how many people had their discharge delayed in March, broken down by (a) reason, (b) health authority and (c) length of delay. [60815]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 12 June 2002]: All information, collected centrally, on delayed discharge in March 2002, quarter 4 of 2001–02, has been placed in the Library. The NHS Plan target is to reduce the number of delayed discharges from hospitals by 20 per cent. between March 2002 and March 2003.

  Malignant Neoplasms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the five most common malignant neoplasms for NHS patients; and how many deaths were incurred as a result of each for(a) men and (b) women in 2001. [61855]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Bob Spink, dated 17 June 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the five most common malignant neoplasms for NHS patients; and the number of deaths incurred as a result of each for (a) men and (b) women in 2001. (61855)
  The information that is available on new cases of cancer relates to all those registered in England in each year. It is likely that the vast majority of these will have had some contact with the NHS during their treatment, but it is not possible to state which were NHS patients. The most recently available information is for cases diagnosed in 1998 and for deaths occurring in 2000. Figures for all new cases of the five most common cancers and all deaths from these cancers are given in the table.
  169W

  Number of new cases1 of the five most common cancers, England,2 1998; and a number of deaths3 from these cancers, England,2 20004

  Men

  Women

  5 most common cancers

  Number of new cases in 1998

  Number of deaths in 2000

  5 most common cancers

  Number of new cases in 1998

  Number of deaths in 2000

  Bronchus and lung

  19,487

  16,875

  Breast

  32,908

  10,609

  Prostate

  19,335

  7,785

  Colon and rectum

  13,459

  6,278

  Colon and rectum

  14,927

  6,945

  Bronchus and lung

  11,789

  10,338

  Bladder

  7,529

  2,727

  Ovary

  5,529

  3,653

  Stomach

  5.209

  3,356

  Corpus uteri and uterus, part unspecified

  4,407

  1,243

  1defined using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases. Tenth Revision (ICD-10):

  Stomach—C16

  Colon and rectum—C18–C21

  Bronchus and lung—C34

  Breast—C50

  Corpus uteri and uterus, part unspecified—054–055

  Ovary—056

  Prostate—C61

  Bladder—C67

  2data are for residents of England.

  3defined using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9):

  Stomach—151

  Colon and rectum—153–154

  Bronchus and lung—162.2–162.9

  Breast—174

  Corpus uteri and uterus, part unspecified—179, 182

  Ovary—183.0

  Prostate—185

  Bladder—188

  4data are for cases diagnosed and deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  Laboratory and Generic Research
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reduction of cost weights for laboratory and generic research. [61470]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England has reviewed the annual data from higher education institutions on the relative costs of research in different subjects and, in the light of that, has reduced the weight attached to the most expensive subjects in calculating research funding in 2002–03.

  False Memory Syndrome
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted by his Department into false memory syndrome since 1997; who undertook the research; and when the papers were published. [61871]

  NHS Plan GPs1 per 100,000 population, by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  Region/HA name

  HA code

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  QDD

  54.6

  55.4

  56.2

  57.2

  56.2

  58.9

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  QDT

  50.0

  49.6

  49.2

  50.1

  49.6

  50.7

  County Durham Health Commission

  QDE

  50.1

  50.7

  50.6

  51.2

  51.7

  54.2

  East Riding HA

  QDF

  51.1

  50.6

  50.4

  50.6

  50.3

  50.9

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  QDG

  51.7

  51.3

  51.6

  53.0

  53.1

  54.1

  Leeds Healthcare

  QDH

  54.3

  54.1

  54.3

  55.1

  54.8

  55.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  QDJ

  55.6

  55.8

  55.0

  55.3

  55.7

  56.5

  North Cumbria HA

  QDK

  61.2

  60.6

  60.0

  60.7

  60.0

  60.7

  North Yorkshire HA

  QDR

  58.5

  58.3

  58.7

  58.1

  57.8

  58.2

  170W
  Ms Blears
  The Department has not directly commissioned any recent research into false memory syndrome. The Department provides national health service (NHS) research and development (R&D) funding to meet the NHS costs of hosting R&D supported by funders such as the research councils and charities. Details of ongoing and recently completed research projects funded by or of interest to the NHS are available on the National Research Register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many whole-time equivalent general practitioners, excluding GP retrainees and GP registrars, per 100,000 population there were in each health authority in each of the last six years; [60826]

  (2) what the average percentage annual increase of whole-time equivalent general practitioners was, excluding GP retrainees and GP registrars, in each health authority in each year since 1996. [60827]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  171W

  NHS Plan GPs1 per 100,000 population, by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  Region/HA name

  HA code

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Northumberland HA

  QDM

  58.8

  58.0

  58.0

  59.0

  58.1

  59.9

  Sunderland HA

  QDN

  45.7

  45.2

  45.3

  47.1

  46.6

  50.5

  Tees HA

  QDP

  48.9

  51.1

  50.5

  50.3

  50.5

  52.3

  Wakefield Healthcare

  QDQ

  55.0

  54.9

  54.4

  54.7

  55.7

  57.8

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  QCG

  48.7

  48.2

  47.5

  49.1

  49.0

  49.0

  Doncaster HA

  QCK

  51.2

  50.1

  50.4

  50.4

  50.6

  51.8

  Leicestershire HA

  QCL

  52.1

  52.4

  52.3

  51.2

  50.5

  50.7

  Lincolnshire HA

  QCM

  53.1

  52.7

  52.7

  53.3

  53.3

  52.8

  North Derbyshire HA

  QCH

  49.6

  50.1

  51.1

  51.7

  50.0

  49.8

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  QCN

  44.2

  48.2

  49.6

  49.4

  49.8

  49.8

  Nottingham HA

  QCP

  50.2

  48.6

  48.4

  50.3

  51.4

  50.8

  Rotherham HA

  QCQ

  45.0

  45.4

  45.8

  45.2

  47.0

  47.2

  Sheffield HA

  QCR

  58.1

  58.0

  57.4

  57.9

  57.3

  56.5

  South Humber HA

  QDL

  50.9

  54.6

  52.8

  54.1

  53.4

  52.4

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  QCJ

  53.4

  52.1

  52.0

  50.0

  51.1

  52.3

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  QA6

  51.2

  51.6

  51.4

  51.0

  51.0

  50.6

  Cambridgeshire HA

  QER

  52.9

  53.0

  52.3

  51.3

  53.5

  52.6

  Hertfordshire

  QEX

  53.3

  53.9

  54.7

  54.1

  53.1

  53.1

  Norfolk HA

  QET

  54.9

  55.7

  55.8

  55.9

  54.4

  55.1

  North Essex HA

  QAX

  50.5

  51.1

  50.2

  50.2

  49.6

  48.3

  South Essex HA

  QAY

  46.2

  46.2

  47.7

  47.1

  46.6

  45.6

  Suffolk HA

  QCF

  54.8

  54.6

  55.3

  55.0

  54.2

  52.9

  London

  Barking and Havering HA

  QAP

  47.4

  48.6

  48.0

  47.6

  50.6

  47.5

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  QEW

  56.7

  56.1

  57.1

  55.4

  55.8

  55.3

  Bexley. Bromley and Greenwich HA

  QEY

  49.1

  50.5

  49.4

  50.7

  49.8

  48.2

  Brent and Harrow HA

  QAR

  61.4

  62.6

  61.4

  59.1

  58.0

  59.5

  Camden and Islington HA

  QAT

  61.3

  66.4

  63.3

  63.1

  62.6

  58.8

  Croydon HA

  QAD

  48.4

  54.4

  51.0

  50.4

  49.2

  46.6

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  QAV

  56.7

  63.5

  60.5

  57.6

  55.9

  54.2

  East London and the City HA

  QAW

  60.6

  63.3

  62.9

  62.1

  62.3

  60.7

  Hillingdon HA

  QA2

  48.5

  48.1

  48.9

  47.6

  47.3

  48.1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  QA3

  54.8

  61.8

  57.1

  54.4

  51.1

  49.9

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  QAG

  54.5

  53.2

  52.6

  53.9

  52.4

  50.6

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  QAH

  54.9

  55.7

  56.1

  57.4

  55.9

  58.3

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  QAJ

  51.0

  52.6

  51.5

  50.8

  50.3

  51.1

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  QA5

  48.0

  50.4

  50.7

  49.9

  49.6

  49.3

  South Eastern

  Berkshire HA

  QA7

  50.6

  50.0

  51.5

  52.5

  52.5

  52.4

  Buckinghamshire HA

  QA8

  53.4

  52.8

  53.2

  53.9

  54.2

  54.0

  East Kent HA

  QAE

  51.3

  51.1

  51.0

  50.7

  49.7

  49.7

  East Surrey HA

  QAK

  51.4

  50.7

  51.2

  50.0

  50.0

  48.9

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove HA

  QAM

  53.2

  52.8

  52.9

  52.2

  52.0

  51.9

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  QEV

  52.5

  53.8

  54.5

  54.3

  54.6

  53.9

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  QD1

  51.8

  51.5

  51.3

  50.4

  49.7

  49.1

  Northamptonshire HA

  QCC

  50.2

  50.1

  49.9

  47.6

  46.4

  46.1

  Oxfordshire HA

  QCE

  55.5

  55.6

  55.8

  55.9

  54.9

  54.9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  QD3

  56.1

  56.2

  55.4

  55.9

  56.0

  56.1

  West Kent HA

  QAF

  53.6

  53.8

  53.3

  52.9

  52.0

  51.1

  West Surrey HA

  QAL

  52.5

  52.2

  52.1

  50.5

  50.6

  51.2

  West Sussex HA

  QAN

  54.1

  53.6

  53.4

  53.3

  53.5

  52.8

  South Western

  Avon HA

  QD8

  54.0

  54.1

  54.6

  54.4

  53.9

  54.2

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  QDV

  60.9

  60.1

  59.9

  59.1

  58.5

  59.2

  Dorset HA

  QDW

  58.7

  58.9

  59.1

  59.2

  59.1

  58.6

  Gloucestershire HA

  QDY

  57.5

  57.8

  58.4

  57.3

  56.7

  56.3

  North and East Devon HA

  QDX

  59.9

  61.7

  60.9

  59.9

  59.3

  59.1

  Somerset HA

  QD5

  56.8

  56.7

  57.1

  57.8

  58.3

  57.2

  South and West Devon HA

  QD6

  58.5

  58.4

  58.7

  58.0

  58.0

  58.8

  Wiltshire HA

  QD7

  51.4

  50.9

  51.7

  52.5

  52.9

  52.3

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  QD9

  55.9

  55.0

  55.8

  56.3

  56.1

  55.6

  Coventry HA

  QEA

  53.4

  53.0

  53.5

  54.8

  55.3

  55.0

  172W 173W

  NHS Plan GPs1 per 100,000 population, by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  Region/HA name

  HA code

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Dudley HA

  QEC

  48.3

  49.6

  50.1

  47.9

  47.9

  50.1

  Herefordshire HA

  QED

  58.5

  61.1

  62.1

  60.0

  60.0

  59.6

  North Staffordshire HA

  QEH

  50.3

  48.7

  49.5

  49.4

  48.7

  47.7

  Sandwell HA

  QEE

  51.5

  52.6

  52.1

  54.5

  54.4

  54.4

  Shropshire HA

  QEF

  54.5

  53.6

  53.1

  54.8

  53.3

  53.1

  Solihull HA

  QEG

  51.8

  52.6

  51.8

  51.3

  52.6

  51.7

  South Staffordshire HA

  QEJ

  45.7

  46.1

  47.3

  48.7

  48.9

  48.1

  Walsall HA

  QEK

  50.4

  50.1

  49.5

  50.1

  49.6

  48.7

  Warwickshire HA

  QEL

  51.8

  51.9

  51.2

  50.5

  50.7

  51.0

  Wolverhampton HA

  QEM

  49.8

  51.2

  50.4

  50.3

  52.7

  51.6

  Worcestershire HA

  QEN

  54.3

  54.0

  54.5

  55.0

  53.3

  54.1

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  QCT

  50.9

  51.5

  52.3

  52.8

  53.1

  51.7

  East Lancashire HA

  QCX

  55.2

  52.4

  53.2

  53.3

  53.0

  52.6

  Liverpool HA

  QC2

  52.5

  53.9

  53.3

  53.5

  53.4

  53.7

  Manchester Health

  QC3

  61.8

  61.8

  59.9

  61.9

  59.6

  59.9

  Morecambe Bay HA

  QC4

  51.6

  57.3

  58.7

  57.5

  57.4

  56.6

  North Cheshire HA

  QCV

  49.4

  47.1

  47.8

  49.5

  49.7

  50.4

  North West Lancashire HA

  QCY

  50.9

  50.3

  51.3

  50.7

  50.7

  51.2

  Salford and Trafford HA

  QC6

  51.8

  51.7

  52.7

  52.6

  53.4

  51.2

  Sefton HA

  QC7

  48.9

  50.5

  50.3

  50.8

  50.8

  51.4

  South Cheshire HA

  QCW

  53.9

  53.9

  53.5

  55.1

  55.1

  54.3

  South Lancashire HA

  QC1

  52.8

  50.8

  51.2

  50.9

  49.9

  50.8

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  QC5

  51.7

  52.4

  52.4

  52.9

  52.1

  54.8

  Stockport Health

  QC8

  51.0

  50.2

  50.7

  52.6

  52.3

  53.2

  West Pennine HA

  QC9

  46.4

  47.4

  47.6

  47.6

  46.6

  47.3

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  QDA

  49.1

  49.3

  49.3

  48.0

  48.8

  47.4

  Wirral HA

  QDC

  55.9

  56.8

  57.2

  57.3

  58.6

  57.9

  England Total

  53.1

  53.5

  53.5

  53.4

  53.1

  53.0

  1NHS Plan GPs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA) and PMS Other.

  2WTE data have been estimated using the results from the 1992–93GMP Workload Survey. Full-time = 1.00 wte; three quarter time = 0.69 wte, job share = 0.65 wte, half time = 0.60 wte.

  3There were 286 LIZ Assistants in the 1996 census, we do not have sufficient details to calculate wte data below a national level. The national total for 1996 has been estimated based onavailable headcount data and a such will not equal the sum of components. Because of this, London data for 1996 and subsequent calculations based on 1996 London data needs to be treated with caution.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics and ONS Population estimates/projections.

  NHS Plan GPs1 by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %4

  Region/HA name

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  264

  1.4

  268

  1.4

  272

  1.9

  277

  -1.2

  273

  5.0

  287

  1.7

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  291

  -0.7

  289

  -0.5

  287

  2.0

  293

  -0.3

  292

  2.4

  299

  0.6

  County Durham Health Commission

  305

  1.2

  309

  -0.3

  308

  1.0

  311

  0.9

  314

  4.7

  328

  1.5

  East Riding HA

  294

  -1.2

  291

  -0.3

  290

  0.1

  290

  -0.6

  288

  1.5

  293

  -0.1

  Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  184

  -1.0

  183

  -0.1

  182

  2.1

  186

  -0.3

  186

  1.5

  188

  0.4

  Leeds Healthcare

  395

  -0.3

  394

  0.4

  395

  1.3

  400

  -0.5

  398

  1.3

  403

  0.4

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  265

  -0.3

  264

  -2.0

  259

  -0.3

  258

  0.4

  259

  1.2

  262

  -0.2

  North Cumbria HA

  195

  -0.6

  193

  -0.9

  192

  0.6

  193

  -1.3

  190

  1.2

  193

  -0.2

  North Yorkshire HA

  430

  0.1

  430

  1.2

  436

  -0.3

  434

  0.3

  436

  1.3

  441

  0.5

  Northumberland HA

  181

  -0.8

  179

  0.2

  180

  1.9

  183

  -1.5

  180

  3.2

  186

  0.6

  Sunderland HA

  135

  -1.7

  132

  0.2

  133

  3.3

  137

  -1.3

  135

  7.9

  146

  1.6

  Tees HA

  273

  4.3

  284

  -1.1

  281

  -0.6

  279

  0.7

  281

  3.2

  290

  1.3

  Wakefield Healthcare

  175

  -0.3

  174

  -0.3

  174

  0.7

  175

  2.1

  178

  3.7

  185

  1.2

  Trent

  Barnsley HA

  111

  -0.8

  110

  -1.3

  108

  3.4

  112

  -0.2

  112

  0.1

  112

  0.2

  Doncaster HA

  150

  -2.2

  146

  0.0

  146

  -0.1

  146

  0.5

  147

  2.1

  150

  0.1

  Leicestershire HA

  483

  0.9

  487

  -0.3

  486

  -1.4

  479

  -1.0

  474

  1.0

  479

  -0.2

  Lincolnshire HA

  327

  -0.3

  326

  0.6

  328

  2.1

  335

  0.9

  338

  -0.1

  338

  0.6

  North Derbyshire HA

  184

  0.7

  185

  2.1

  189

  1.4

  192

  -3.1

  186

  -0.4

  185

  0.1

  North Notinghamshire HA

  173

  8.7

  188

  2.6

  193

  0.3

  194

  0.8

  195

  -0.1

  195

  2.4

  Nottingham HA

  322

  -3.0

  312

  -0.2

  311

  3.6

  322

  2.0

  329

  -1.0

  325

  0.2

  Rotherham HA

  115

  0.9

  116

  0.6

  117

  -1.6

  115

  3.7

  119

  0.4

  119

  0.8

  Sheffield HA

  308

  -0.2

  307

  -0.8

  305

  0.7

  307

  -1.2

  304

  -1.4

  299

  -0.6

  South Humber HA

  158

  6.7

  169

  -3.7

  163

  2.4

  167

  -1.5

  164

  -2.3

  161

  0.3

  Southern Derbyshire HA

  299

  -1.7

  293

  0.5

  295

  -3.4

  285

  2.6

  292

  2.9

  301

  0.2

  174W 175W

  NHS Plan GPs1 by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %4

  Region/HA name

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  281

  1.4

  285

  0.5

  286

  0.1

  287

  0.7

  289

  0.0

  288

  0.5

  Cambridgeshire HA

  384

  1.6

  390

  -0.1

  390

  -4.5

  372

  5.0

  391

  -0.6

  388

  0.2

  Hertfordshire

  541

  2.0

  552

  2.4

  565

  -0.2

  564

  -1.0

  558

  0.6

  561

  0.7

  Norfolk HA

  414

  2.2

  423

  1.0

  427

  4.3

  445

  -1.8

  437

  1.8

  445

  1.5

  North Essex HA

  447

  1.8

  455

  -1.1

  450

  0.9

  454

  -0.3

  453

  -2.0

  444

  -0.2

  South Essex HA

  324

  0.6

  326

  3.7

  338

  -0.7

  335

  -0.6

  333

  -1.6

  328

  0.3

  Suffolk HA

  363

  0.3

  364

  2.0

  371

  -0.1

  371

  -0.6

  369

  -1.8

  362

  0.0

  London

  Barking and Havering HA

  182

  2.5

  187

  -1.3

  184

  0.0

  184

  6.3

  196

  -6.3

  183

  0.1

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey HA

  452

  0.3

  454

  2.9

  467

  -1.4

  461

  1.8

  469

  0.5

  471

  0.8

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich HA

  357

  3.0

  368

  -2.0

  361

  3.4

  373

  -1.0

  369

  -2.9

  358

  0.1

  Brent and Harrow HA

  281

  2.5

  288

  -1.1

  285

  -3.5

  275

  -1.0

  272

  3.7

  282

  0.1

  Camden and Islington HA

  224

  8.9

  244

  -4.4

  233

  0.9

  235

  1.6

  239

  -4.9

  227

  0.3

  Croydon HA

  161

  13.0

  182

  -5.5

  172

  -1.3

  170

  -1.7

  167

  -4.4

  160

  -0.2

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  374

  12.9

  422

  -3.9

  406

  -2.9

  394

  -2.0

  386

  -1.7

  380

  0.3

  East London and the City HA

  367

  4.5

  383

  0.6

  385

  0.8

  388

  2.0

  396

  -1.0

  392

  1.4

  Hillingdon HA

  120

  0.0

  120

  2.4

  123

  -1.8

  121

  0.1

  121

  3.1

  125

  0.7

  Kensington. Chelsea and Westminster HA

  199

  16.9

  233

  -4.0

  223

  0.0

  223

  -0.5

  222

  -0.2

  222

  2.2

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  175

  -0.5

  175

  0.8

  176

  5.0

  185

  -1.6

  182

  -1.7

  179

  0.4

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  404

  1.6

  411

  1.9

  418

  3.5

  433

  -1.8

  425

  4.9

  446

  2.0

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  319

  3.3

  329

  -1.9

  323

  -0.3

  322

  0.0

  322

  2.3

  329

  0.7

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  216

  5.0

  227

  1.0

  230

  -1.7

  226

  -0.5

  224

  -0.2

  224

  0.7

  South Eastern

  Berkshire HA

  400

  -0.3

  399

  3.2

  412

  2.1

  420

  0.2

  421

  0.9

  425

  1.2

  Buckinghamshire HA

  359

  -0.3

  358

  1.5

  363

  2.3

  371

  1.1

  375

  0.8

  378

  1.1

  East Kent HA

  304

  0.6

  306

  0.2

  306

  0.8

  309

  -1.0

  306

  0.4

  307

  0.2

  East Surrey HA

  213

  -0.3

  212

  1.5

  215

  -0.5

  214

  0.4

  215

  -1.6

  211

  -0.1

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove HA

  391

  0.0

  391

  1.0

  395

  -0.3

  394

  0.3

  395

  0.6

  397

  0.3

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  351

  2.8

  361

  1.6

  366

  -0.3

  365

  0.9

  368

  -0.7

  366

  0.8

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  284

  0.1

  285

  0.4

  286

  -0.8

  283

  -1.4

  279

  -0.3

  279

  -0.4

  Northamptonshire HA

  303

  0.7

  305

  0.5

  307

  -3.8

  295

  -1.7

  291

  -0.1

  290

  -0.9

  Oxfordshire HA

  335

  1.4

  339

  1.4

  344

  1.7

  350

  -0.9

  347

  1.0

  350

  0.9

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  301

  0.6

  303

  -1.0

  300

  1.7

  305

  0.7

  307

  0.7

  310

  0.5

  West Kent HA

  517

  0.6

  520

  -0.3

  519

  -0.3

  517

  -1.0

  512

  -1.5

  504

  -0.5

  West Surrey HA

  333

  0.3

  334

  0.1

  334

  -1.6

  329

  0.3

  330

  1.8

  336

  0.2

  West Sussex HA

  399

  0.3

  400

  0.5

  402

  1.0

  406

  0.7

  408

  -0.4

  407

  0.4

  South Western

  Avon HA

  532

  0.9

  537

  1.7

  545

  0.6

  549

  -0.3

  547

  1.0

  556

  0.8

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  294

  -0.3

  293

  0.2

  294

  -0.5

  292

  0.0

  292

  1.8

  298

  0.2

  Dorset HA

  400

  1.2

  405

  0.8

  408

  0.4

  410

  0.7

  413

  0.0

  413

  0.6

  Gloucestershire HA

  320

  1.0

  323

  0.7

  325

  -0.9

  322

  -0.5

  321

  -0.3

  320

  0.0

  North and East Devon HA

  282

  3.9

  293

  -0.3

  292

  -0.9

  289

  0.4

  290

  0.3

  291

  0.6

  Somerset HA

  274

  0.7

  276

  1.3

  280

  1.9

  285

  1.4

  289

  -1.3

  285

  0.8

  South and West Devon HA

  345

  -0.2

  344

  0.5

  346

  -0.7

  343

  1.0

  347

  1.7

  353

  0.5

  Wiltshire HA

  305

  0.0

  305

  2.6

  313

  2.4

  320

  1.3

  325

  -0.4

  324

  1.2

  West Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  571

  -2.1

  558

  1.3

  566

  0.9

  571

  -0.7

  567

  -0.8

  562

  -0.3

  Coventry HA

  164

  -1.4

  161

  1.0

  163

  2.2

  166

  0.4

  167

  -0.5

  166

  0.3

  Dudley HA

  151

  2.3

  154

  1.1

  156

  -4.1

  150

  -0.1

  149

  4.7

  156

  0.7

  Herefordshire HA

  96

  5.4

  101

  2.7

  104

  -3.1

  101

  0.6

  102

  0.0

  102

  1.1

  North Staffordshire HA

  237

  -3.3

  229

  1.4

  232

  -0.3

  232

  -1.7

  228

  -2.3

  222

  -1.2

  Sandwell HA

  150

  1.8

  153

  -1.1

  151

  4.2

  158

  -0.5

  157

  -0.3

  157

  0.8

  Shropshire HA

  230

  -1.0

  227

  0.4

  228

  3.9

  237

  -2.0

  232

  0.2

  233

  0.3

  Solihull HA

  106

  2.3

  108

  -1.2

  107

  -1.0

  106

  2.1

  108

  -1.7

  106

  0.1

  South Staffordshire HA

  267

  1.8

  272

  3.1

  280

  2.7

  288

  0.4

  289

  -1.3

  285

  1.3

  Walsall HA

  132

  -0.9

  131

  -1.5

  129

  1.5

  131

  -1.3

  129

  -2.1

  127

  -0.9

  Warwickshire HA

  259

  0.8

  261

  -0.7

  260

  -1.3

  256

  0.8

  258

  1.1

  261

  0.1

  Wolverhampton HA

  122

  1.8

  124

  -1.8

  122

  -0.5

  121

  4.7

  127

  -2.4

  124

  0.3

  Worcestershire HA

  289

  0.1

  289

  1.5

  293

  1.3

  297

  -2.8

  286

  1.9

  294

  0.4

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  198

  1.2

  200

  2.1

  205

  1.3

  207

  1.0

  209

  -2.6

  204

  0.6

  East Lancashire HA

  282

  -5.1

  268

  1.6

  272

  -0.4

  271

  -0.7

  269

  -0.7

  267

  -1.1

  Liverpool HA

  246

  1.7

  250

  -1.5

  246

  -0.5

  245

  -0.3

  244

  -0.1

  244

  -0.1

  Manchester Health

  266

  -0.6

  264

  -2.6

  258

  3.5

  267

  -1.8

  262

  0.5

  263

  -0.2

  Morecambe Bay HA

  160

  11.3

  178

  2.4

  182

  -1.4

  180

  -0.1

  179

  -1.1

  177

  2.1

  North Cheshire HA

  154

  -4.8

  147

  1.5

  149

  3.5

  154

  0.3

  155

  1.7

  158

  0.4

  North West Lancashire HA

  238

  -1.3

  235

  2.0

  239

  -1.2

  236

  0.5

  238

  1.4

  241

  0.3

  Salford and Trafford HA

  232

  -0.5

  231

  2.0

  235

  -0.6

  234

  1.4

  237

  -4.1

  227

  -0.4

  Sefton HA

  142

  3.0

  146

  -0.8

  145

  0.8

  146

  -0.2

  146

  0.7

  147

  0.7

  South Cheshire HA

  360

  0.4

  361

  -0.5

  360

  2.8

  370

  0.2

  370

  -1.0

  367

  0.4

  South Lancashire HA

  163

  -3.5

  158

  1.5

  160

  -0.7

  159

  -1.3

  157

  1.9

  160

  -0.5

  176W 177W

  NHS Plan GPs1 by 2001 health authorities as at 1 October 1996–99 and 30 September 2000–01

  Estimated whole time equivalents2

  19963

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %

  %4

  Region/HA name

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  GPs

  change

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  172

  1.2

  174

  0.1

  175

  0.7

  176

  -1.5

  173

  4.6

  181

  1.0

  Stockport Health

  149

  -1.4

  146

  1.4

  149

  3.4

  154

  -0.9

  152

  1.9

  155

  0.9

  West Pennine HA

  219

  2:3

  224

  0.1

  224

  -0.1

  224

  -2.2

  219

  1.5

  222

  0.3

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  282

  0.5

  284

  0.4

  285

  -2.5

  278

  1.7

  283

  -2.8

  275

  -0.5

  Wirral HA

  184

  1.3

  186

  0.4

  187

  0.0

  187

  2.5

  192

  -1.5

  189

  0.5

  England Total

  26,271

  0.3

  26,359

  0.4

  26,455

  0.4

  26,558

  0.0

  26,557

  0.3

  26,628

  0.3

  1NHS Plan GPs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA) and PMS Other.

  2WTE data have been estimated using the results from the 1992–93GMP Workload Survey. Full-time = 1.00 wte; three quarter time = 0.69 wte, job share = 0.65 wte, half time = 0.60 wte.

  3There were 286 LIZ Assistants in the 1996 census, we do not have sufficient details to calculate wte data below a national level. The national total for 1996 has been estimated based onavailable headcount data and a such will not equal the sum of components. Because of this, London data for 1996 and subsequent calculations based on 1996 London data needs to be treated with caution.

  4Average annual percentage change 1996–2001.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.
  178W

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Cancer Care
Baroness Northoverasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the money directed towards cancer care has ultimately been used for that purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are currently reviewing the outturn position for the financial year 2001–02 and the progress made in that year. New cancer funding for 2002–03 was earmarked within NHS allocations and an assessment of the position of earmarked funds forms an important part of the process for agreeing strategic health authority plans.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I certainly welcome the high priority that the Government supposedly have given to cancer care. But as Professor Gordon McVie of Cancer Research UK said, the cheques appear to have been lost in the post. The department does not appear to know what has happened to the money; the Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology does not appear to know what has happened to the money; and people in west London, who were expecting to receive £12 million, do not know what has happened to the money. Flow can there be long-term planning for cancer care if there is no record of into which black hole the money has gone? Can the department publish figures showing how much has been spent by health authorities on cancer care and does it have plans to monitor what happens in the future? Does the Minister agree with Joanna Rule of the cancer charity, Bacup, that cancer care money should be spent on patients and not on balancing hospital books?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that I answered that question in my first response. Currently, we are reviewing the outturn position for the previous financial year and the progress made. We know that we are making considerable progress in implementing the NHS Cancer Plan. We have seen a huge expansion of treatments; an increase in the number of consultants working in the cancer area; more women screened for breast cancer with the extension of the programme from 66 to 70 years of age; and 95 per cent of patients referred urgently with suspected cancer between January and March of this
482
year being seen within two weeks. We are making considerable progress towards delivering the Cancer Plan.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I confess an interest. My wife, who died of cancer, benefited from the hospice organisation. It appears that hospices do not receive the money. Can the Minister assure the House that the money is going to hospices which are an enormous help to people who face terminal cancer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, that the voluntary palliative care movement in this country is a magnificent example of voluntary effort. I testify to the high quality of the services provided. Figures from the voluntary organisation, Help the Hospices, show that statutory funding for hospices has increased by about 14 per cent over the past two years. We have asked our local cancer networks to draw up service delivery plans on palliative care, including a review of the level of services offered. We have said that we shall increase NHS investment in palliative care—the cancer plan committed us to this—both in the NHS and in hospices by £50 million by 2004.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in pressing the Minister on the outturn figures for 2000–01, I declare an interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK. When the figures are available, will my noble friend ensure that they are as transparent as possible. Perhaps he can look at the record of the Scottish Executive in that respect. A great deal of care has been taken to show on what money has been spent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, there is concern that the money has seeped into the system or has been rebadged. If that is so, will the Minister undertake that the Government will make good the shortfall and see that money allocated to a subject is spent on that subject?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are looking at the figures with great interest. When we see the final outturn, we shall study it with great care. If there are examples of health communities which have not spent the sufficient amount of resource, we shall take up that matter with the relevant strategic health authority. I reiterate that we have seen considerable progress over the past year or two. I believe that overall the NHS is highly committed to implement the plan.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in connection with cancer research, will the Minister indicate whether he considers that the funds made available for that purpose are adequate, whether there are objectives for cancer research in relation to the main forms of cancer, and how quickly those objectives can be achieved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords, we have a strategy for investment of research into cancer. I am happy to provide more details to the noble Lord. On the matter of resources that are spent, my understanding is that the total UK government

483
investment, including the devolved administrations, in the year 2000–01 was £190 million and that has to be set aside charity funding of around £180 million.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Scottish medicine consortium has recommended that Glyvec, a drug for chronic myeloid leukaemia, is to be made available to all Scottish sufferers, whereas the recommendation from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is that its use should be limited to patients only in an advanced stage of leukaemia? Is that a case of postcode prescribing? If so, what will the Government do about it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have to accept that as health is a devolved function of the Scottish Parliament, inevitably that parliament will arrive at some different decisions. On the NICE guidance, my understanding is that the consultation period, in relation to its final guidance only, ends on the 13th of this month. Presently an appeal period will begin and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of the NICE judgment until the full process has been completed.
Lord Chan: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what cancer information is available to the public and, in particular, to members of ethnic minority communities?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as part of the NHS Cancer Plan there was widespread recognition that we needed to improve the amount of information available to members of the public. Information is available through the NHS website and NHS Direct. In addition, we are developing a new set of information about screening for prostate cancer. In the summer we shall launch an officially informed choice project which will enable men to make informed choices about such screening.

Children: Health and Social Care
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of their policies contribute to the health of children and young people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Department of Health's Children's Taskforce is overseeing the development of a national service framework for children. That will set standards and a programme for action to improve children's health and social care services.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I recognise that this is a wide-ranging subject covering many departments. Can he be
484
more precise and outline the proposed timetable for the completion, development and publication of the national service framework for children?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are six strands to the work of the national service framework, covering acute care, maternity, mental health, children in special circumstances, disabled children and the healthy child and young person. The first strand of that work is around acute care. We aim to publish standards later in 2002. We shall follow those up with further standards. The acute standard, which is really being produced in response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry report, will be very important in forming the future development of acute services for children in the NHS.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that new diagnoses of HIV infection across the whole age range and new cases of gonorrhoea among teenagers have doubled over the last six years for which information is available; and that the incidence of chlamydia in teenage girls doubled, in only one year, between 1999 and 2000? Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to address the ignorance of young people about sexually transmitted diseases which present a serious threat to their health? And why do so many teenagers think that chlamydia is a Brazilian footballer?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, I am not sure about Brazil. As regards the question that the noble Baroness raises, she is absolutely right to point out that there have been disturbing rises in sexually transmitted infections. No one can be complacent about that trend. We are committed to reversing it. We are developing, as the noble Baroness will know, a national sexual health and HIV strategy. Later this year we shall launch a new national campaign to raise awareness which we are very hopeful will have an impact on this disturbing trend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the other end of the spectrum—children's teeth and oral health. Can he tell me whether there has been any progress? Even in the days when school inspections were routine, not all children had an inspection for dental health. Can he tell us what proportion of children have an assessment of dental health?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have the figures with me. I shall certainly find them and let the noble Baroness know. Dental health is very important for young people. As the noble Baroness will know, in the dental strategy that we published a year ago, some emphasis was given to the role of the community dental service in relation to young people. We are sponsoring preventive programmes. We encourage local primary care trusts to take an active

485
role in engaging with young people. We are very keen to involve the dentistry profession in those programmes.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Gale: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the Cross Benches first and then from the Labour Benches.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, bearing in mind that 98 per cent of looked-after children in residential care have mental health problems, 66 per cent of looked-after children in foster care have mental health problems, according to the children's mental health charity Young Minds, and 90 per cent of young offenders have mental health problems, according to the Office for National Statistics, can the Minister confirm that there is a serious shortfall in the number of child and adolescent psychiatrist consultants? Can he say what is being done to address that, particularly with regard to the training of medical students?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, for many years the health service has had a problem with recruitment of psychiatrists and consultants across the whole mental health field. Partly as a result of the national service framework in relation to mental health and the work of the department as regards medical workforce planning for the future, we are tackling the issues, one of which is to attract young medical students into this particularly important field. I am not sure whether we agree entirely with all the figures quoted by the noble Lord, but there is no doubt that if we take looked-alter children as an example, many suffer from mental health problems. While it is absolutely right that the NHS needs to improve those services and is beginning to do so, we also need to improve our efforts generally for looked-after children. I think that the fairly recent Act dealing with looked-after children is one of the foundations for improving the support given to such children.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, can my noble friend say what further measures the Government will take to prevent children under the age of 16 starting to smoke? Further, can he say whether there are any plans to strengthen the law to ensure that sales of cigarettes to children under the age of 16 are more successfully prevented?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a worrying problem. The latest figure for regular smokers between the ages of 11 to 15 is 10 per cent. That shows an improvement on the figures in 1996 of 13 per cent and in 1998 of 11 per cent. We are of course taking measures to tackle young people smoking. The passing of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill through both Houses will be very helpful in
486
banning advertising. We are taking tough enforcement measures on under-age sales. On 13th September 2000 we launched an enforcement protocol with local authorities. We also support proof-of-age card schemes which protect shopkeepers and children alike.
Earl Howe: My Lords, did the Minister see the rather shocking statement made by David Wood, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Charing Cross Hospital? He said that, by the age of 20, atherosclerosis may be present in as many as one in three young people. Sir Alexander Macara, chairman of the National Heart Foundation, said that,
"public health initiatives aimed at the young lack the priority and resources given to adult interventions".
What are the Minister and the Government doing about public health initiatives aimed at young people so as to achieve a less piecemeal approach to the various problems that beset the young?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a preventive programme for children, bearing in mind all the areas that it would have to cover, would be extremely wide. However, we have major cross-government programmes of work to ensure that, for instance, children have access to a healthy diet and, crucial to the noble Earl's point, opportunities to be physically active. That includes, for instance, the national school fruit scheme which encourages primary school children to eat one piece of fruit per day. We also have a Food in Schools programme.
We need to give more emphasis to encouraging young people to take exercise. We know that 10 per cent of children are obese at six years of age, rising to 17 per cent at 16. We must tackle that problem. Hence the importance of the funding for schools to encourage sport and physical activity. Local NHS trusts should engage in partnerships with schools to encourage children towards a more healthy and, if I may say so, a more enjoyable lifestyle.

Asylum Accommodation Centres
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what criteria they use to determine the locations of their proposed accommodation centres for asylum seekers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the criteria are based on a number of factors. They include the availability of land, site capacity to cater for several hundred residents in either new build or converted accommodation and our policy to relieve the pressure on London and Kent.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that if the normal planning procedures were followed in respect of those centres it is unlikely that planning permission would be granted? Can he tell us, therefore, what process of consultation is being undertaken with the relevant local authorities and, most importantly, with local people?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as the House will know, the Crown, as the proposer of the applications for the centres, is not able to submit under the normal planning process. Instead it applies under the relevant circular, which follows a procedure similar to the normal planning process. Planning applications are lodged with the local authority, which has eight weeks in which to make its determination. In all cases we are holding discussions with the relevant local authorities to try to ensure that we have full, proper consultation with local residents and other local interests in respect of the applications.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister think that such large numbers of people in such isolated communities is compatible with the Government's aim of integration and inclusion? Does he also accept that at least 30 per cent of people who appeal against the initial decisions are granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom? Is it not better, therefore, for people to be part of the mainstream education, healthcare and service provision—as happens in other European countries—rather than isolating them in remote areas?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government believe that those who are accepted for asylum in this country should be offered full friendship and support from the nation to integrate into the community as early as possible. However, that is very different from saying that the 70,000 or 80,000 people who currently apply each year for asylum should be integrated into the community until such time as their cases have been heard. That is where accommodation centres come in. They provide good support and educational facilities to asylum claimants while their applications are processed. It is our intent that claims will be heard within two months or so of the applicant residing at the centre.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that isolated centres make it difficult for refugee organisations—for example, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service—to provide advice and support to newly-arrived asylum seekers? If the centres are to be isolated, can the Government do something to facilitate access for those groups, on whom many newly-arrived asylum seekers depend?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the centres will not be too isolated. They will be positioned in rural areas. That is not the same as saying that they will be in the remote extremes of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I take my noble friend's point. The Government believe it is important that proper advice, including legal advice, is
488
available to people in accommodation centres so that they understand the process and the timetables. We shall certainly look at the point to ensure that access is available for all relevant services.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is one of the criteria that these centres should be located, if possible, near places where some of the claimants' fellow nationals are already residing? Or is the overriding consideration simply the availability of suitable accommodation?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, clearly suitable accommodation is something that the Government have to take into account when making the initial selection of the pilot schemes. On the other hand, proximity to other nationals is not necessarily a significant factor. At this point in time, I stress, these people are only applying for asylum and have not yet been accepted. If, as we hope and intend, we manage to continue the acceleration of processing that has been achieved over recent years, successful claimants will be integrated wherever they choose to live in the future, which could include being near to nationals of their former country of residence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not simply a matter of how quickly the Immigration and Nationality Directorate can deal with the first application, but how quickly the appeal authorities can hear the appeals that are subsequently made against refusal? How near are they to meeting the target of four months from the date of first decision for the subsequent hearings before the adjudicators? If they are nowhere near that, as I imagine is the case, will people be kept indefinitely in the accommodation centres awaiting those hearings?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. If people exercise their right of appeal, then the appeal process must be gone through. I shall write to the noble Lord with the latest figures on the current turn-around time for appeals. There has been a significant improvement in that this was an area of substantial increase in resources. Therefore the bottom line is that we still expect, even where a person chooses to exercise a right of appeal, to be able to deal with most applications within six months or so.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, would it not lessen the need for the accommodation centres if there could be agreement between the members of the European Union on the common treatment of asylum applications and a requirement that asylum applications are launched in the first safe country? Can my noble friend say how near we are to obtaining either or both of those desirable outcomes?
Lord Filkin: I agree with both points. The Government pressed both points at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union, which David Blunkett and I attended last week in Luxembourg.

Railway Infrastructure
3 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the arrangements for the maintenance of the railway infrastructure are satisfactory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Railtrack has acknowledged that its approach to maintenance, following privatisation, has been mistaken. Too much decision-making responsibility was placed with contractors, and the company carried out too few inspections of contractors' work. Lord Cullen made clear recommendations to improve the management of contractors and the training of the workforce in the rail industry, and we have asked the Health and Safety Commission to ensure that they are implemented in full.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that a fundamental error was made at the time of privatisation, when management of the track was separated from management of the trains? Will the Minister also acknowledge that, although we have spent vast sums on the rail regulator, engineering efficiency has become worse? Vast sums have been spent on safety, on a health and safety inspectorate, but safety has become worse. Will the Government give a guarantee that they will turn their attention away from financial engineering to the engineering that really matters—civil engineering and signal engineering?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, questioners are supposed to ask for an absolute guarantee, not just a guarantee.
There are different views about the separation of operating companies from track management. Whatever view one takes, it is true that Railtrack started off on the wrong foot. There was no engineer on the board of Railtrack, and Railtrack took the view that safety and track maintenance were the responsibility of contractors and were not a central responsibility. That must be turned round.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the Question was about maintenance and not about vertical integration. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Health and Safety Commission reported last week that,
"The contractualisation of the railways was not a problem. It is successful in other interests. The real challenge is better management and control, whether it is with contractors or done by Railtrack'"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as someone who is relatively new to these matters, I can confirm that the Health and Safety Commission report, published last week, was a shattering report. In many industries, work is, of course, done successfully by contractors, but what must happen here is that
490
responsibility must rest with Railtrack. Right up until recent times, Railtrack continued to challenge the judgment of the House's Judicial Committee, which said that, in the end, responsibility for contractors, subcontractors and even casual workers lay with Railtrack.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he says about responsibility and the deficiencies of contractors in that respect are welcome? Will he bear in mind that there has been no engineer in the Treasury or any other branch of any British Government for a long time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my criticism of Railtrack for having no engineers on its board need not apply also to the Treasury. There should be more engineers in senior positions in all walks of lift.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, last year, the Office of the Rail Regulator recommended that Railtrack should establish and maintain an asset register and that that should be one of the conditions of its licence. The issue was also raised in the recent report of the Health and Safety Commission, to which the noble Lord referred. Does the Minister expect that the asset register will be completed in time for the transfer to Network Rail? If it is not completed in time, who will bear the extra risk of not knowing what condition the assets are in? Will it be the Government or Network Rail?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the asset register is only one of several recommendations made by Lord Cullen that should have been carried out by March but were not. In that sense, the noble Viscount's point is valid; there are uncertainties that ought not to exist, as we struggle to get Railtrack out of administration and into the hands of Network Rail. I am, however, glad to say that good progress is being made.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that there can never be absolute safety in any form of transport? If the railway industry had followed the recommendations made by the Uff and Cullen reports and implemented the European rail traffic management system, there would have been a serious reduction—perhaps as much as 15 per cent—in network capacity. That would have made it even more difficult to meet the targets set out in the 10-year plan.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as so often is the case, the best can be the enemy of the good. There was a good deal of over-reaction, not so much after Ladbroke Grove, but after Hatfield. David Begg, the chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, estimated that, if the action referred to by my noble friend had been taken and there had been a reduction in capacity, we would have ended up with something like 20 extra deaths a year on the roads. That is not a good choice.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in seeking to improve the maintenance of the track, have the Government reminded themselves of the arrangements made by British Rail? Would the experience of those years be valuable, as we seek a better solution today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the organisational responsibilities of British Rail are certainly to be looked at with favour. We ought to go back to increased central responsibility. I do not like looking back on the era of British Rail as a golden age. In fact—in some ways, I hate to say it—rail safety has improved since privatisation.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 75,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 76 to 137,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 138 to 142,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 143 to 223,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 224 to 247

Schedule 6,

Clauses 248 to 265,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 266 to 320,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 321 to 325,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 326 to 442,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 443 to 450,

Schedule 11,

Clause 451,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 452 to 456.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question. Motion agreed to.

Sex Discrimination (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"EXEMPTION OF INNOVATIVE PROJECTS

(1) This section has effect notwithstanding anything in Chapter 1 of this Act.

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

(a) consultation with the parents or guardians of children at the school,

(b) consultation with surrounding schools that would be affected by any project proposed under the first paragraph of this subsection, and

(c) informing the local education authority.

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

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

(5) Any project carried out under subsection (2) shall be evaluated, recorded and reported to parents."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care that she has taken, between the end of the Committee stage and today, to consider many of the matters that were raised in Committee and for the copious letters that we have all received. We have all received copies of one another's letters, there have been offers of meetings, and, for some, there are concrete moves forward in the amendments on the Marshalled List. I thank the Minister warmly for all of that.
The nature of many of the amendments is to support the Government in what they say are their aims—encouraging innovation, giving earned autonomy as far as possible to schools that deserve it, allowing schools to operate more commercially at a local level and encouraging collaboration and co-operation between schools. My first amendment would allow all schools to innovate, with the aim of raising standards. Subject to consultation and only within the parameters set out by the Secretary of State, it would free the system from the bureaucracy caused by the fact that every application would have to go to the Secretary of State and be crawled over by people in the department and form a process of iteration involving the department and the school. We want to cut out all of that costly and time-consuming process in order to allow schools more freedom to innovate within the parameters set by the Government. The projects carried out by the schools under this heading must be recorded, evaluated and reported to parents.
The advantage of my amendments is to cut out all the bureaucracy and central control. Perhaps as an aside I may welcome Mr Miliband to the department because almost the first thing he said was:
"Out with central control and out with unnecessary bureaucracy. What we want to do is to set schools free to do what they do best".
These amendments are tailor-made for Mr Miliband and his team to accept.
Schools are accountable: they are accountable to their governors and parents and more than ever to their local communities; and they are accountable in a more formal sense to the inspectorate. My proposals place no artificial time limits on innovation. Any project would be entered into in conjunction and in consultation with parents and local people.
If the innovation works, it can be absorbed into the school's programme on a permanent basis and it will not be reliant on Parliament producing a regulation for each and every project for every school. It is all very well for the Government to argue that primary legislation is time-consuming and that secondary legislation is not. I know of secondary legislation that is waiting in the wings for parliamentary time but the argument always is that there is not time for it.
If the project does not work, and if there has been proper evaluation, it can be suspended and set aside; or, a project that is accepted can be superseded when a better idea arises. Innovation is a dynamic, as are schools. They are always thinking of new and better ways to improve standards.
Nothing in law prevents good innovative ideas from being promoted or demonstrated to other schools. In many local education authority areas, in-service training is often based on the dissemination of such new ideas and developments with a view to raising the standards of teaching and learning in a particular authority or area.
I now return to the Minister's letter of 11th June. I was interested to see that the first part of Amendment No. 2 obliges the Secretary of State to have regard to the need for the curriculum to be broad and balanced and to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society and the likely effect of a project on all children, which must include children with special educational needs.
In Committee, I argued cogently for just that to happen; for a link to be made with the need for a broad and balanced curriculum. However, we were told that it was not necessary because Clauses 74 to 77 oblige schools to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. Now we have the Government's amendments placing that requirement on the face of the Bill. It is on the face of the Bill either because it is necessary or it is otiose and is there to pander to those of us who argued for it in Committee. I believe that it appears because it is necessary to the Bill. There was no connection between the early and later clauses. That is slightly puzzling because we called for that in Committee.
I want to refer to the debate which took place on 2nd May, which appears in cols. 810 to 812 of Hansard. The noble Baroness said:
494
"An example I have used before in your Lordships' House concerns the ability of schools to work more closely with further education and to look at workplace learning".
We have yet to debate provision for 14 to 19 year-olds and still do not know what that will mean in detail, but they will address the whole issue. In the meantime, schools are working with further education colleges and there appears to be nothing to inhibit them from doing so.
The Minister then read out the words of a head teacher, who said:
"I have long wanted to do something that brought in the children and their families earlier to my school, specifically because it would raise standards. But of course I could not do it".
That head teacher was concerned about bringing in under-fives and parents. What is to stop schools bringing in parents, mother and toddler groups, nursery groups, play groups, nursery classes and nursery schools? There is nothing in law to prevent that. There are mechanisms in law for developing nursery classes and for allowing the advent of nursery schools. I was chairman of a mother and toddler playgroup for about eight years and I know that collaboration and working with the feeder primary schools was almost a daily activity. Therefore, I cannot imagine what that poor head teacher is desperately waiting for the legislation to allow.
The Minister later said:
"In theory, Amendment No. 1 would do away with the Secretary of State's role of checking and approving innovative projects".
I simply say, "Amen to that"; that is precisely what we are trying to do. We are trying to cut out the unnecessary intrusive meddling by the department in the natural activity of schools in trying to improve their delivery of services which improve teaching and learning.
The Minister went on to say:
"In addition, without the involvement of the Secretary of State, schools and LEAs would in theory be free to change the law at will".
No, they will not. If my amendment is interpreted properly, it is for the Secretary of State to set the parameters; in other words, to set the limitations and the framework within which innovation can take place. That has been addressed by an amendment, so we, too, have done some thinking since the last stage of the Bill.
Finally, (at col. 812) the Minister stated:
"That brings me back to my main point; namely, the absolute importance of the Secretary of State's role in the process and in safeguarding standards".—[Official Report, 2/5/02; cols. 810–812.]
Certainly the Secretary of State needs to have a concern about standards in schools, but he has so much assistance out there—the inspectorate, the fact that schools are openly and publicly accountable, and the downward pressure given by parents to schools. It is not necessary to have a daily grind of departmental interference in what schools do at a local level. At this stage, we need to trust schools to do what they do best; that is, to deliver education for their children. Where they do not, they will be found wanting.
I repeat that we support schools' constant search for improvement and the removal of unnecessary inhibitions to good innovative ideas. We believe that the framework within which such innovation and freedom to set aside statute should be set by the Secretary of State, a point raised by the Minister in Committee, and we support accountability and the involvement of governors, parents and local education authorities in the process. However, we do not support the Secretary of State, plus an army of civil servants and advisers, becoming involved centrally in the minutiae. That would increase bureaucracy and the need for endless guidance. It would increase the need to take up legislative time dealing with orders for each project and it would place arbitrary time constraints on the project.
For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will accept that we support and want to encourage innovation, but without the burden of central bureaucratic control. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley is attached to the amendment and I rise to speak in support of it. The Liberal Democrats have made no secret of the fact that we support the whole notion of innovation. We feel that all good schools should constantly be innovative. Therefore, in terms of the broad purpose of this chapter of the Bill, we are 100 per cent behind the Government. However, we are not 100 per cent behind them in the way they have sought to do it.
We believe that all schools should be allowed to innovate and that it should not be restricted to the few. Furthermore, the Secretary of State should not have the prime decision as to who should innovate. That is our main objection. So much power is put into the hands of the Secretary of State that any school contemplating an innovation that may require exemption from the current legislation must first submit such innovations for consideration. An important point to bear in mind is that not all innovation requires exemption from current legislation. Schools are innovating all the time and are doing so without the need to put the legislation aside.
That brings me to my next point. It is wrong that the main purpose of the first chapter of the Bill sets out the business of schools having to approach the Secretary of State and say, more or less, "Please, Miss, can we innovate?". That may be a rather crude translation, but essentially it is the case. Such a provision sends out the wrong message. Although almost everything that schools might want to do can be done within the current legal constraints, many schools would feel inhibited about trying anything new because, perhaps erroneously, they would believe that they must seek permission before the introduction of any innovation. Far from stimulating innovation, we feel that the message of the first chapter of the Bill will convey that permission will have to be sought before anything new can be done.
496
We believe that the Bill as presently drafted puts far too much power into the hands of the Secretary of State. In particular we are worried about Clause 2(1)(a), which will confer sweeping powers on the Secretary of State to put aside all education legislation. In addition, in this clause decisions are to be left to,
"the opinion of the Secretary of State".
I make that point in light of the fact that the spokesman for this legislation in the other place could not cite any examples of what schools might want to do which they are not already able to do. In the debate in Committee in the other place, Mr Stephen Timms, the then Minister for Schools, rather weakly defined innovation as, "doing something new". In Committee we cited probably the best example of what schools might like to do with the power to innovate; namely, changing the school day to continental hours. We were not convinced that even that was necessarily a good example because already schools can change the timing of the school day, provided that they allow for a break in the middle of that day.
The Minister went almost as far as to say that, because we were asking schools to think the unthinkable, by definition she could not think of any examples of what they might do. In contrast, the amendment before the House asks Ministers to define very clearly what schools cannot do. For example, in Committee it became clear that the power to innovate could not be used to allow schools to introduce fees, to introduce more selection or to put aside their provision for special educational needs.
We appreciate the broad aims of this chapter of the Bill. Schools should be innovating and trying out new approaches. Indeed, from these Benches we would argue that good schools already innovate; they have a great deal of leeway in which to do so. By and large, those schools do not need this legislation. The only area where currently schools feel thoroughly constrained is in the curriculum, which we shall come to later when we discuss earned autonomy. However, as I have already made clear, we fear that this heavy-handed legislation will inhibit rather than encourage innovation.
We appreciate, too, the degree to which the Minister herself has sought to meet our reservations expressed in Committee. We were worried about the sweeping away of the provision for special educational needs. Now specific mention is made on the face of the Bill of the need to provide for special educational needs, along with the fact that such provision will not be exempted. We were worried about the position of local education authorities because it is necessary that they should be consulted. Again, on the face of the Bill the right to consultation has been conferred on local education authorities. We are extremely grateful to the Minister for those concessions.
However, while those are real advances, what the Minister has not done is to confer what would be achieved if Amendment No. 1, which we share with the Conservatives, were to be accepted; that is, to introduce the key element of allowing all schools to innovate.

497
Again, the reasons why we are backing this Tory amendment are that, first, it offers an opportunity for all schools to innovate by offering them encouragement rather than seeking to inhibit them. Secondly, it reverses the onus of proof. It would he up to the Secretary of State to define those areas, such as fees, selection or SEN, where schools may not be exempted from education legislation.
Thirdly, through the mechanism of affirmative regulation, the system would become open and transparent. Schools, local education authorities and other qualifying bodies will know where they stand. Lastly, the amendment would allow the Secretary of State a good deal of flexibility. We have argued that perhaps it would not be appropriate for schools in special measures or those showing serious weaknesses to have wide-open powers to innovate. Again, that point is of particular relevance when we discuss earned autonomy.
In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, made much of the fact that it is precisely those schools with difficulties that need to be able to think the unthinkable. I agreed strongly with his comments. The amendment would give such schools the power to do so, but it would be for the Secretary of State to decide those areas where schools would not be allowed to trespass beyond the current legislation. Having said that, we have always argued that perhaps some schools should be encouraged to "stick to the knitting" rather than to seek to experiment. Equally, however, we would be happy to see a degree of flexibility written into the provisions.
I conclude by saying that, so far as concerns these Benches, the Minister has in effect failed to meet our key demand that all schools should have the power to innovate. We believe that the Government's ideas remain innately muddled and inoperable. While we are grateful for the concessions that have been made, in essence they are only cosmetic concessions, putting on to the face of the Bill what was already included in regulations. For those reasons, we support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, after two such powerful introductory speeches in support of the amendment, I rise with a fair amount of trepidation. Perhaps I may say first that we all support innovation in our schools, wherever that is possible. Furthermore, we all pay tribute to the Minister for the kindly and gracious way that she has discussed these matters with us. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, have already indicated their appreciation.
However, I wonder whether this amendment would achieve its intention. It appears to put all innovative power, irrespective of merit, into the hands of individual schools. But schools with a head teacher keen on innovation already have powers to act in a maverick way. The amendment states that the LEA is to be informed, but what does that mean? What is the LEA to do with the information? Why, in the case of Church schools, would not the diocesan authority be included in such consultation?
498
Very properly, provision is made for consultation with neighbouring schools. Who is to define what are the "surrounding schools"? Furthermore, if those schools do not like the new proposals, what action could they take to prevent a particular innovation? On reading the amendment, it appears at first sight to be somewhat loosely drafted.
I turn now to the nitty-gritty of the matter. We are all concerned about striking the right balance and encouraging the right partnerships in the process of innovation. This amendment would create a kind of free-for-all which could possibly—even probably—undermine important statutes, perhaps even to the extent of undermining the religious character of a school. That would be a matter of great concern to these Benches.
But then the freedoms promised by the amendment may disappear, since the Secretary of State would be required to produce a list of statutory requirements or exemptions that would inhibit innovation. As a cautious person, I have to admit that if I were the Secretary of State, I would err on the side of caution, in particular with regard to the education of children with special educational needs and with regard to the sensitive issues of collective worship and RE—matters which could be affected by the wrong kind of innovative process. We need to give a great deal of thought to exactly what is being proposed in the amendment and whether it might, in the attempt to secure greater freedom for schools, in fact limit those schools.
Furthermore, should we not be concerned by the powers conferred by the amendment on this and subsequent Secretaries of State? It appears that she or he could exempt whatever she or he chooses. What would that mean for the future?
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we shall all know where we are, but I wonder whether, in a desire to ensure that innovation is positive and good, the Secretary of State may not err on the side of being cautious. That may not be beneficial. We must remember that when we are talking about children it needs only an innovation which lasts for six months or a year to do a whole lifetime's damage to a particular generation. Inspections of schools do not happen, all that frequently and parents can be swayed before they know the outcome of the innovations being proposed.
I have great reservations about the way in which the amendment is drafted. I prefer to stick with what the Government are proposing and I shall vote against the amendment if a Division is called.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords., I, too, rise with some trepidation on this subject—but with less trepidation than in Committee. As your Lordships will know, I remarked then that I found the Bill largely incomprehensible—if we could do the whole thing again over the next year I believe we may get there—but bit by bit I am beginning to understand it. I think that I understand this part of the Bill and, therefore, I believe that this amendment is based on a misunderstanding and is misplaced.

499
If I may start by pouring oil on troubled waters, we all agree that we favour innovation and the raising of standards that takes place to a considerable extent—but not entirely—through innovation. Both the Government and the Opposition are committed to the view that standards in our schools have risen continuously over the past few years and therefore they must have at least some presumption in favour of the innovative status quo—otherwise they would have to explain how it is that they are committed to how well the schools were doing.
The central point is derived from the heading of Clause 2—that is, "Power to suspend statutory requirements etc". That is what this clause is about. It is not headed, "Innovation—what you must do to get permission to do it", or to do any of the things the noble Baronesses said. The clause seems to deal with schools which have certain innovative ideas but have discovered—or it has been drawn to their attention—that these potential innovations clash with existing statutory requirements and so on.
If that is the case, how should it be dealt with? My original view of the clause was that it looked bureaucratic and that we should find a way into this area without involving, at least to any great extent, the Secretary of State. But on reflection, as a result of what was said in Committee, it seems to me to be of the utmost fundamental importance that if we are discussing the power to suspend statutory requirements we could not possibly place that power in the hands of schools or even in the hands of the local education authorities. Although I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate that we need to ensure that the local education authorities are involved in these matters, this power must rest with the Secretary of State. Therefore the Government are on the right track in that regard—not because of anything to do with education but because of matters to do with the power to suspend statutory requirements of any kind.
Having said that, we could ask whether the way the issue is set out in the Bill in any way inhibits innovation. The reply to that question will depend on what my noble friend the Minister says in response. It is possible to interpret the Bill by saying that the Secretary of State will be extremely negative, will mostly reject innovative projects and will not let people know what has been agreed in other schools, so that the whole subject then becomes the new "Secret garden". But I see no reason why that should be the case. It is at least as possible that schools will propose to the Secretary of State something that they want to do and say, "It looks as though this clashes with statutory requirements. What do you think?" The answer may be, "It does not clash and so I do not want to get involved". Alternatively, the Secretary of State may say, "I think that, prima facie, it does clash. Put up a case to me", and the Secretary of State will be bound to respond to that.
I am glad that the amendment has been tabled because it enables us to get a clearer view of what this is all about. It certainly enables my noble friend to say what she thinks on this matter. Neither the
500
amendments nor the arguments—good though they always are—are right or convincing. In my judgment—it is, of course, for the noble Baronesses to decide what they want to do—it would be a great pity if the House divided on the amendment. One thing I know from all my years here is that once we start going down that road everyone digs their heels in and there is no room for compromise. We should at least wait until we have heard what my noble friend has to say. For once, there is a good case to be made on the Government's side. I know that my noble friend may collapse at that point, but she should wait until she hears what I have to say on one or two other amendments. We can then go on to one or two other matters without being too upset about where we have got to so far.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, as someone who stands in long grass, I am very glad to hear of the extent of the consultation between the Front Benches to try to find an agreed way forward. At least we are all of one mind as to the objective. I am only sorry that so far we do not have an agreed way forward.
As to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I was very concerned that the power to innovate should extend to all schools. Indeed, I believe that the particular power in Clause 2 does so, as opposed to the curriculum power. I was concerned that schools in trouble, provided that they were well led, should be able to innovate. I believe that this is all right in terms of applying to all schools.
The fundamental question is: who takes the decision? I remember hearing in chats—not on the Floor of the House— expressions of some concern that even a Secretary of State should be able to set aside legislation. It is quite something to say, "Madam, you can do it". I have sat on two governing bodies—we were worthy folks—but I wonder about the wisdom of allowing a governing body to have the power to set aside main statutory legislation. If the one causes me to quiver, the other causes me to bolt.
I share the right reverend Prelate's fear if the Secretary of State has to set the boundaries. The reasons for individual items of legislation are sound—otherwise they would not have been enacted—and if the Secretary of State were to have on her back every interest group in the country, with very good arguments as to why a particular piece of legislation should not be within the field of innovation, I fear that that would too much circumscribe the possibility of ideas that we have not even thought of.
I understand the objective of the amendment, which is to reduce bureaucracy. I spoke out with concern that officials, with great respect to them—I was an official for a long time—would not have local knowledge, and I referred to the importance of the involvement of the LEA. I have read the amendments. One amendment seeks that there should be consultation with the LEA. I would want in addition to that an assurance that the views of parents and the LEA will be before the Secretary of State when she makes her decision. I would hope that the views of the LEA would carry great weight.

501
I do not believe that there will be an avalanche of proposals, for the reason adduced in the House when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, posed the question—she had a long list—"What would you want to do?", and there was a stony silence. I hope that a good number of proposals will come forward, but I do not think that there will be an avalanche. While I welcome the spirit behind the first amendment and want to encourage sensible innovation, we should be cautious. If I have to choose between the two approaches in a Division, as a cautious man, I shall go with the Government.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I find myself somewhat baffled by the amendment. However, I have found the debate useful. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I wonder whether the amendment will achieve its intention. I also feel that it gives out a somewhat negative message.
For clarification, am I to understand that the Secretary of State would be able to draw up a list of areas in which schools cannot innovate? If so, how would that he done? Would it be proactive or reactive? This proposal sounds like an enormous, powerful centralisation. I am rather surprised that the Liberal Democrats are going along with it.
Are we to understand that there would no time-frame in terms of trying out ideas and evaluating their effectiveness? Surely that is an essential component of innovation, and one which seems to have got lost.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I thank the Minister for listening carefully to our debates in Committee and for giving a number of concessions addressing our concerns.
Nevertheless, the reason why we should support this amendment has been capably set out by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It may be helpful if I address some of the concerns raised.
The Minister may argue that the amendment would mean that 24,000 governing bodies would be free to change the law at will. She may argue that governing bodies 'would therefore need to be au fait with the panoply of education law. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, indicated in the debate on Clauses 10 to 12 in Committee, the Government expect governing bodies to know and understand every detail of the legislation relating both to companies and to education. The Government cannot have it both ways.
The amendment does not prevent schools seeking advice from LEAs about the innovations that they intend to make, or from other schools, or from the DfES. Indeed, the Government intend to set up an innovation unit. How novel it would be if, rather than simply acting as gatekeepers, civil servants could work in real partnership with schools, providing support and advice rather than bureaucratic control—that really would be innovative. Whether we leave the Bill in its present form, or whether we pass the amendment,
502
one way or another the Secretary of State will have a say in the matter; and there will he considerable protection as regards the innovations that can be made.
The concern has been expressed that the amendment would leave open the possibility of fly-by-night or madcap schemes. But the proposed new clause has been revised to address issues of consultation and accountability. I urge noble Lords to read it carefully in that respect. Government Amendment No. 10 provides the further safeguard of annual parliamentary scrutiny. I very much welcome that particular amendment and I thank the Minister for it.
The Government have emphasised their intention that all schools will be free to innovate. However, without the amendment, some will halve less opportunity to do so than others. Proper innovation means risk-taking and a leap of faith by those involved. It means trusting the schools. The sad thing is that, given all the centralist pressures that they face, many schools find it difficult to take risks. More often, it is only schools which are already successful and innovative—those whose reputation is secure—that will try out innovative projects. The Bill as it stands is unlikely to change that—which is why we want to broaden the situation.
The amendment seeks to remove the need for every school wanting to innovate to apply separately to the DfES. By making the legislative parameters transparent to schools, and by removing the need for an overly bureaucratic and expensive bidding process, the amendment will mean that more schools will have more opportunity, freedom, time and money to think seriously and creatively about raising standards. It is simply because we agree with the Government's intention to allow schools to innovate that we have added our names to the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I understand the intention behind the amendment. However, having heard the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Dearing, I am concerned about its possible impact on vulnerable children, such as looked-after children or those with special educational needs. I should therefore appreciate some clarification from those who have tabled the amendment as regards the possible impact on these two groups.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I wonder whether the, Minister can help me to understand the implications of the proposals in the Bill as drafted by stating when she thinks that this particular part of the Bill might come into force. How many applications does she anticipate being made in an average year once the provision is up and running? How many officials is it proposed will handle the flow of proposals, and what will be the grade of the senior official? What kind of time limit or target does she envisage setting officials for turning round an application from the moment it is received to

503
the moment when it is either definitively approved or rejected? It would be a great help to me to know how the Government see the system working in practice.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I, too, speak from the angle of special educational needs. The Special Educational Needs Consortium has concerns about the amendment. It is pleased that there is a provision for exemption from certain provisions, and it imagines that this has to do with special educational needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that they were already catered for. However, we have not heard that this would be sticking to the basic legal duties that were introduced under the 1981 Act. I should like to know more about that.
I shall not bore the House with the speech that I made on 2nd May, at Cols. 845 and 846, about the linkage in the chain from assessment, statementing, etc. It is important that all these are maintained. But the consortium says that there are no eligibility criteria; therefore, any school could vary whatever duties it chose. The consortium is also worried that there are no criteria to be met in deciding what contributes to the raising of educational standards in a school—merely the opinion of the governing body. The ramifications of changes made to any of the duties of a governing body may be many and unforeseen. They may impact disproportionately on the education of children with special educational needs. The consortium says that some innovative projects might benefit only one group of pupils, and that it is possible to envisage that other projects might benefit the education of some and not of others.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords for their kind and warm words. I have indeed tried to address all the issues raised in this House and, where possible, to meet the needs of the House. I shall pass on to David Miliband the congratulations of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I thank her.
On the point about a broad and balanced curriculum, Clauses 74 and 75 refer to earned autonomy. Later amendments that we have tabled in order to place such a provision on the face of the Bill are in direct response to those in this House who felt that it was important to do so. We shall discuss this matter later.
I agree with the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp about, "Please, Miss, can we innovate?". It is important to recognise that we are of one mind: we all want our schools to innovate. Sometimes, it is about making sure that they know that they can and feel that they can. I accept the comments of all noble Lords that we are seeking the way forward in this regard; we are arguing about how best to achieve it. It is in that spirit that I address the amendment.
I have thought very carefully about the amendment, and I have listened very carefully to the debate. I reiterate: the debate is not about the principle of innovation; we all want to see that happen. The debate
504
is about whether this particular amendment should become law. Therefore, not surprisingly, I want to focus my remarks on the legal effect of the amendment as it stands.
First, the amendment would allow every school in the country unilaterally to vary the law. If everyone can vary the law, then it is no law at all.
Secondly, the variations are not limited. Noble Lords have rightly argued that there must be protection in the legislation for children with special educational needs. They have asked us to write explicitly into the legislation the protection of a broad and balanced curriculum. We have listened, but the amendment contains no such protection. There is nothing to ensure that schools must take into account the interests of children with special educational needs. There is also nothing to ensure an independent assessment of whether others might be disadvantaged. There is a requirement to consult other schools, but there is no provision for independent assessment of that consultation. Schools would do what they believed was in the interests of their children. If that meant bringing back some kind of selection or ceasing to admit children with special educational needs, theoretically there would be nothing to stop them.
Thirdly, there is no time limit to the amendment. This is no longer about pilot projects from which we can all learn. Noble Lords will remember that when we began this discussion it was about accepting that schools have much to teach us and finding ways of ensuring that we can learn. We felt that we should allow schools to alter the law where we felt that it might be in the way of innovation, perhaps particularly for the vulnerable groups referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, but in a time-limited way. The power under our clauses would disappear after four years. There is no time limit in the amendment. It is about permanent change. I do not believe that we as legislators should give schools the power to change the law. That is not their function.
Noble Lords opposite are relying entirely on the Secretary of State to exempt certain areas of the law from exemption. That is not the best way to encourage innovation. It is also an extraordinary power. If a section of an Act is in an order made under subsection (4), then it is the law, but if it is not in such an order, any school can vary it at any time. That would effectively give a future Secretary of State the right to repeal any law by making or varying such orders.
Noble Lords from various parts of the House have pointed out that Secretaries of State change. Are they sure that every future Secretary of State would produce a list of provisions that could not be varied with which they would be comfortable? It would be possible for a future Secretary of State to introduce a process of academic selection as part of raising standards. There is a legitimate argument and debate, which we have had in your Lordships' House and which I have had in many other places, about the role of academic selection in raising standards for all children. It would be possible for the Secretary of State

505
to take that view under this power. It would simply be a case of allowing schools to be exempt from that part of legislation.
The amendment would give the Secretary of State a power more sweeping than any that this Government have proposed to exempt schools from any law, not for a pilot period, but permanently. I hope that noble Lords opposite will think carefully about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that she believed that, one way or another, the Secretary of State would have a say. I shall spend a moment pointing out the differences between the two approaches. We want schools on the front line to consider whether there is anything that they can do innovatively. If, in doing so, they feel that certain legislation is in the way, they can tell us what they want to do and ask us to think about varying the law. We can give them the ability to do that for three years, plus an extension of three years. That will be monitored and evaluated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, now laid before Parliament is the power that we will have. The purpose of that is to put it in the hands of schools to think of the ideas. I do not want to exempt special educational needs, because I do not believe that any noble Lord would say that the current system is perfect for children with special educational needs. I do not want to exempt looked-after children. They are the most vulnerable children whose academic standards are very low. I want them to have the opportunity to have their standards raised by an innovative approach by a school.
We will let schools come to us. We will make sure that the local education authority will write them in if consulted by the school. We will look at the proposal, evaluate it, see whether it would make sense for more schools to be part of it and then come to your Lordships' House and another place to do that.
The alternative approach is to say that schools can do what they wish, but to give a list—I do not mean that derogatorily, but I cannot think of another way of describing the process—of what they cannot touch. The right reverend prelate is right that we should err on the side of caution, but that would mean protecting all kinds of legislation and preventing schools coming forward in a way that might lead to greater focus on more vulnerable children. That is the difference between the two approaches.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to bureaucracy. He wants to ensure that schools will not be tied up for two and a half years in a bureaucratic process. He asked some interesting questions about that. We do not expect lots of applications. I imagine that schools will come forward in small handfuls over time with individual ideas. The department is looking at the promotion of innovation more generally to address the issues that noble Lords have put forward. I cannot give exact figures, but I do not expect the numbers to be great. We do not intend them to be. This is about those schools that are able to think of innovative ideas where the law is in the way.
I expect a high grade senior official to be involved. The noble Lord may know that, even a year in, I sometimes find it difficult to get the gradings right. I
506
know that the Secretary of State would want the issue to be handled at a senior level by the right number of officials, because this is very important. Part of the purpose of laying the annual report before Parliament—we have accepted the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on that— is to make sure that we give that information and that there will be a speedy turnaround, partly because we hope that, as ideas come forward and local education authorities are consulted, there will be a partnership approach. We want to work with schools from the moment they begin to think the issue through. I cannot be specific, but we will consider that we have failed totally if the issue is not given the weight that I know that the Secretary of State wants. I know that she will ensure that that is done.
I accept in principle that we are all searching for the best way to innovate. I do not say in other than a humble way that we believe that our approach is right. We recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the centralisation of power. That is why the Secretary of State is not in a position to do anything other than respond to schools. We hope that we have addressed that. We have sought to ensure that the safeguards that noble Lords have wanted are clear. This is a debate about the way forward, not about the principle. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does she intend to address the issue of transparency? Can she assure us that any agreement or disagreement by the Secretary of State within the context of these provisions will become publicly known and that the Secretary of State will accept responsibility for making sure that other schools know about any decision taken for or against any application?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very sorry that I did not address that point. The Secretary of State is keen to ensure that the relevant people are consulted and that we have the opportunity to ensure that the quality of the idea has been tested. We must make sure that schools in the neighbourhood know about it and that, through the local education authority, we have information about what we think will happen. We must also ensure that as the trial period goes on, we have the ability to ensure that other schools can learn from it. That is the point of the exercise: to ensure that we can learn from and develop these ideas and then come with delight to your Lordships' House and ask for support to help good, innovative projects that have been developed by schools to grow in the system and eventually become the norm.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this important debate. We all support the notion that schools should be encouraged to innovate. I was mildly amused by the Minister's defence for the LEAs' part in the process. In response

507
to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, she said that LEAs would provide the information that would help the Secretary of State. We have not dealt with the amendment yet, but LEAs were not originally to be statutory consultees in the process. Only after a great deal of pressure from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and our own were LEAs made consultees, but originally they were not even to be consultees. In responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, the noble Baroness said that all the schools in the area concerned would be informed of any proposal. However, that is not stated in the Bill.
The right reverend Prelate asked who should be consulted and about what. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 states that the qualifying body; that is, the applicant,
"shall consult such persons as appear to the body to be appropriate".
The applicant would consult with whom it decided to consult about what it wished. There is absolutely no difference between us as regards the need for consultation, but the appropriateness of the consultation would be very much a matter for the applicant.
The right reverend Prelate also said that no one would know the outcome of a project. The Secretary of State will not know that either. An applicant can do no more than say, "We have an idea that we believe will work. We believe that it will raise the standards in a school". It is then for the Secretary of State to make a judgment on that, just as parents and the school governors initially made a judgment on that. The matter is second guessed by the Secretary of State and the people within his department.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned about the power that we are discussing and the status of legislation with regard to faith schools, special needs schools and vulnerable children. However, under the Bill, the Secretary of State has an absolute power. At the moment none of us knows which requirements of legislation may or may not be set aside. Every time an applicant approaches the Secretary of State with a proposal a decision is made and, as a result of that decision, there is circumscription as regards which requirement of legislation shall be set aside. We do not know how the Secretary of State will respond to such proposals. Until a certain period of time has passed we shall not know whether there will be consistency either as regards decisions taken by one Secretary of State during his period of office or as regards decisions taken by successive Secretaries of State. They will see each proposal on its merits as judged by the people in the department at the time. It is not the case that somehow or other schools themselves will circumscribe the limits of legislation.
I take the following key point most seriously. Anyone who knows me will know that both in government and in opposition I have fought at the Dispatch Box for a fair deal for children with special educational needs. Special educational needs are not included in the amendment partly because the Minister considered all the arguments that we put at the previous stage of the Bill and decided that a
508
provision would be included on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I did not consider it necessary to second guess that provision in the amendment. There are amendments on the subject in the names of Liberal Democrat Peers and an amendment in my name. Therefore, we have belt and braces, as it were, on that issue.
I refer to a related point; namely, that no school should engage in an innovative project that will adversely affect the education of vulnerable children, cared for children, children with special educational needs or, indeed, adversely affect faith schools or the category or the particular ethos of another school. For that reason subsection (4) is included in the proposed new clause in the amendment. It will be for the Secretary of State—he will have to do this as regards every decision that is taken on a proposal—to decide those areas that cannot be exempted by a particular project of a particular school. If, as has been the case since 1997, Secretaries of State decide that there will be no more selection, that will form part of the barrier to innovation. I accept that that would he the case, however I would regard that with regret.
No school should be allowed to interfere with, or adversely affect, the education of vulnerable children or to affect the ethos of other schools whether they are faith schools or other distinctive schools. Certainly there should be no right for the project proposed by a school to have an adverse effect on other children. I noticed that the Minister's amendment, which protects children with special educational needs, does not mention the words, "children with special educational needs" but refers to all children. Subsumed within that, of course, are children with special educational needs. My subsection (4) of the amendment sets the parameters.
A leader in The Times Educational Supplement of 24th May became rather excited about the proposition that schools should be free to innovate. The article was as cynical and sceptical as I am. It states:
"One of the key principles of English law is that anyone can do anything which is not explicitly prohibited.
When it comes to state education, however, this maxim is turned on its head. Since the late 1980s, central government has increasingly dictated what schools can and cannot do.
Now, at last, there are signs that the tide could be turning. Writing in the press this week. Tony Blair made much of his desire to 'promote national standards while also empowering front-line workers'. Mr Blair cites new powers, contained in the education Bill currently before Parliament, which would allow heads to opt out of existing education legislation.
But the fact that the majority of schools will have to go cap in hand to the Secretary of State if they want to 'innovate' undermines the Government's claims to be loosening its grip on schools".
What the article is actually saying is that no innovative project can go ahead unless it has the blessing of the Secretary of State. As I say, different parameters will apply as each decision is taken. The proposals will be time limited. If a school proposes a measure that will raise standards in that school and wants to introduce it on a permanent basis, it may not be able to do so because after three years have elapsed it may have to go through another bureaucratic process to get an

509
extension of three years. After that it will have to wait for primary legislation on a school by school basis. One school's innovative project is not necessarily a one size fits all project. It may stand alone. The notion that we should have primary legislation in this House to allow an innovative project to continue at one or, say, half a dozen schools, but not all schools, seems to me to be bizarre.
As I say, amendments have been tabled which seek to protect children with special educational needs. We should do what we can to promote the well-being and education of those children. As I say, subsection (4) of the amendment sets parameters in the matter that we are discussing. I keep returning to the question: why should the matter be time limited? If it is a good idea and it works, why should one have to apply a second time to a Secretary of State, wait for secondary legislation and, ultimately, for primary legislation? The reply that we were given was not satisfactory. We want to trust teachers. We also want to trust the Secretary of State to set the overall parameters within which schools may be free to exercise their professional judgment in consultation with other schools and parents, their own school staff and, of course, the LEA.
The right reverend Prelate asked what is meant by informing an LEA. It is important that an LEA knows what is going on. If a school adopts an innovative project which it will evaluate, record and about which it will inform parents with regard to its results, given an obligation on LEAs under a previous statute to raise standards, it is right that they should know what is going on. That is what is meant by informing an LEA. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 141.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cox, B.

Addington, L. [Teller]

Craig of Radley,L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Crathorne, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Astor of Hever. L.

Cuckney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Biffen, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Blaker, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dholakia, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Falkland, V.

Buscombe, B.

Fearn, L.

Byford, B.

Flather, B.

Caithness, E.

Fookes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Glentoran, L.

Chilver. L.

Goodhart, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

510

Hamwee, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hanham, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Higgins, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Holderness, L.

Plumb, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Hooson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rees, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rennard, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Roper, L.

Lucas, L.

Rotherwick. L. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Russell, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Russell-Johnslon, L.

McNally, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Maddock, B.

Seccombe, B.

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Methuen, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Hendon.B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Moynihan, L.

Stevens of Ludgate. L.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Noakes, B.

Tope, L.

Northover, B.

Trefgarne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trumpington, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Vivian, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Waddington, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Walmsley, B.

Patten. L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wigoder, L.

Peel, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

David. B.

Acton, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dearing, L.

Alli, L.

Desai.L.

Ampthill, L.

Dixon, L.

Andrews, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L.

Eatwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Billingham, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Blackstone, B.

Filkin, L.

Blease, L.

Fitt, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Borrie, L.

Gale, B.

Bragg, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brightman, L.

Golding, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Goudie, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Grenfell, L.

Chan, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Chorley, L.

Harrison, L.

Christopher, L.

Hayman, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howells of St. Davids. B.

Crawley, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hoyle, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

511

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Islwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jones, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jordan, L.

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Rix, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rooker, L.

Layard, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Salisbury, Bp.

Lipsey, L.

Sandwich, E.

Listowel, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Serota, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheldon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Slim, V.

Stallard, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Strange, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Massey of Darwen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Tenby, V.

Mishcon, L.

Thornton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Moser, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Uddin, B.

Palmer, L.

Warnock, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Paul, L.

Weatherill, L.

Pendry. L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
Clause 1 [Purpose and interpretation of Chapter 1]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from "State," to "children" in line 9 and insert "benefit the education of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment arises from another helpful letter that I have received, in this case from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I echo what my noble friend Lady Blatch said about how extremely prompt and helpful Ministers have been in dealing with matters that we raised in Committee. The letter responded to the question whether LEAs could advance innovative proposals in relation to school transport under the powers in Clause 2. The noble Lord said that he was happy to reassure me that his department would be happy to consider any proposals from an LEA or an individual school about the way in which the relevant part of the 1996 Act might be adapted to allow either body to produce an innovative scheme involving local transport. However, he said that he must be clear that the purpose of the powers in Clause 2 as set out in Chapter 1 of the Bill is to facilitate the innovative project that may raise educational standards. He also said that it will be important for an LEA coming forward with such a proposal to demonstrate how it contributes to raising the educational standards achieved by children in England or Wales.
512
I see that requirement as an obstacle. It effectively prohibits the sort of innovation that I should like to see in relation to school transport arrangements. I have therefore sought in the amendment to broaden the definition so that it allows school transport clearly to come within it. I do not know whether I have succeeded in that regard but that is the aim of the amendment.
I believe it is important that we allow innovation to reach the area of school transport. Several difficult problems have beset school transport over a long period. There is a distance cut-off of two or three miles, or whatever it may be. These days, that is much further than most parents would allow their children to walk routinely and unescorted to school. It results in many parents having to be available to drive their children to school or having to rely on the lottery of there being spare places in LEA transport. They obtain those by paying for them, but there is no right to such places and, therefore, many parents are left without them.
Secondly, the provision would operate against choice in schools. If a local education authority does not actively seek to promote choice, the type of situation arises as it does, for example, in my children's local town of Winchester. There, the three secondary schools are within a short distance of each other. However, if a parent chooses the secondary school for his child which is not his by right, there is no school transport provision. The parent must therefore drive his child to school, even though it would be possible for the school bus, which goes to the allocated school, to trundle on an extra few hundred yards to the other school down the road. That also seems to me to present a source of difficulty.
There is also the problem, which the Bill at least starts to tackle, of transport for post-16 year-olds. Whatever distance they have to travel, those children are left entirely to the mercy of public transport. This week I shall have the pleasure of having three work shadows from Greenhead College in Huddersfield. As the noble Baroness knows, it is one of the best sixth-form colleges in the country. The pupils all report that they and their fellow students have difficulty in arriving at their classes on time because they rely on buses. There is a diverse catchment area for a college such as Greenhead. Students travel considerable distances. If one relies on essentially rural and cross-country buses to make one's journey, one ends up missing, or being late for, classes rather more often than is desirable or acceptable to the school.
All those problems could be solved if a local education authority set out to solve them. But, crucially, first, it would have to be allowed to do so and, secondly, it would have to be allowed to charge. Charging is at the heart of being able to provide a service. One is asking parents—for example, those who choose a different school for their children—to pay for, in the case of Winchester, perhaps 30 miles of car journeys a day in order to get their children to school. But one is not allowed to charge a penny if the

513
local authority allows the use of a bus. The local authority is not allowed to provide a service for those children.
I believe that this is an area where a little local innovation and good will could go a long way towards solving some very long-standing problems. Therefore, I should like that to be brought within the ambit of Clause 2 of the Bill, and that is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as was discussed earlier, I very much look forward to schools coming forward with proposals. Of course, as I said on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, we want to see proposals from schools and from local education authorities which have a positive impact on children's education in the widest possible sense.
It is important that we do not lose our focus on raising standards in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord has concentrated specifically on transport. and in later debates on the Bill there will be opportunities to return to that issue. I am sure that we shall do so.
I do not believe that the test of raising standards is inconsistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to bring forward in his amendment. Higher standards are intrinsically linked to improving and benefiting the quality of children's education. It is my view that one cannot have one without the other.
Perhaps I may take another one or two examples. If proposals were put forward to improve attendance or reduce the number of exclusions, I believe that that would both benefit the quality of a child's education and drive up the educational standards achieved by the school, LEA and individual pupils.
Therefore, I very much hope that we shall see proposals which benefit the education of children in England—and Wales, for that matter, although Wales is not referred to specifically in the amendment. But we must not lose sight of why we have introduced the power. We have done so in order to give schools and LEAs the opportunity to drive up standards even higher. If, within that, a proposal were to be brought forward which included the issue of school transport, it would be within the ability of a school to propose that under the power to innovate and for us to consider the matter carefully in that context.
Therefore, I believe that we are taking the same position on this matter. If it would be of benefit, between now and Third Reading I should be very happy to discuss the issue of transport with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because that is what he has specifically raised today. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted by the noble Baroness's offer and I shall certainly take it up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
"(1A) In forming an opinion as to whether a project may contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England or Wales, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall—

(a) have regard to the need for the curriculum for any school affected by the project to be a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and of society, and

(b) consider the likely effect of the project on all the children who may be affected by it."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6 in this group. I have said previously in your Lordships House that it is important to ensure that all children continue to receive a broad and balanced curriculum that promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society. I do not want anything in the Bill to change that.
I hope that I have also been absolutely clear that the power to innovate must not be used to benefit one group of pupils at the expense of another. We want proposals to be brought forward which, if successful, will benefit pupils in schools all over the country.
I hope that noble Lords will know that I take extremely seriously the educational welfare of children with disabilities and special educational needs. We have had much debate on this matter, and I am committed to ensuring that no part of the Bill has a detrimental effect on children with disabilities or special educational needs.
In Committee, I was able to offer the reassurance to noble Lords that the guidance covering applications for the power to innovate would state clearly that,
"in determining whether or not a proposal raises standards the Secretary of State will have regard to:

i) the need to raise standards for all children, including those with Special Educational Needs; and

ii) the need to promote the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of children and society through a broad and balanced curriculum".

We have said here, in another place and in the draft of the guidance to be issued that we want to see higher standards for all children, including those with disabilities and special educational needs. Proposals which had a negative impact on education provision for special educational needs pupils would not be considered to raise standards. However, in answer to, and in sympathy with, the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this area, I want to create additional protection for this important group of children.
I am happy to respond to those concerns by writing safeguards into the legislation. That is why I have put forward Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. They make clear that no order can be made if it appears to the Secretary of State or National Assembly that the proposed order

515
would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs. They also make clear that, in reviewing a proposal, the Secretary of State or National Assembly will be considering the likely effect on all children who may be affected by it.
In moving Amendment No. 6, I hope that I can offer further reassurance to noble Lords about the way in which the proposals under the power to innovate will work. Guidance will make clear to applicants that they should take explicit account of the interests of children with special educational needs in relation to all projects. That must mean promoting their interests, as well as protecting them. We have already made clear that any proposal should be the subject of consultation with all parents, which should certainly include, as always, the parents of children with special educational needs whose children might be affected either beneficially or adversely. Again this should be an area where we consult children with SEN, as we learn how to do so more effectively.
Following that, we shall set out in guidance that we would expect the Secretary of State's attention to be drawn to any SEN issues in the proposal. Once flexibilities have been agreed, I can confirm that monitoring, including in relation to the annual report and when deciding whether to extend a project, will look at SEN issues. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have attached my name to one amendment in this group which, in the light of the Minister's remarks, I shall not be pressing. I have one simple question. Where a school, or schools put together a committee of parents representing all parents—this would certainly apply under federations if they come into being—such a committee would not always specifically represent children with special educational needs. However, when speaking to the government amendments, the Minister said that consultation with parents would include consulting parents who specifically represented children with SEN. Therefore, for the sake of the record, perhaps the Minister will answer the following question. If there are children with special education needs in a school but the body of parents representing all children in a school do not have specific expertise in the subject or represent children with SEN, will it be possible for a parent representing those children to be included in the consultation process?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendment No. 4, which noble Lords on these Benches will not be pressing. That is partly because we are extremely grateful to the Minister for Amendment No. 6, which answers almost all that we required. However, it does not quite meet our concerns, and other noble Lords may wish to speak
516
and express one or two reservations. The wording of Amendment No. 4 is slightly different in that it refers to such provision being made,
"except [in] legislation relating to the education of disabled children and children with special educational needs",
while the Minister's amendment makes it clear that such an order would be made where,
"it appears to the Secretary of State … that the proposed order would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs".
I take the point made by the Minister that there could be cases where a proposed innovation that is affected by the legislation is, nevertheless, regarded as being a good way forward. We would not wish to exclude such an amendment. I take it that that is the spirit in which we have achieved slightly different wording.
I welcome Amendment No. 2, especially the little phrase at the end, which refers to the,
"likely effect of the project on all the children who may be affected by it".
When schools propose to innovate, the Minister was right to point out that our amendment does not make it clear that there might be repercussions as regards other schools; and that, therefore, there should he discussions with other schools. I am pleased to see that we now have a recognition on the face of the Bill that an innovation pushed through by one school could have quite a detrimental effect upon other schools. Such considerations must be taken into account. Indeed, if the effect were too detrimental, I hope that the Secretary of State would not allow it to go ahead.
I very much welcome the two government amendments from the Secretary of State. I thank the Minister for the work that she has put in to ensure that such amendments were brought forward.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as president of Mencap I am delighted—although, I am glad to say, not speechless—by the generous amendments that the Minister has just offered to the House, especially Amendment No. 6. Indeed, all that Mencap requested is contained in that amendment, coupled with the statement that the Minister made afterwards about the need for taking explicit account of the interests of children with special educational needs. The list that the noble Baroness was able to give is most welcome.
I am sure that noble Lords will be happy to hear that Mencap has asked me to move no further amendments on the Bill. I am sure that that means that your Lordships will be able to get to bed a little earlier than usual, and that I shall be able to switch off the light tonight, before I have my milk and honey, with an absolutely clear conscience. I am most grateful to the Government for listening so closely to our needs and desires.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Rix in commending the Government for the way in which they have gone about the consultation process in this part of the Bill. Indeed, as has already been said, the Minister's actions have been quite commendable: she has engaged with

517
people from different parts of your Lordships' House in trying to find constructive ways forward. I believe that to be a good model for others to consider when they deal with legislation in the future.
I welcome both Amendments Nos. 2 and 6, and especially what the Minister said on the issue of monitoring. I raised that issue previously in Committee. Before we leave the question, can the Minister tell us a little more about how the monitoring will be conducted? For example, who will undertake that process; and, subsequently, after the information about the way in which people make provision in their schools for children with SEN has been collated, how will such information be made available at a public level?
From the earlier group of amendments that we debated, the Minister will know that the one issue that caused more concern than any other in this House was any question of the diluting, through innovation, of provision for children with special educational needs. These two amendments answer that problem adequately, and should leave no one in any fear about the implications of innovation.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome Amendments Nos. 2 and 6, but I wish also to speak in favour of Amendment No. 4. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, indicated that some of us would not he totally happy with the situation. I am hugely grateful to the Minister for the efforts that she has made; for the assurance that she gave today as regards guidance; and for the meeting that was arranged. At that meeting, I was more or less convinced that we had what we needed. However, I believe that I indicated through her office the fact that I would not be totally happy.
I am patron of IPSEA, which is a member of the Special Educational Consortium. It has volunteers on the ground who appear at tribunals, and who understand the whole statementing process. The panel would be very worried if any of the links in this chain—for example, the duty to identify children, to assess children, to make statements for children, to specify SEN provision, and to maintain the statement—were to be broken. IPSEA's volunteers, and the overwhelming majority of children's disability organisations, know from first-hand contact with parents and carers of children with SEN that a clearly written statement saying how much help is to be provided is fundamental to children's needs being met.
Although the Special Educational Consortium very much welcomes the Minister's amendments—and this applies particularly to the RNID and the National Autistic Society, which have advice lines, and so on—it believes that SEN legislation should be exempted from any power to vary legislation. If the Government are not willing to exempt such legislation, can we have a clear recognition that the variation of the duties on
518
LEAs to identify, assess, and make provision for SEN would be detrimental to the education of disabled children, and those with special educational needs?
We also need a clear recognition that a variation of the duties on governing bodies to use their "best endeavours" as regards children with special educational needs would be detrimental to the education of disabled children, and those with SEN. Can the Minister assure the House that the Secretary of State would not believe that it was a good thing to get rid of the duty to assess in the innovative process? We need guarantees that all those links in the chain are not matters that could be disapplied when one is innovating.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps under the rules of the House I can ask a question as I am slightly unnerved by what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, has just said. My question is an extension of the same point. Having read the government amendments, I made the assumption that it was almost inconceivable that a piece of legislation that related to special educational needs would be set aside for any single project. It would be helpful to have a guaranteed statement on the record that the intention would not be to set aside any legislation that afforded protection to children with special educational needs.
In my book, the consequence of that would be that some children somewhere would not enjoy the protection and, therefore, there would be an impact upon children with special educational needs. If I am reading too much into the statement of the noble Baroness it would be helpful to have that on the record. If that is not the case, I believe that we would want to plug that loophole at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by noble Lords. On the first question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, there is a requirement to consult all parents and we shall put in the guidance a requirement to ensure that parents of children with special educational needs are specifically included in that. Therefore, any proposal that did not do so, could not get through the process. I hope that that is clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in talking about our amendments and Amendment No. 4, is right. I shall deal with the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Blatch, in a moment. This matter concerns the opportunity within special educational needs to consider what can be done to further the education of children with special educational needs as part of the process. Therefore, does one rule it out or in? I want innovation on special educational needs to improve matters for such children for the reasons that I gave earlier. I do not believe that any noble Lord would say that the legislation could not be better and that there may not be things that we could do. I do not believe that we have got everything right in terms of support for children with special educational needs and I want schools to consider that.

519
I shall miss the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I shall not miss his amendments, but I shall miss him if he is not to speak in your Lordships' House in the next few days of this Bill. I am extremely grateful to him for meeting with me and for discussing the issues in detail. I hope that we have addressed his concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke of the monitoring issue. We shall require schools to set out their plans for monitoring and evaluation as part of the proposals that they put forward. We shall ensure that that information is taken into consideration when we consider the project and its extension. We shall ensure that the initiative as a whole is evaluated and the results made widely available. This matter is partly about ensuring that other schools can learn.
I turn specifically to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth. I understand her concern. IPSEA is an organisation that stands full square on wanting to ensure, as she puts it, that there is no apparent break in the chain. It is practically inconceivable—I say "practically" because there may be one in a million—that one could envisage a situation in which not assessing children could possibly raise standards for them or anybody else. We could not envisage that.
I shall give an example—I am often accused of not giving examples. I have been conducting work with special schools on how we can work more closely with them and how we can ensure that they are supported by local education authorities. Noble Lords have said in the House and elsewhere that we should have the right kind of provision in the right kind of areas. There are issues about low incident special educational needs and the provision that we can supply within a local education area or a national area.
One issue that I want to discuss on special schools—we have just begun a piece of work on this—is the idea of regional provision. Local education authorities could come together to provide regional provision that could be better for parents, particularly if support has to be residential. That would require us to consider the power to innovate with a group of local education authorities. Technically we could not do that now. I do not propose such a provision in this Bill as in relation to Wales there are differences in provision and I am not sure that we would want to do that. However, that is a specific example.
I hope I can allay the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This is not about saying that we should not assess children; and this is not about providing support for children with special educational needs in school. It is about including all legislation and ensuring that if something creative could support our children with special educational needs it should come forward. But we shall not be interested in anything that is to their detriment. These children are far too important and far too special.
520
They require the kind of support and concern that noble Lords have expressed, and which I share. I believe that this is the way forward.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I could ask one question that arises out of the Minister's reply to me. I do not believe that I am being stupid, but in the example that she gave I believe that one would need to assess. There would be no need not to do any of those things. I do not understand why she cites that example.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cite that example because in an amendment to remove all special educational needs legislation from the power to innovate, that would be removed as well.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to suspend statutory requirements etc.]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 23, after "applicant")" insert "and in consultation with the relevant local education authority where that body is not the applicant"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we tabled Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 before we knew what the Government were proposing, although in Committee the Minister gave us cause to be encouraged. Government Amendment No. 8 is welcome. By placing the requirement to consult with LEAs on the face of the Bill rather than simply leaving it under guidance, the Minister has gone further than the reassurance that she gave noble Lords in Committee. Therefore, we shall not press Amendments Nos. 3 and 7. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 8. In view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, I am not sure that the brief that I have is appropriate. As I have said before, local education authorities play a vital role. We know that they have a track record of successful innovation; for example, in working with education action zones, in developing literacy and numeracy strategies and in turning around schools in special measures.
I believe that local education authorities have demonstrated the potential to have a real impact and to make a real difference to standards in their schools. I want them to build on that experience and where they have new ideas for innovative ways of raising standards to be able to come forward with proposals. We believe that that will be particularly important for projects that involve collaboration between schools where the LEA will he best placed to make that work.
We have always said that where a school comes forward with a proposal, the local education authority should be consulted. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, I am responding to the arguments raised in Committee that this could helpfully be added to the face of the Bill.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I apologise for pressing this point because it is so obvious. Will the Minister

521
give an assurance that when statutory consultation of this kind takes place the results will be in the hands of the Secretary of State when she takes her decision?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.4 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of Blackburnmoved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert "except any requirement relating to religious education or collective worship"
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is specifically concerned with provisions affecting community schools rather than Church schools. I apologise to the House and the Minister for not raising this matter in Committee—possibly I was slow on the uptake—but it arises out of a number of anxieties expressed to me in the intervening period by a number of people and groups relating to the statutory requirements affecting religious education and collective worship in community schools.
In my view, in a pluralist society, religious education is of greater significance than once it was if the desire is to have a tolerant society in which religious hatred has no part, as I am sure all noble Lords would wish to be the case. Of course, I am ready to agree that opinion is divided on the matter of provision of collective worship. But that is surely a sensitive matter for Parliament to decide rather than either the Secretary of State or a school governing body.
Of course, that works both ways. The present statutory provision allows the withdrawal of pupils from RE and collective worship. So Amendment No. 5 would also serve to protect the rights of such parents from governors who felt that the withdrawal rights stood in the way of good or sound education, or innovations that they may want to make.
I do not want to labour this point. The Minister's amendment goes some way to meet the concerns expressed; but if I hear what I hope to hear from the noble Baroness, to which response I shall listen carefully, I may he persuaded to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, when we spoke in Committee on admissions to schools with a religious dimension, I can recall shortening my speech by saying that, in following the right reverend Prelate in his speech, I would follow the example of the Back-Bencher who followed Edmund Burke in the 18th century and simply say, "Ditto to Mr Burke".
But I shall be marginally more expansive on this occasion with an exotic example from a 1944 Act and the parliamentary proceedings upon it. On that occasion the late Lord Eccles introduced an amendment that there should be equal pay for men and women as soon as the war was over. It was the only
522
time in the whole of the war when the government were defeated, and they were defeated by 117 votes to 116. In addition to the late Lord Eccles, the late Lord Hailsham, Lord Thorneycroft and my late noble kinsman all voted against the government. The Prime Minister, threatened by that experience and determined that Dr Goebbels should not make any use of it, insisted on Report that there should be a massive three-line Whip and the amendment was reversed by 425 votes to 17.
The reason I mention this is because the Prime Minister then sent for the late Lord Eccles, who was in his first year in the House of Commons and said— shall put it in oratio recta—"Young man, I am not unsympathetic with what you are seeking to do. But to bring in a clause of this sort on this Bill in the midst of a major conflict in which this nation is engaged is, if I may say so, like putting an elephant in a perambulator". For exactly the same reason I share the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn that we should not run any risk that that should happen, by accident, as a consequence of this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not claim to be able to follow the eloquence of my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I am a little lost—as one always is—on our procedure. Can I ask the Minister, since her amendment is included in this group, whether she is proposing at some point to speak to her amendment, then sit down, and then reply to the whole debate? Is that how we are going to proceed? That will determine when I join in.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that the right reverend Prelate is taking Amendment No. 5 on its own.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. I intended to deal with both at the same time; that is, speak once to my amendment and the other amendments. I thought that was the procedure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, when does my noble friend expect the rest of us to speak?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in the absence of anybody else rising, and without wishing to put an elephant in the perambulator as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested, I rise briefly to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and Amendment No. 5.
These debates tend to be cyclical. We have had debates both here and in another place over the past decade on whether or not it is desirable to have daily acts of worship, collective acts of worship and religious education in our state schools. The overwhelming decision in this place and in another place has been that that should continue to be the case. I therefore

523
agree with the point the right reverend Prelate is making: if one wanted to change that, it should be changed as a result of new legislation, not merely by something in the gift of a Secretary of State.
I add one other point. At a time when there are enormous pressures on young people—we live in a very dysfunctional society—the quiet places we have in our lives are important. It is important that in the hurly-burly, the cacophony of life, with so much noise and so many pressures bearing down on young people, we should not squeeze out the opportunity for them to understand something of the spiritual in their lives. It may not necessarily be Christian beliefs. In most people there is some kind of spiritual impulse. Where daily acts of worship and religious education are conducted well, it can meet a real need in young people.
I do not see this as a Cinderella question or as being on the margins of our debate; it is central to the way we form young people for the future. I hope therefore that we receive a reply from the Minister today that will reassure us; and that if schools bring forward innovative proposals which remove religious education or the daily acts of worship in their schools, as she has already been able to say in special needs education, she will be able to state categorically that that is not to be the purpose of innovation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the whole process seems to be in a mess. I want to speak to Amendment No. 5. Equally, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Normally I like to speak to amendments after the movers have made the case for them. However, I shall speak only to Amendment No. 5 at the moment and we ought to find a way whereby the noble Baronesses who favour Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 can put their case so that we can argue about them as well without breaking the rules of Report stage in your Lordships' House.
I want to say the reverse of what the right reverend Prelate said; namely, that I am totally opposed to Amendment No. 5. I have a simple logical question— nothing to do with quiet time or anything of that sort; namely, if it is the view under freedom of choice and related matters that parents ought to have the right to have religious schools, does it not follow logically that other parents ought to have the right to have purely secular schools? That right should not simply be met by opting-out procedures, but by not having the religious element in the school.
It is entirely right that the right reverend Prelate raises this matter. It enables us to try and obtain from the Government, at least on one occasion, a logical basis for the position they are taking on parental choice. My view is that if parents within a school wish that school to be wholly secular, then the whole spirit of the legislation before us is that they ought to be able to say, "This is an innovation we want. We have thought it through. We will put it to the Secretary of State as a suggestion we should like put in place."
524
I am not saying that the Secretary of State should necessarily agree. But if that is an innovation that parents want, they should not be denied the right to have it. I am extremely glad, therefore, that the right reverend Prelate moved Amendment No. 5. I hope that he will now seek to divide the House so that at least one person can vote against him; namely, me. That would solve many of my other problems in getting myself on the record as putting my money where my mouth is. There is a fundamental question here to which it is about time that we faced up. If noble Lords believe in freedom of choice, they must apply that to all parents, including parents like myself. In practice, of course, in schools to which parents such as myself sent their children, the religious bit was so derisory as not to bother us. But we ought to have the right to say that we want an innovation in a school to make it a secular school. That follows absolutely from the Government's position.
5 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point—I thought that he might. Is not Chapter 1 about raising educational standards achieved by children? I cannot see how removal of worship or removal of religious education contributes to raising the standards of education. It withdraws children's opportunities rather than adding to them, so I should have thought that it is outside the scope of the clauses.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish that I could be as sanguine as is the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, about that. There are schools—in some numbers, I am afraid—that would regard not having to carry out daily worship or include compulsory religious education as leaving space in the curriculum to do other things that they would argue raised the school's standards. It is not inconceivable—it may even be reasonably probable—that such an application would be made. It would then be a matter for the Secretary of State.
I have received an Answer from the noble Baronesses on this matter, and it is unnerving. That Answer is the reason why I strongly support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. My Question was:
"What would be the status of compulsory subjects such as the core curriculum, religious education and daily worship, and citizenship, if proposals were to come forward under Clause 2 of the Education Bill linking the dropping of subjects with the raising of standards"?
The reply from the noble Baroness was:
"Exemptions under clause 2 of the Education Bill may be conferred for a temporary period only, and only for the purposes set out in clause 1".
We know that the temporary period is for up to six years and could thereafter be extended for all time if legislation followed. The Answer continues:
"That is, exemptions may be conferred only 'to facilitate the implementation by qualifying bodies of innovative projects that may—(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State contribute to the raising of the educational standards achieved by children in England, or (b) in the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales

525
contribute to the raising of educational standards achieved by children in Wales.' The Secretary of State would have to approve any such proposals, and would do so only if she were convinced it would lead to higher educational standards".—[Official Report, 25/3/02; col. WA 25.]
So, as I said, it is conceivable that an application could be made that made a good case that good use could be made of the time freed up by removing daily worship and religious education from a school. Therefore, technically, if the Secretary of State decided that compulsory subjects could not be set aside—if so, that should he in the Bill—and took the view that that school would not be raising standards on the grounds that it would displace a compulsory subject, the applicant could go to judicial review and win. There is no protection in the Bill for that subject.
The Education Act 1944 enshrined the right of all children to receive religious education and enshrined the daily act of worship. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, reminds us at regular intervals that that is contentious. I have believed for a long time that education without a spiritual dimension is a pretty arid and clinical experience. Unless it is enshrined in law, many children will not receive religious education. That is a double jeopardy fate for them, because we know that many children do not receive religious education at home. For a large number of children, the only anchor in their life and the only way in which they will receive any kind of spiritual dimension to their lives will be through school. As a nation, we should at least protect for our children a spiritual dimension to their education through the promise made in the 1944 Act.
We have dealt with special educational needs. The Government were sufficiently moved to include protection for them in the Bill. We need some protection on this matter in the Bill, whether it is this amendment or something akin to it. Exhortation on the record at this stage will not work because I have a Written Answer to a publicly placed Question which is contrary to what the noble Baroness may say today.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendment No. 11. I am grateful to the Minister for tabling her amendment, which achieves exactly the same effect as that tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee. It may be helpful to the Minister and the rest of the House to know that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 11 as a consequence.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall now try to be helpful to the House with regard to procedure. I apologise to your Lordships, but it is my first ever day on Report. so I am trying to follow what I believe to be the correct procedure. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I suggest, having been advised that it is up to me, that from now on I shall speak to the amendment that I am moving and then wind-up at the end of the debate. That may make things slightly easier and I apologise to the House.
I shall now speak to Amendment No. 10 and then wind up on Amendment No. 5. First, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. As she knows, in
526
Committee, I agreed with the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, that it is important to keep a public record of the power to innovate. That is precisely why I have proposed the amendment. It will require the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to produce a report. As I said, it is important that the Secretary of State is involved. We want there to be a public record of exactly what legislation is to be disapplied; exactly who the disapplication applies to; and for how long it will last.
But I also felt—I believe that noble Lords shared this feeling—that it might be helpful to have in one place and on an annual basis, a summary of the orders that have been made during the course of the year and those orders that continue to apply from previous years. That would ensure that no school, LEA, parent or pupil was in any doubt about exactly what legislation had been disapplied and for how long that would continue. Amendment No. 10 achieves that.
I turn to Amendment No. 5. Noble Lords will be aware that Amendment No. 2 alters the Bill by inserting the requirement to have regard to the need to promote,
"the spiritual, moral, cultural"
—the list continues—education of children. I hope that noble Lords understand from that that we are as keen as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whom I entirely support, to ensure that children receive the kind of spiritual education that they would want. That is precisely why I listened carefully to what noble Lords said in Committee and agreed that it is important that that is stated in the Bill.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn for tabling his amendment. It gives me an opportunity to put on record that the Government cannot conceive of any situation in which exempting requirements to RE or collective worship would raise the educational standards of children in England or Wales, not least because of the protection already enshrined in the Bill for children's spiritual, moral and cultural education.
The Secretary of State can disapply legislation for the fixed time period only if it will raise standards for children—and in the context of the amendments that we have already made to the Bill. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. We have already ensured the protection that the right reverend Prelate seeks. I shall be clear again: we would not regard the requirements relating to RE or collective worship as suitable matters for disapplication. On that basis, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am also very grateful for the Minister's assurance. I shall want to reflect on both the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the Minister's reply. I believe, however, that Amendment No. 2 provides the assurance I seek on spiritual, moral and cultural education, thereby,

527
protecting both RE and collective worship. As I said, however, I shall very carefully read those comments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
"(4A) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall refuse an application for an order under this section if it appears to the Secretary of State or the Assembly that the proposed order would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the education of children with special educational needs."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Variation or revocation of orders under section 2]:
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Applications for orders under section 2]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 39, leave out "consult such persons as appear to the" and insert—

"(a) in the case of an Education Action Forum, consult each local education authority by whom any participating school, as defined by section I 0(6)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31), is maintained,

(b) in the case of the governing body of a school maintained by a local education authority, consult that authority, and

(c) in any case, consult such persons (or other persons) as appear to the qualifying"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT

(1) Where the Secretary of State has made any order under section 2 in any academic year, he shall—

(a) prepare a report on all the orders made by him under that section in that academic year, and

(b) lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.

(2) Where the National Assembly for Wales has made any order under section 2 in any academic year, the Assembly shall prepare and publish a report on all the orders made by the Assembly under that section in that academic year.

(3) In this section "academic year" means a period beginning with 1st August and ending with the next 31st July."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 12:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

AUTOMATIC EXEMPTIONS FROM CURRICULUM PROVISIONS
(1) Regulations shall designate curriculum provisions as attracting exemptions for all maintained schools, subject to subsection (2) and section 74(1).

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

528

(3) The regulations in subsections (1) and (2) shall not be made unless laid in draft before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to the part of the Bill that deals with earned autonomy. In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 13 and 18.
I have deliberately separated the issue of curriculum from that of pay and conditions. First, they are different issues. Secondly, some would prefer to deal separately with disapplications for curriculum matters as against pay and conditions matters, rather than to roll them all up as one proposition, as the Bill provides. The separation is therefore really just for the ease of those who take different views on different aspects of the Bill's provisions.
As I said, we do not wish to stifle schools' aspiration to take greater responsibility for the management of curriculum matters and pay and conditions matters. My amendments presume in favour of all schools enjoying the freedoms, except for those which the Secretary of State deems unsuitable. However, I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were deployed in Committee when we had a very full debate. I also appreciate that time is more precious on Report, which does not allow an iterative process. Nevertheless, I shall repeat what my Amendment No. 12 does not do. It does not remove the Secretary of State's discretionary power under Clause 6. However, it does presume in favour of all schools having the power of exemption, limited only by objective criteria which would be published and well understood by all.
The effect of my amendments would be the introduction of simple, clearer and more open procedures and would reduce yet again the level of bureaucracy necessary to support the Government's proposals. It is ludicrous to suggest that only 10 per cent of schools would qualify to exercise these freedoms. First, that percentage is not only cautious; it is also arbitrary. Secondly, the open accountability of schools is a sufficiently good safeguard to remove the Government's fears about whether schools that are well capable of managing their own affairs should have the freedom to do so. It is another case of central control and central bureaucracy, both of which I believe are unnecessary.
As I said, I note that there is more support for freedom on curriculum management than there is on pay and conditions. That is why we are addressing the issues separately. My colleagues and I support schools which meet the criteria being given the opportunity, within set limits, to exercise self-management over both curriculum and pay and conditions. Although those limits clearly have to be within the Secretary of State's fiefdom, I believe that there should be an automatic trigger to dispense with the need constantly to submit applications.
It is incumbent on the Government to say why they believe that only 10 per cent of schools would qualify. It may be because this is a pilot scheme and Ministers want to see how it works. However, the record book is littered with schools that are capable of taking charge of their own affairs. As we know, some schemes promoting

529
curricular freedom will result from the Bill. Such schemes will increase the type of flexibility in schools that can benefit young people. Moreover, the Bill now contains an obligation—both at its beginning and its end—to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. The Bill therefore contains a caveat, which I know the Liberal Democrats support, on a broad and balanced curriculum.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Government could let go of the reins and trust schools. If only 10 per cent of schools qualify, such a tight parameter will be drawn around schools that they will simply not be allowed to enjoy the freedoms provided in the Bill. We support those freedoms and we believe that they should be extended to all schools that are competent to exercise them. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her Amendment No. 12 but not in her Amendment No. 13. We on these Benches have long argued that, like the right to innovate, the right to experiment with the curriculum should be open to all schools and not limited to a few. The noble Baroness's words just now about letting go of the reins and trusting schools summarised very well our position.
The teachers with whom we have consulted on the issue of innovation have made it clear that the key innovation is the right to innovate on the curriculum. They were much less concerned about other issues. Although they would like to experiment, they still regard the national curriculum as something of a straitjacket. As for the national curriculum, the days of what were called "the secret garden" are very long gone. In those days there was no national curriculum and teachers taught what they wanted to teach. In the 1970s, when I was a campaigner on the issue, one simply did not touch on the curriculum and suggest that teachers might approach it more broadly.
Equally, I accept that the days of the highly prescriptive national curriculum, as it was when first introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s, are now gone. I accept that the national curriculum as set out in Part 6, comprising Clauses 72 to 92, is a much more flexible instrument. However, it is still only relatively flexible, particularly if the objective is innovation and new ways of teaching. Teachers need to be encouraged to think more widely about the curriculum, across horizons, rather than be channelled too narrowly within it. In that regard, one would like to go back a little way back to "the secret garden" and trust the professionals whom we now train very hard and very well. We ensure in the teacher qualification process that teachers are not put in charge of a classroom until we are confident that they are able to take charge.
The national curriculum provides teachers with a broad framework, but let us give them the opportunity to vary it. In earned autonomy, the Government are saying, "We will give them the ability to vary it. But we will do that only for schools which we judge to be good". Schools will be judged by how well they do against performance indicators such as the key criterion of
530
whether pupils at key stage 4 obtain five GCSE A to C grades. However, although schools are considered within free school meals bands and judgments are therefore made about schools in tougher and in easier areas, the fact is that earned autonomy will go quite disproportionately to schools that are already succeeding.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, in the regulations and in our discussions in Committee and those in another place, it was envisaged that only 10 per cent of schools would be touched by those earned autonomy regulations. For us that is not enough. That is a key issue. We should like to see earned autonomy, in terms of curriculum experiment, rolled up much more widely to every school. The amendment that I tabled in Committee suggested every school except those in special measures or showing signs of serious weakness, which perhaps need to be excluded. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, mentioned, the power to innovate is there for those particular schools. Since that amendment was not agreed to, the power to innovate is still there. Therefore, they could use the power to innovate.
However, on the curriculum the provisions are much too narrow. If we want to try and inject a feeling of innovation and dynamism into schools, which is what this is supposed to do, it is too meritocratic. It is "jump a little higher doggy and we'll give you a bone". I do not like that attitude. I do not think that we want that in our legislation. Therefore, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, perhaps I may offer a view on the subject. During previous stages of the Bill I was critical of the Government's proposals in the clause because they were limited to the 10 per cent highest performers in various categories. I argued that schools struggling with the curriculum needed scope and opportunities for freedom.
As I have understood the Bill—I hope correctly—as it stands with the Government's amendments, we are no longer limited to those schools in the top 10 per cent. Instead of just the top performers, it extends to those that are well led or well managed. So my struggling school, which is well led and well managed, and there are many such schools, will be eligible. I hope that the Government can confirm my interpretation and that the clause goes much further than was originally intended. I welcome that.
I turn to the amendments before us. I start with two propositions. First, after the years of travail—the nightmare of the national curriculum, as it first was—we have something which is good, rather than something about which we should be saying "Alas, for good reasons we want to keep a bit but it should go as a statutory requirement". It is a protection for children in all schools—little ones, big ones, good and not so good. Our children need that protection.
On the other hand, I believe that there is benefit in allowing good teachers opportunities to be innovative. It enables them to respond to the particular children that they have and to the particular learning opportunity that may be available. For example, if I were teaching history

531
in York, I should want to engage the excitement of the children in the Roman origins of the city, the Viking days and perhaps in the railway days. If I remember rightly, the National Railway Museum is there. There are great learning opportunities that I want to free up.
So it is a balance between the safeguards for children which are provided by the kind of sensible national curriculum that we have now and innovation. I think that there is considerable scope for innovation, but I should like to open the doors.
In saying that I want to open the doors I am cautious, particularly about the three core subjects. Those are the incrementally learned subjects. We live in a mobile society where kids move from school to school. We know about the awful problem of the migration from primary to secondary school and the regression that takes place there. Unless children follow a common curriculum in those incremental subjects, many of them will be disadvantaged. So I want the cupboard open more widely. I think that the amendment, which really says, "No, we believe that the time has come largely to say goodbye to the national curriculum", is too soon. I think it is taking too great a risk with the education of all children in all circumstances.
Therefore, I feel that—if I understand the Government's approach—they are opening the door more widely. That will let schools with different levels of attainment come through the door, but maintain as a core, as a reference point to all schools, the national curriculum. Therefore, I want to go with the Government rather than with the more ambitious proposals put forward in the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, later on—if we ever get there or live that long—there are amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David on interpreting and adjusting the curriculum to take fully into account the needs of the individual child. That is a subject that I hope that we shall debate to some extent.
However, the amendments relate to something different. I am not entirely sure that I fully understand what the noble Baroness has in mind. I can see her point—and I shall argue it later anyway—that concentrating on what are called "the best schools" may entirely be wrong. It may well be that where one wants flexibility it might not be in connection with the best schools, however defined, one might just want them. I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, was saying; that they wanted something quite different.
That is my first worry. But my central question, which I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and, presumably, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is whether they mean all schools at all levels. Do they mean primary and secondary schools, for example, should have this freedom? If they could clarify that it would help me when we reflect on this matter in a few moments.
It would also help me if they told me—and I think that this also applies to my noble friend the Minister—what subjects they have in mind. Again the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has essentially alluded to that aspect. I would regard it as—putting it not too strongly—catastrophic if
532
these exemptions applied to the three core subjects. The three core subjects are rather different from the others. They are what one builds on. There is no way if one is not literate that one can read history, or anything else for that matter. There is no way if one is not numerate that one can do almost anything. One thing that I despair of is that—I allude to one of our earlier debates on citizenship and so on—our young people are supposed to be great experts on saving the planet, but most of them could not say what the law of conservation of energy was. To be perfectly honest, I would rather that they knew what the law of conservation of energy was and later on in life set about saving the planet rather than the current modish way of doing things.
Therefore, I again ask the noble Baronesses who have tabled the amendment whether they remotely have in mind that a school might be able to not follow the national curriculum on the three core subjects? Is that at all possible because that would worry me enormously?
Lastly, we should not be naive about what drives schools these days. It has nothing to do with education philosophy any more. That went years ago. It has little to do with the national curriculum. They are driven entirely by examinations and testing. What drives schools now is what gets the relevant number of grades at—I cannot remember whether it is 0-levels or GCSEs. It is very difficult for someone of my age group to catch up with all the different things. The examination and testing system drives everything. Again, therefore, even if one wanted to see flexibility in this area, how could that be remotely possible given the examination systems we have? I put that question to the noble Baronesses.
To summarise, I have intervened interrogatively. I should like the answers to my questions so that I can have a better understanding of what they have in mind.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 12. Paragraph 5.1 of the document Policy Statements and Draft Regulations supplied to Standing Committee G, states:
"All schools need to ensure that the curriculum continues to develop, within the statutory framework, and responds to changes in society and the economy, and in the nature of schooling itself".
I agree wholeheartedly with the words "responds to changes". Yet, the current curriculum remains overcrowded with content and is strait-jacketed by a rigid system of testing and assessment. It allows little room for dynamic adaptability. There is a strong argument, therefore, in favour of greater flexibility for all schools with regard to the national curriculum. Such flexibility should apply to all schools, not just successful ones—particularly not to successful ones.
At a time when educationists and business leaders agree about the concept of the "creative age", it is salutary to find that those responsible for education policy are lagging behind. Technological advance, organisational change and globalisation have driven a shift from manual work to "thinking" jobs that demand a new range of skills, from problem solving and communication to self-organisation.

533
Two years ago, the think tank Demos stated that,
"while the underlying economic structures of society are undergoing a dramatic transformation, our educational structures are lagging behind. The dominant educational paradigm still focuses on what students know, rather than how they use that knowledge".
In Committee, the Minister said:
"It is our view that non-core foundation subjects need to be protected under earned autonomy. That means that no school will be able to suspend any subject, but will be given flexibility in relation to the programmes of study for non-core subjects, allowing far more freedom in teaching and greater scope in curriculum planning".—[Official Report, 2/5/02; col. 906.]
Given the safeguard described by the Minister at the Dispatch Box, it is hard to understand why she will not extend the exemption on the curriculum to all schools. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall respond to the debate by saying that we are not far apart in our intentions. In Committee, I said that I would reflect further on the nature of the criteria for earned autonomy and on the number of schools that might qualify. I can now tell your Lordships' House the outcome of that reflection. Before I do, I must make it clear that the core subjects—English, mathematics and science—will not be touched by the proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we are discussing the programmes of study for non-core subjects.
We shall shortly discuss amendments that would bring the judgment of the chief inspector into the criteria for earned autonomy. The reason for that is straightforward. We have always said that we want the best led and best managed schools to qualify for earned autonomy. We now wish to align the criteria for earned autonomy with those for short inspections. That will mean that, if a school has qualified for a short inspection under the current inspection arrangement and has received a good inspection, it will be eligible for earned autonomy. However, if a school receives a good inspection of any sort, we should be prepared to consider whether it might be suitable to give it additional freedoms. It will be for the chief inspector to identify those schools, and that is why the amendments that we have tabled are needed.
I listened carefully to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee and today, as, I hope, she will see. Initially, we said that 10 per cent of schools might qualify for earned autonomy. Under the criteria that we propose, we expect that 30 per cent of secondary schools and 60 per cent of primary schools will qualify. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is a significant move.
It does not end there. We are not prepared to extend the freedom to schools that are not sufficiently well led to manage it properly. I hope that noble Lords will agree that only schools that manage their affairs properly should be able to change such fundamental matters as pay and conditions and programmes of study. However, we want to see all schools well led and managed and able to take on the additional freedom. Our goal is that, over time, all schools should be able to take on the freedoms. We will review the qualifying criteria, if necessary, to achieve that aim. In coming up with new ideas for
534
helping schools to be innovative in all kinds of ways, government should do the job properly and ensure that we roll out programmes to the schools that can make best use of them. We must protect the education of our children. I hope that I have proved that I listened to what was said.
All of that can be achieved without the amendments that we are discussing. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 could also allow us to limit to 10 per cent the number of schools qualifying. Moreover, I should make it clear, particularly with regard to Amendment No. 13, that the legal position on teachers' pay and conditions must be clear for all schools. We should not allow a position in which the law governing teachers' fundamental entitlements is not clear to all current and future teachers. Whatever happens, eligible schools cannot simply decide to exempt themselves from legal pay orders and the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document. There must be a process whereby schools become legally exempt. The provisions proposed in the new clause would remove the safeguards in the Bill.
The Government's legislation will work, but Amendment No. 12 would create an insoluble conflict between this power and the powers in Parts 6 and 7. We cannot place a general presumption against compliance with a key component of the Bill in this new clause, while setting out in Parts 6 and 7 the detailed powers surrounding the curriculum. That is why Clause 6 is drafted as it is, presuming compliance with the general law re-enacted later in the Bill but allowing limited exemption from it in certain qualifying circumstances. With all humility, I must say that the Government's approach is preferable.
The Government's approach already ensures automatic exemption for schools qualifying. It already ensures that the requirements for a broad and balanced curriculum are met. It already ensures that high-performing schools that are well led and managed qualify. In addition—and of particular importance—it ensures that no one is left in any doubt as to the legal requirements for any school.
With regard to Amendment No. 18, I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have been open about our intentions for the criteria for schools qualifying for earned autonomy. We set out those intentions in a policy statement that can be found in the Library of the House, and we made it clear that we intend to have a full public consultation. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered our proposals for regulation-making powers in detail. It was content with the proposed procedures, and I hope that, as is the convention, the House will be guided by the committee's view.
I hope that, on that basis, noble Lords opposite will accept that we have moved considerably and given them what they asked for. The amendments do not help to further their aims. I hope that the amendment will, therefore, be withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister—as I have done several times this afternoon—for the work that has gone on between the last stage and this. I also

535
thank all those who, in the earlier stages, fought hard for what we appear to have achieved today. It has been acknowledged that many more schools are well able to manage curricular flexibility and pay and conditions. I take the point that those are different issues. The management of pay and conditions must fall to schools that are able and well led; otherwise there will be tension among staff in schools in which management of questionable quality is left to manage pay and conditions. Teachers must have confidence in the quality of leadership and management in the school.
We have come a long way, but there are one or two questions that I must ask. The chief inspector will now be brought into the process, something that I argued for in Committee. Will it be on his say-so and on the basis of the inspections that a school will become able to exercise earned autonomy? Given that earned autonomy is permanent, unless it is revoked for one reason or another— maladministration or misadministration—by the Secretary of State, will the process allow the chief inspector to agree to it? When the Minister replied to the amendment which I tabled in Committee proposing that change to the Bill, she argued that the chief inspector will be involved in advising the Secretary of State. However, now that he is being placed on the face of the Bill, will he have powers to agree that a school should qualify to be an applicant for earned autonomy?
Finally, the Minister said that there would not be an automatic trigger point but that there would have to be a legal process in order to convey qualified status on an applicant. What will the process be because the Minister's comments today render redundant the chapter in the policy papers on earned autonomy? Who will ultimately be empowered to award earned autonomy status, other than the Secretary of State? We are talking about 60 per cent of primary schools and 30 per cent of secondary schools, which represents a great deal of work for the department. Where a school qualifies on criteria set out by the Secretary of State, if a trigger cannot be automatic it should be on the say-so of the chief inspector.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the decision could potentially be taken by either or both and we are looking for the point at which we could allow a decision to be taken primarily on the advice of the chief inspector. I took the noble Baroness's amendment back after I had listened to what she said in Committee.
We intend to consult on the precise detail and to carry out public consultation on what the process will involve. I want to ensure that noble Lords recognise that we have moved considerably. In terms of the bureaucracy, we have deliberately started with the process of short inspection. That process is on-going and does not have extra bureaucracy. We would enable schools which were not in the process of the cycle of inspection to come forward and ask whether they qualified—that would be reasonable—for a cycle is involved. It means that when the chief inspector is satisfied that the school has qualified, it will be entitled to earned autonomy. That will be that.
536
If we want to expand the scheme beyond the 30/60 per cent of schools in order to deal with issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about being able to move quickly, we will not force Ofsted to review its procedures. We will look for new ways of being able to judge without adding to the bureaucracy. I hope that noble Lords will be pleased to hear that and that it answers the questions raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that reply is helpful. I hope that there will not be a percentage target. The Minister said that the Government would expect about 30 per cent of secondary schools and 60 per cent of primary schools entering the scheme on the basis of "those who qualify qualify". If a school qualifies, it qualifies, and that should be the case. The scheme should not be subject to arbitrary percentages.
I want to speak briefly to my Amendment No. 18—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may pose a question to the Minister. Is the aim to start the programme at the 30/60 per cent mark but to roll it out to as many schools as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are moving far away from Report stage procedure if those who do not have the ear of the House ask questions of the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the Minister gave an affirmative nod in the direction of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I hope that there will be no targets in that sense and that schools which qualify qualify. I am receiving an affirmative nod on that point.
As regards my Amendment No. 18, I am grateful for what the Minister has done since the Committee stage. We have done what we set out to achieve; that where a school qualifies it should be free to do so. If that is so, the criteria will be critical. The framework which surrounds a school managing its own pay and conditions and the curriculum flexibility, with all the safeguards that will need to be put in place, should be considered by this House. The position has changed from what was contained in the original chapter of the policy document and we are grateful for that, but I may return to Amendment No. 18. In the meantime, with warmest thanks to the Minister for what she has done, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 5 [Interpretation of Chapter 2]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 6, leave out from "to" to end of line 7 and insert "one or more of the following—

(a) the performance of the school,

(b) the quality of the leadership in the school, and

(c) the quality of the management of the school."

537
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I want to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 in the group. Amendment No. 14 would allow for judgments on a school's management to be included in the criteria set out in regulations for earned autonomy.
We have made clear that it has always been our intention that the school's management should be included in the criteria. It is an intention that we set out in the policy statement placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. However, I have considered further the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Peston as to whether primary legislation would enable us to make judgments in this area. In addition, we have made clearer distinctions elsewhere in the Bill in Schedule 16 which makes minor amendments to the School Inspections Act, to distinguish between leadership and management. It has always been our intention that the two areas of leadership and management should be used together in making judgments in this area and I trust that this amendment will remove any doubt as to whether primary legislation will enable us to do so.
As regards Amendments Nos. 15 and 19, noble Lords will know that during the debate in Committee I agreed that we would give further consideration to the qualifying criteria by which schools can earn autonomy. We are of course also committed to a full consultation on these criteria after Royal Assent.
We have discussed the issue and I know that there is a feeling on all sides of the House that we need to do more to ensure that schools are able to qualify for earned autonomy and that there should not be an arbitrary figure—a concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As the noble Baroness said in our discussion of the previous amendment, those schools which qualify should qualify.
We have had useful discussions with Ofsted about the best approach to adopt in this area. As I have said, we are proposing to place greater emphasis on the judgments from Ofsted about the leadership and management of the school to decide whether a school is suitable for earned autonomy. As I have said, we expect at least 30 per cent of secondary schools and 60 per cent of primary schools to qualify over time.
Ofsted's judgment about whether a school qualifies for short or standard inspection will include factors related to a school's performance as well as judgments about leadership and management. That means that we will continue to rely on all three types of criteria; those related to a school's performance, management and leadership. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Before doing so, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions about Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. Am I correct in believing that the three criteria which appear under the words "one or more of the following" could be taken together but it is not necessary that all three should be judged? The Minister said that leadership and management could be taken together but one alone could be considered.
538
Secondly, in relation to the insertion of "the Chief Inspector" in subsection (2), "or" is the operative word. Is it to be the opinion of the chief inspector, or the Secretary of State, or, in the case of Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, as distinct from the Secretary of State and the chief inspector?
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 again address the question of special educational needs and the needs of disabled pupils. A problem which arises in particular in relation to specialist schools and city technology colleges is that such schools—those with a special status—do not have a good record in regard to their provision for special educational needs. I know that some do, but some do not. The proportion of disabled children and those with special educational needs attending such schools is often rather low
The Minister has responded to our concerns with regard to innovation in the context of special educational needs, but I am not sure that we have had the same kind of response in this area. Among the criteria used to judge whether a school is performing well and thus would be eligible for a degree of earned autonomy should be that it can demonstrate high standards of achievement for its disabled and special educational needs pupils. The purport of these amendments is to ensure that that is the case.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish to make two brief points. First, when in an earlier amendment my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to "all" children, I had assumed that that would include disabled children with those special educational needs, and that the term would carry over to every provision contained in the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that must be the correct interpretation.
My reading of Amendment No. 14, in particular the phrase,
"the performance of the school",
is that it cannot mean anything other than a reference to all the children in that school. The performance of' a school cannot be distinguished from that of all of its children. Again, perhaps my noble friend will confirm that because if one thing unites all noble Lords, it is the need to ensure that children with special educational needs are not forgotten.
Secondly, I had always assumed logically that "or" includes "and", therefore we do not need to change that. The word "nor" does not include "and"; you have to use the phrase, "or, but not and". My noble friend will be the expert in this area and will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, I do not think that there is any problem about the word "or".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I think that there is a problem here because the two words are different. If a thing is one thing or the other, it is one thing or another. But if it is one thing and the other, both criteria would have to be satisfied. That has always been my understanding of the wording in legislation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. This is a point of

539
theoretical logic. The logicians have been studying this subject for a great many years. I can assure the noble Baroness that the word "or" includes "and".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall wait for the definitive response from the Minister.
I wish to put a different question. In the previous group of amendments and in the amendments now before us, the Minister referred to "short" inspections. I understand that Ofsted has proposed that by 2003, the majority of primary schools will be given "light touch" inspections. Will earned autonomy therefore apply to all primary schools that pass their short inspections? It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could clarify this point.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall begin by addressing Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. I wish to express my total support for the sentiment that lies behind the two amendments; that is, a wish to see disabled children or those with special educational needs at the heart of decisions relating to earned autonomy.
However, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary and do not offer the best method of achieving those aims. Amendment No. 16 would introduce a considerable degree of uncertainty to the application process. It would mean that a school might not know if it was eligible until after it had applied and it had been determined whether the evaluation plan was acceptable. That would be the very opposite of the automatic process for which noble Lords have rightly pressed.
As I have pointed out many times before, safeguards are already in place to protect the interests of children with special educational needs, all of which are included in the inspection regime.
Similarly, with respect to Amendment No. 17, if there were a clear and unambiguous measure of attainment for these children that could be applied in appropriate cases, I should be happy to accept such an amendment. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is notoriously difficult to develop a simple measure of attainment for children whose educational needs are so varied and where there are huge differences from school to school in the nature of their special needs and special needs provision.
The amendment would require us to specify such a measure in regulations, but there is a real danger that that would turn out to be unfair. It could deny schools earned autonomy because of a measure that was inappropriate to the nature of the special needs that they catered for. A further effect of the amendment—although I am sure that this was unintentional—would be to deny earned autonomy to any school without pupils with disabilities. It is impossible to demonstrate high standards of achievement for children with disabilities if there are no such children at the school in question.
However, I wish to give the following assurances which I hope will convince noble Lords of our commitment to children with disabilities and those with
540
special educational needs. First, I do not believe that earned autonomy poses any threat to children with special educational needs, in particular given that the freedoms available relate only to teachers' pay and conditions and the national curriculum. Within the latter, we have said that no subjects will be dropped, so that only programmes of study will be available for disapplication or modification. In any case, these provisions cannot change any of the special educational needs legislation, so that schools will continue to be required to make the provision and meet the needs outlined in special educational needs statements.
In addition, we have strengthened our commitment to ensure that the needs of special educational pupils are met in schools by putting forward government Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. As I said earlier, we are proposing, as a basis for consultation, to grant schools earned autonomy if they have qualified for a "short" or "standard" inspection by Ofsted and have received a good report. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used the term, a "light touch" inspection. While this will ensure that more schools qualify, I wish to make the important point that we shall also ask Ofsted to consider whether an assessment of special educational needs provision might be made during all inspections from autumn 2003 and thus be used in determining suitability for earned autonomy from that date.
Furthermore, Ofsted is committed to the use of value-added data as and when sufficient data become available, which will provide yet another means of holding schools accountable for the progress of all children. With regard to earned autonomy, I shall consider further whether it should be a requirement of a school's application to set out how its exemptions will impact on disabled children and those with special educational needs.
I turn now to the specific questions that have been put to me. My noble friend Lord Peston was right to point out that "all" means all children. The way in which we have looked at the issues of management, leadership and performance means that the new drafting allows us to use any combination of the three criteria in the regulations. It is proposed to use all three, but it would allow us to consider that again as we look more deeply into the school system. In this context, I am reliably informed that "or" does include "and", which I hope answers the questions put to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 9, after first "of" insert "the Chief Inspector,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
""the Chief Inspector" has the meaning given by section 1(3);"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Exemptions available to qualifying schools]:
6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision, they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 20 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 21 and 23. Amendment No. 20 is designed to ensure that whatever curriculum exemptions a school may attract under this clause, overall the pupils will retain the right to receive a broad and balanced curriculum. That is clearly the intention of the Government since they have said so in the policy statement accompanying the Bill. The Minister also said that in a letter she sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 17th May. I would assume therefore that the Minister will have no objection to this point being inserted wherever relevant on to the face of the Bill, thus putting it into the public domain.
Noble Lords will by now be aware that we on these Benches are in favour of all schools having a reasonable amount of flexibility to adapt the curriculum to the needs of their pupils. However, pupils currently have under the national curriculum an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum and this must not be compromised. There is no reason why, by adapting the currently rather overcrowded programmes of study, a school cannot make the space to innovate while still providing pupils with maths, English, science, IT, a modern language, humanities, the arts and sport.
It would he helpful to have clarification about some slightly contradictory statements by the Government. Paragraph 5·2 on page 4 of the document, Policy Statements and Draft Regulations Supplied to Standing Committee G, states:
"Without removing the fundamental entitlement of all pupils to a broad and balanced curriculum",
and yet, in the same document, we are given the four options for increased curriculum flexibilities and freedoms for qualifying schools. The broad possibilities are: first, suspending some programmes for study outside the core so that schools are required to cover, for example, two of the four programmes of study; secondly, total suspension of all programmes of study but still a requirement on schools to cover all non-core foundation subjects; thirdly, suspending all programmes of study outside the core but requiring schools to teach at least one humanities subject, one art subject and so on; and, finally, total suspension of all programmes of study and each school to determine subject coverage through defining what is meant by "broad and balanced curriculum".
If, as I understand, the Government appear to favour the last one, each successful school allowed earned autonomy could decide for itself what is meant by a "broad and balanced curriculum", in which case, what safeguards are in place for pupils' entitlements? Do not these two parts of the paper contradict each other? The
542
Government are happy for there to be a safeguard on the face of the Bill in relation to innovation, so why not for earned autonomy as well?
Amendment No. 21 requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to consult with a range of bodies, as appropriate, when making an order to exempt from educational legislation. LEAs, governors and teachers all have a role to play in decisions serious enough to require the law on education to be waived and it is entirely appropriate that they are consulted.
In Committee, the Minister said that such consultation would be difficult to operate. She also said that some of the bodies listed may not have a direct interest in the orders, nor have the time or resources to comment. The amendment includes the words "as appropriate" to take care of' that objection.
During the Committee stage, the Minister said:
"The amendments do not appear to take account of the key point that under employment law, any changes to teachers' contracts that could follow on from pay and conditions exemptions orders cannot be imposed unilaterally on teachers but can take effect only following appropriate negotiation, which may, of course, involve teaching unions".
She continued:
"I therefore do not believe that it is necessary to require consultation on every change, no matter how small, to involve all teacher unions. If teachers at the school were in favour of the application and the unions at local and national level were not, it is hard to know what the governing body would be expected to do with responses. Surely what matters is what teachers at the school concerned think of the application. Any teacher in such a position would be fully entitled to seek advice from his or her union".—[Official Report, 7/5/02: col. 1047.]
The problem with this argument is as follows. The Minister is fully aware that in negotiations at a school level, teacher representatives aim to act in the best interest of the teachers in that school, as they try to do at local and national level. For instance, it is not unusual for one union representative to act on behalf of a classroom teacher while another representative from the same union will be negotiating on behalf of a head teacher member. Both representatives will seek the best solution whatever conflicts of interest there may be. I should therefore like to press the Minister on Amendment No. 21.
Consultation with parents and teachers in the way provided for in Clause 7 is not really enough. Amendment No. 23 requires governing bodies to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales and to consult parents, teachers and the LEA. In her welcome Amendment No. 22 the Minister inserts only consultation with the local education authority. While we greatly welcome her positive response to the amendment when it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, we must press her to go further and to include consultations with the other stakeholder groups as well. I look forward to a positive response from her. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the local education authority would be consulted on the exemptions or modifications that the governing body chooses to apply for under earned autonomy. The

543
amendment responds positively to the discussion we had in Committee on 7th May about the need to ensure effective consultation under these provisions.
I made clear in Committee that there were provisions in the Bill for the key stakeholders who may be directly affected by the application to be consulted by the governing body before an application was made. Clause 7 makes clear that the governing body will need to consult with the appropriate parties, including teachers in relation to pay and conditions, parents in relation to curriculum, and other appropriate persons, before making an application. Similarly, the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales will not be able to make orders unless proper consultation has taken place.
We also gave assurance that the guidance under Clause 7(2)(c) will make clear that the LEA which maintains the school should be consulted before any application is made. However, there was some uncertainty among noble Lords about the status of the local education authority in the application process. The amendment clarifies the position. I trust that it will address in full the concerns raised in Committee.
Lord Jones: My Lords, I recollect previously questioning my noble friend the Minister about local education authorities. It seems to me that she has come forward with a positive amendment, which should be welcomed. It will certainly reassure the LEAs and the industry, if I may call it that, as one sometimes does in a cynical moment or two.
As to Amendment No. 21 and the National Assembly for Wales, I suspect that already teachers in Wales have excellent lines of communication into the National Assembly. My guess is that Assembly Members and Cabinet Ministers therein feel that teachers and their representatives in the various unions have well-established means and rights already. It may be that my noble friend will be able to tell the House what is the situation in Wales in regard to consultations with the teacher unions. That may be helpful during the course of the debate.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall begin by speaking to Amendment No. 20. I agree with noble Lords opposite that every school should deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. In Committee I said that even under earned autonomy this was already a requirement of the Bill. I clearly did not persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of that, and so I shall try once again to convince your Lordships.
Our proposals for earned autonomy will only give schools freedom from aspects of the national curriculum, not freedom from either the basic curriculum as set out in Clause 76, nor the general requirements associated with the curriculum as set out in Clauses 74 and 75. So while earned autonomy will enable schools to tailor elements of the programmes of study to the needs of their pupils, it will not provide them with any relief from the duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.
544
Clause 6 of the Bill contains the phrase "any curriculum provision"—for example, at line 29 on page 4. The term "curriculum provision" is defined on page 4, line 15, in Clause 5(4). It states that "curriculum provision" means any provision of the national curriculum in England or in Wales, as the case may be. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with that. If noble Lords will turn to page 51 of the Bill, they will find, three-quarters of the way down the page, before Clause 77, the heading "The National Curriculum for England". The next heading appears on page 57, after Clause 85. So the phrase "the National Curriculum for England" means Clauses 77 to 85. So the clauses from which exemption may be given under earned autonomy in England are Clauses 77 to 85.
Perhaps I may finally refer noble Lords to page 50. They will see that the general requirements in relation to the curriculum are set out in clause 74 and the duties to implement them are set out in Clause 75. Clause 74(1) sets out the "broad and balanced" definition. Clause 75 means that the Secretary of State, the local education authority and the governing body are required to implement a broad and balanced curriculum. Clauses 74 and 75 are not affected by earned autonomy.
I hope that on that basis noble Lords will agree that the Bill puts in place a duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum on the Secretary of State, on the LEA and on the governing body even where earned autonomy applies. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will therefore agree that her concern has been met in full.
Turning to Amendment No. 21, as we have said previously, we want the process by which schools will earn autonomy to be as simple, efficient and unbureaucratic as possible. Unfortunately, the amendment would require a wide range of representative bodies to be consulted, in addition to those individuals and bodies who will have to be consulted by governing bodies under Clause 7.
It cannot be right that the Secretary of State should be required to consult the Local Government Association, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the teacher unions and so on, on a proposal from a single school to take on earned autonomy. If the staff of a school and the relevant local education authorities have been consulted, that should be the end of the matter. In the light of Amendment No. 22, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley will accept that her main concerns have been addressed.
Turning finally to Amendment No. 23, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that I believe that consultation is an important part of the process by which schools can qualify for earned autonomy. That is why Clause 7 provides that the governing body will need to consult with the appropriate parties, including teachers (in relation to pay and conditions) and parents (in relation to curriculum) and other appropriate persons before making an application.
We also gave the assurance that guidance under Clause 7(2)(c) will make clear that the local education authority which maintains the school should be consulted before any application is made. I have now

545
brought forward Amendment No. 22, which ensures that there is a statutory duty for the local education authority to be consulted. The amendment responds positively to the discussion that we had in Committee on 7th May about the need to ensure effective consultation under these provisions.
In the light of this, I do not believe that Amendment No. 23 is necessary; nor am I convinced that it will always be appropriate for parents to be consulted on changes to teachers' pay and conditions, as this could be a breach of their privacy. Given these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment and that the other amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask one question which has puzzled me from the outset. The Minister constantly tells us that Clauses 74, 75 and 76 are inviolate clauses and that, whatever happens under either innovation or earned autonomy, they will prevail.
Where are the cross-references to those clauses in the early part of the Bill? Clause 6, for example, states that the Secretary of State may,
"designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as attracting exemption".
He may:
"designate modifications of any curriculum provision ֵ as being available on a discretionary basis".
Clause 2 states that the Secretary of State may make provision,
"conferring on the applicant exemption from any requirement imposed by education legislation".
There is no cross-reference whatever in this part of the Bill to those later clauses. So is this a matter of any legislation other than Clauses 74 and 75 of the Bill?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my specific reference was to earned autonomy and not to Clause 1. Indeed, that is why we have included in Clause I the reference to the broad and balanced curriculum which noble Lords have sought.
I have clearly not answered the noble Baroness's question properly. Perhaps I may write to her and give a specific answer to ensure that I have covered her point well.
I should say to my noble friend that I am not at this point able to give him details of what happened in Wales in terms of consultation with the teacher unions. I shall ensure that either I write to him or an appropriate Minister writes to him to provide that information.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her patience. My intention in moving Amendment No. 20 was to persuade her to make at the Dispatch Box the very unambiguous statements that she has just made. It is now clear that if any school which had been given earned autonomy were to try to institute a
546
curriculum that was not broad and balanced, it could be called to account. In view of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Applications for orders under section 6(2)]:
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"(aa) consult the local education authority,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Powers of governing bodies to form or invest in companies to provide services etc.]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 24:
Leave out Clause 10.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 29.
Again, let me make it clear at the outset that I support commercial freedom for schools. I also accept that these are enabling clauses and that any exercise of the powers set out in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 would be voluntary.
I fully support the level of autonomy enjoyed by city technology colleges and academies, and I lament the passing of the freedoms enjoyed by grant-maintained schools. At the previous stage of the Bill, the Minister said that she hoped that there would be no more CTCs. I have bad news for her: the academies are CTCs by another name. They enjoy the same freedoms; they are set up in the same way; and the entrepreneurs come along with their cheque-book in exactly the same way. My noble friend Lord Harris—who is presently doing a splendid job setting up an academy in Peckham—already has two city technology colleges and knows that academies are the same beast under a different name.
There is freedom under existing law to develop, for example, educational software and to sell it. to exploit the use of buildings and facilities and to act collaboratively and corporately to improve buying power and so on. A few nights ago, I was with a school governing body and spoke to its headmaster. They have already formed companies and are involved in companies. So the freedom that can be exercised under the present law is considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was kind enough to send me a very detailed letter replying to the points that I raised in Committee. I thank him warmly for taking so much trouble over all the detailed points, of which I gave him no notice. Perhaps I may refer to the letter in order to confess that my concerns have not been entirely set to rest.
The noble Lord suggested that I was concerned that schools may not have the time to form companies. He went on:
"We realise that this will require some work, but it will produce time saving benefits".

547
The noble Lord says that—but I am not sure what the evidence is and where the time will come from to set up committees, to bring people together, to meet with lawyers and accountants, and to set up the arrangements for companies.
Secondly, in part 1 of the letter, under the heading "Supervising authority", the noble Lord states:
"The supervising authority will provide light touch oversight of school companies".
There is no guarantee of that. There is nothing in the Bill about "light touch". It has supervising rights over authorities. I shall return to the exercise of supervising rights.
The statement does not allay my concerns. If a company is autonomous, it will be subject to all company law. To superimpose on companies the local education authorities and the Secretary of State is a recipe for disaster. The idea that LEAs have the time and the additional expertise to carry out such a requirement, or even the additional funding, is deeply suspect.
On the second page of the letter, the noble Lord says:
"When taking action, a supervising authority will need to have evidence for its decision, and will be bound by the general duties on LEAs to act reasonably".
That presupposes that in order to avoid problems arising it is dedicated to regular monitoring and collection of data, otherwise it cannot perform that function properly. If it has to collect evidence for any maladministration or for anything that may be going wrong in the company, it has to have fairly regular oversight of the day-to-day activities of the company. The same paragraph goes on:
"LEAs already have similar powers to suspend a school's delegated budget".
Overseeing schools' budgets is a far cry from overseeing a variety of commercial ventures, possibly involving non-education-related third parties, as the noble Lord said in a previous debate. He also said that costs would be minimal, but how can one tell? Nobody knows in advance of setting up a company what the costs will be or what the costs of failure will be. If a company goes belly-up, the local education authority will pick up the bill. How can one say in advance that the costs "will be"—not "are expected to be", but "will be"—minimal?
The Minister said:
"We expect purchasing companies to join together to buy only what their members would normally buy as individual schools within their own budgets".
The Bill does not make clear that that is what the companies are about. It says that they will act within their own budgets, but, as I said in Committee, joint purchasing, with all its advantages, can happen now. I was involved in joint purchasing arrangements in my own authority.
The second paragraph of the letter refers to bureaucracy. Local education authorities do not have spare financial capacity. They are being exhorted—and, if the Bill goes through, will be compelled—to pass on ever more funding to schools. We do not object to that. We believe that schools should have money that is due
548
to them. The villains of the piece are not necessarily the local authorities, but the Government, in holding money back from schools. The letter says:
"Once schools have the permission of their LEA to form or join companies, there is no requirement for LEA involvement beyond the supervising authority".
As I said earlier, in order to supervise there has to be some involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company. Otherwise, how on earth can LEAs fulfil their legal obligations to supervise?
The noble Lord goes on:
"we do not expect any Secretary of State involvement in the company".
The Bill gives the Secretary of State an involvement in the company. Either that means something or it means nothing. If it means nothing it should not be in the Bill.
Governors become governors not to form companies, but to run schools. Where is this surfeit of skills? On the top of page three, the noble Lord says:
"this work will be spread throughout the members and supported by the appropriate skills of governors".
We know that some governing boards contain some very entrepreneurial people who are full of ideas. They can be very useful to the governing body, but there are many governing bodies that do not have such people. The noble Lord will retort that this is a voluntary activity. The result is that it will be available to schools that attract stockbroker-belt-type governors, whereas those that do not, perhaps in run-down inner-city areas, will not have the benefit of such expert advice. Nevertheless, the Government come riding in on their white charger with their answer to everything: they will produce guidance.
Paragraph three talks about the suspension of delegation. It is a very messy paragraph. I pointed out that a school could join a company only if it had a delegated budget. However, if a member school has its budget suspended, it is not immediately required to leave a company. It can stay with the company and even become a sleeping partner, as the noble Lord has suggested. A school not fit to hold its own budget being part of a company, with all the responsibilities and ownership that it has to take for the running of the company, seems to be a real problem.
Paragraph five says:
"A takeover could only happen if school company members holding the majority of the shares agreed to sell their shares to a third party".
I think that the noble Lord means that school companies will be private companies, not public limited companies, so shares in them will not be readily available. I raised a point about a school company being taken over by another private company. According to the noble Lord's letter, that can happen. If the company agrees to sell, it can do so. The letter continues:
"Any member selling all of their shares would then leave the company. The risk of private sector takeover is low for several reasons—school companies will be private companies, they are not likely to be asset rich"—
I am not sure that I necessarily agree with that—
"and only certain prescribed types of body will be able to join these companies as members".

549
It would be helpful to he given some examples, if the noble Lord has any.
Paragraph six, on permission to join companies, says:
"Schools wishing to join a school company will need permission from their LEA".
Why? Some LEAs are in special measures. Some LEAs do not perform as well as some of the schools over which they have jurisdiction. That could result in a go-ahead school having to seek permission from an LEA, which may have a philosophical objection or may not even be up to making a proper judgment on whether it should run a company.
Paragraph seven is about market scan. I asked what the reference to "carrying out a market scan of alternative broker/provider organisations" means. The noble Lord replied:
"It is one example of the activity undertaken by the North Romford School Improvement Consortium (Havering LEA) New Model".
I assume that that is already in place and happening under existing legislation, so I am not sure that the new proposals add very much.
In the first paragraph of the letter, the Minister refers to companies spending only within their budgetary limits. However, if a company fails owing large debts, the LEA will be responsible for debts that may well exceed the budget of the school.
Paragraph eight is about dedicated staffing resource. I questioned the meaning of, "staff would also benefit from a division of labour using a dedicated staffing resource so as to free teaching star. That is so jargon-ridden that I do not understand what it means. The noble Lord goes on to say that,
"A company may wish to employ a bursar to act on behalf of all".
A group of schools can employ a bursar now, so that is nothing new. Many schools come together because it is the only way in which they can afford to have a bursar.
In paragraph 10, the Minister argues both ways. He writes:
"The purpose of including this clause is to clarify the Secretary of State's powers in this area, rather than add any new ones. We believe there is a need to ensure that primary legislation clearly states the ability of the Secretary of State to be involved in the operation of companies".
If Clause 12 is only for clarification and adds no new powers, as the noble Lord claims, it is not necessary. Why is it in the Bill? We are always told that repeating statutes does not make for good legislation. If this is not a new power, the Secretary of State can already be involved in the operation of companies. Either it is a new power or it is not. If it is, it needs to be in the Bill. However, paragraph 10 of the letter reads both ways.
Later in paragraph 10, the Minister writes:
"During the debate, you asked why the National Society could not procure the expertise they require, or work with Partnerships UK (PUK), thus negating the need for the Secretary of State to invest. The answer is that there is nothing to prevent anyone from procuring such expertise. However, the costs would, in all likelihood, be very high and almost certainly not represent value for money. By establishing a joint venture, we hope to ensure that the advice is available as and when needed and is of a consistent quality that meets the needs of the National Society".
550
The right reverend Prelate would have art interest in this. This is the kind of issue on which one expects public authorities or local authorities to say it will not cost because it is being done by the local authority or the Government and not by highly paid expertise that would have to be bought in. However, if the Government are getting involved, there is the cost of the time of the expertise that is made available by the Government to the company. It is not cost-free. Therefore, if we are talking about company law, a value would have to be placed on that company and that would have to be shown in the accounts. After all, the Government make voluntary bodies do that. I sit on a number of voluntary bodies. We have to account for anything that is given to us in kind as it has a value to the charity. It has to be shown in the accounts.
I am concerned about many of the points in the noble Lord's letter. I am not convinced that most of what a school, or schools, would wish to do commercially can be done under present legislation. The clauses we are discussing represent a complex proposition for schools. I do not think that the answer to the matter is to say that not many schools are expected to exercise the power or that because it is voluntary we should not be over-concerned. Schools are desperate for staff. They are overburdened with non-teaching duties. Governors are in short supply. In recent years many additional responsibilities have been placed upon them. Schools do not readily have access to the kind of expertise, or the funds to buy in such expertise, to indulge in setting up companies subject to the full panoply of law. If governors are financially liable, we may find that they do not come forward in the same numbers as formerly.
As I said at the outset, schools enjoy considerable freedom now to act commercially in their own interests. I refer to city technology colleges and academies. As I said, only the other day I visited a maintained school which was itself a company and enjoyed the freedom that that status conferred. I do not believe that the clauses we are discussing are properly thought through, nor do I believe that the sky will fall in if they are removed. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments Nos. 24 and 27 which propose respectively that we should leave out Clauses 10 and 11. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 28.
We had a long debate on the matter in Committee. I have not received a copy of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps it arrived today and I must confess that I have not emptied my in-tray.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the letter was dated 28th May. I cannot think what went wrong. The letter was addressed also to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I have received many letters from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and also from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of

551
Oldham. However, the only letter I have received from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concerned academies which I received over the weekend.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the letter went astray. I have not had the benefit of seeing it. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, discussed the letter in detail and raised many points. As we on these Benches said in Committee, with staff in schools and teachers so overloaded at present and with governors also complaining of overwork, we need this measure like we need a hole in the head. What we want our teachers to do is to teach and what we want our governing bodies to do is to concentrate on governing their schools and not to have to be involved in running companies.
From what the Minister said in Committee, it is clear that in any case schools can already set up companies in their own right as corporate bodies. They can run companies for the benefit of their own schools. The reason for including the clauses we are discussing is to enable them to establish companies jointly with other schools. Why would they want to do that? It is said that they would want to do that in order to gain economies of scale from purchasing on a bulk scale. However, these days, many schools co-operate with other schools and purchase on a bulk scale. In any case, one does not need a company to set that up. LEAs have done that for a long time. Some schools opt out of LEA purchasing schemes but others still opt into them. The benefits to be derived from economies of scale can be gained through that process.
The measure would also enable schools to set up providing companies to gain economies of scale. In Committee reference was made to software in that regard. However, it is clear that in any case a school can do that in its own right. Two teachers who have developed a software package can set up a company in their own right. They do not have to set it up through the school. There are few occasions when the measure that we are discussing is likely to be necessary. It appears to be a case of taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In Committee I was not convinced by the Minister's arguments. I have reread the Committee proceedings on a couple of occasions and I did not find the Minister's arguments at all satisfactory.
It is also highly unsatisfactory that if a purchasing company runs into trouble, the LEA is liable for that company's debts as it is using LEA money. If things go wrong, the LEA, which is supposed to vet the company, is landed with having to pay out. The whole provision does not hold water. For those reasons, we have little sympathy with either Clause 10 or Clause 11.
Clause 12 is a slightly different matter as it concerns the Secretary of State setting up a company. We are told that the measure is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to form companies, for example with the Church of England, in order to promote a PFI. I believe that the Government are anxious to get something back for the amount of money that they have already invested in
552
developing Curriculum online. Therefore, they are interested in setting up a company in that regard. That is fine although I am not convinced that Secretaries of State ought to be doing that. I do not see why a voluntary-aided school cannot set up a company jointly with the LEA rather than the Secretary of State doing that. A perfectly good joint company could be set up with the LEA as regards a PFI. I am not by any means convinced that PFIs necessarily give good value for money. There are a great many examples of PFIs going wrong. I am not sure that we should not try to eliminate the clause to prevent the Church of England making mistakes. I do not have much sympathy with that clause either.
I wish to discuss the amendments that we have tabled. We have tabled two to Clause 11. Amendment No. 25 seeks to eliminate the words, "if regulations so provide" in subsection (3) of Clause 11. We had a long discussion on that matter in Committee. We said that the matter would be rather awkward if there were no regulations. The Minister said that there would be regulations. We asked why, in that case, the phrase "if regulations so provide" should be included in the Bill. It is, as my noble friend Lady Blatch would say, otiose. It is unnecessary. It does not serve any purpose so why is it included? Let us get rid of it.
I now wish to discuss Amendment No. 26. I refer to the whole question of a company limited by guarantee and of any profits that are made being invested back into the participating schools. In that sense it would be a not-for-profit company. In Committee the Minister said that that would not necessarily be the case and that it could constitute a great disincentive to setting up a company. We pointed out that people, particularly governors, involve themselves in many activities in relation to schools to which they devote a great deal of their time and attention. They happily plough the profits from those activities back into the schools and therefore we do not see that to do so poses a major disincentive.
I turn to Amendment No. 29. Where the Secretary of State wants to set up a company, that company should be subject to the same limitations as any company set up by a school, as set out in subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 11. We argued, once again, that there was much to be said for that proposal—if the Secretary of State wanted to set up a company, it should be limited by guarantee and it should be a non-profit company. We feel that, in view of the way in which the clauses are drafted, the amendments are still valid and we hope that they will be agreed to.
Lord Jones: My Lords, this is a big and challenging clause, and to remove it would severely mutilate the Bill. What new additional guidance will Her Majesty's Government give to our schools in relation to the making and running of companies and in aiming for the profitability of companies? In a few words, from whence cometh their guidance? Where is the school company practice, so to speak, that the head and governing body will reach for? Will there be, for example, company doctors?

553
I believe that the clause is worth while. It is, perhaps, a clause of its time. However, we need an assurance from the Minister that the Government have thought the clause through. Have they, for example, looked to the other side of the hill? What will the consequences be? Our schools need careful and detailed guidance if we are to go forward in this regard.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the national society to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred. I am always prepared to accept guidance from her, particularly in relation to such an issue. I am quite out of my depth. I shall therefore read my brief much more closely than I normally do.
The view of the advisers of the national society on financial advice is different from that which the noble Baroness has just given us. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness not to press the amendments. We believe that they would have a significant effect on the replacement—or the non-replacement—of buildings of many voluntary-aided schools. The clauses that the amendments would remove are designed to enable the department to work in partnership through the PFI to extend the school building and replacement programme, which is well in hand. Since the introduction of that programme, as a replacement programme, there have been some high profile successes, but mainly one-off rebuilds of large secondary schools or LEA projects to replace school buildings and to run services.
The PFI has not worked anything like so well in relation to primary and other small schools, especially in rural areas, outside LEA projects because they do not provide potential for a large enough return for the private-sector investor. Many small school buildings that need replacing are not attended to through that method. Delivering the curriculum for the 21st century is made much more difficult by poor-quality accommodation. Pupils are being denied equality of educational opportunity by poor learning environments, which serve to stifle teachers' morale and the efforts to raise standards. Such school buildings can no longer provide value for money for the governors because they are a constant drain on the school's budget, needing constant "patch and mend" maintenance.
As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained in Committee, the Church of England, through the national society, has been working with the department and Partnerships UK to create a national model, through a jointly owned charitable company, for replacing smaller time-expired schools. That will operate by clustering schools in regional PFI projects, and it aims to make the legal processes easier and quicker for the governing bodies concerned. The arrangement is quite advanced now in terms of consultation and negotiation. There will be great disappointment around the nation if the programme cannot go ahead.
The DIES indicated that the very lowest estimate of PFI credits that are available for voluntary-aided Church of England schools alone are worth some £40 million. That amounts to 20 new primary schools. Potentially, the figure could be more than double that
554
sum. The national model of PFI will not undermine the conventional means of procurement for small Church of England schools. That pioneering model would eventually be available to all maintained schools — community, VA, VC and foundation— and would benefit schools in urban and rural areas. The power to form companies is key, as we see it, to enabling the PFI to work for clusters of small schools.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who charged that we have the powers already. However, my advisers are not convinced of that. The amendments would prevent the great majority of small schools accessing PFI credits and replacing time-expired buildings. It is for those technical reasons—they are, however, fundamental, not least in relation to the education of children in our smaller schools, particularly rural schools—that I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate can help me. I genuinely want to understand what he said. My understanding is that the Church of England, through the national society and working with the Government, is putting together an arrangement, if I can put it that way, or forming a company that will allow for procurement in relation to many Church primary schools. I refer to building, capital and refurbishment. Given that that is already being done, what is the brick wall up against which that body has come, which makes it impossible to proceed without the provisions in the Bill?
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, this is a highly technical and legal matter and, as I said, I was speaking from a brief. I understand that bringing together a series of school governing bodies into such an arrangement is prevented or that there is some doubt about whether that can be achieved. Perhaps the Minister, who spoke so cogently about this matter in Committee, will be able to help the noble Baroness. I assure her that I should not take up the time of the House if our people did not believe that that approach was necessary.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I and my friends in education would not cry ourselves to sleep tonight if these provisions were not in the Bill. I know—or, rather, I knew—of no one who wanted these provisions, other than the Government; I now discover that the Churches want them. We shall have a word on that in a moment.
When I first saw the Bill, it had not occurred to me that the provisions had anything to do with the replacement of schools. When reading Clause 10(1), it does not immediately leap to mind that it relates to school buildings and similar matters; it refers to "services", "facilities" and so on.
I read very carefully the remarks of my noble friend. I am not an expert on these technical economic matters but I do not see where the value added—the extra output—comes from in the PFI initiative. I have never understood that; and in this case I do not understand at

555
all how resources can be there via the PFI that are not there via some other arrangement. Perhaps my noble friend can explain that.
On Amendment No. 26—the amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley—I stick to the view that schools exist to be schools. They exist to educate young people. Whatever else follows from that, if it cannot be demonstrated that the net gain is made available to the young people who are being educated, I have two questions. First, where does the net gain go if not to the young people who are being educated? Secondly, why are schools in that type of business if it is not for that purpose? I am completely at a loss in this regard; why is the answer to Amendment No. 26 that the provisions are already somewhere in the Bill because that is what schools exist for? If there is any doubt about that, it should be said very clearly that schools should not be engaged in any activities whatever that are not proper for schools. I regard schools as places that are to do with educating people, not with other matters.
This is no big deal. I was persuaded last time not to make a great song and dance about this matter. I do not believe that many people will get involved. However, if it turns out to be a big deal, I should at least like to be persuaded, first, how the net gain exists and, secondly, that the net gain is education.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench on Amendments Nos. 24 and 27. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will recall that this is the second occasion in three weeks on which we have discussed small business, of which we both have some experience.
When I looked at the earlier parts of the Bill, my mind went back to the remarkable series of films about St Trinian's and the cameo part played by Mr Richard Wattis as a civil servant in the Ministry of Education who had to deal with the school. I was reminded of the role that he played then when I thought of the innovation schemes coming into the department. Of course, in the St Trinian's films George Cole played a role of a spivvish nature which was a trailer for his later notable television series.
I was greatly relieved that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"It will not be permitted for them"—
by that he meant the companies—
"to have a general trading object".—[Official Report, 7/5/02: col. 1097.]
I looked for the explicit statement of that non-permission in the primary legislation and did not find it. But I acknowledge that it was implicit.
In these remarks I do not speak on what I would call the "defensive provisions" in these clauses—that is, the efforts of economic consolidation, about which the right reverend Prelate spoke. However, I say to the noble Lord. Lord Jones, who said that this clause was of its time, that simultaneously local authorities are being
556
widely encouraged to become enablers rather than providers. The Bill seems to be going a little in the opposite direction.
I want to dwell on what I would call the "positive enterprise" aspects of the Bill, which I recognise to be a significant part. I echo what my noble friend said from the Front Bench about the amount of time involved. For more than a quarter of a century I was a trustee of a charity which had been going for more than 100 years. We had a very successful shop, as government are always encouraging that type of body—it was a museum—to do. But, due to carelessness within the engine room of the trust, arrangements were not made for the earning capacity of the trust in profit to be translated into a dividend back to the trust. One may say that that was a simple thing, but experienced trustees failed to realise that it was not occurring. We then had a profoundly long argument with the Inland Revenue, which proposed to tax us on all those profits rather than allowing them to be passed to the charity in an untaxed capacity as a dividend.
The amount of time that that renegotiation took is an ominous warning of what such a venture can lead people into. I certainly echo my noble friend—further allusion was made to it in the debate subsequently—in relation to the LEAs, which, in Clause 11, will need to have the skills to decide whether or not a school should be allowed to have such a company. It was said during the debate that they would not have the skill. However, if they have to acquire the skill, that will also require a heavy investment of time.
In summary, of course I understand that pressures are coming from different parts of the system for such companies to be allowed. However, I am not convinced that the upside potential from the companies which can do it, and which go ahead and do it, will exceed the downside potential cost if inexperienced schools are allowed to use such powers and then meet with unfortunate consequences, which, I fear, only too clearly might be the case.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, one cannot serve both God and Mammon, but it appears that the trick is to make Mammon serve God and then one can square that particular circle.
What worries me about this type of arrangement is the liabilities that the directors or shadow directors of the companies will land themselves with. Limited liability is not what it used to be. One can find oneself getting into all sorts of hot water if one does things which are outside the proper way of trading or if one does not take proper care of a company in which one is a director or shadow director. Very few governors of schools really have the time properly to exercise the duties of a director. Although they may well be considered to be shadow directors, they may suddenly find themselves banned from being a director of other companies. They may find themselves liable for the company's debts.
I believe that, at the very least, clear guidance will have to come from somewhere—I do not see a provision for it in these clauses—as to exactly what the liabilities are, how they should be handled, and how, if a company

557
is to be set up, those who may be considered to be shadow directors, must conduct themselves. Layer upon layer of company law now presses down on company directors. We cannot allow ordinary people who become governors of, for example, a Church primary school to be laid open to that type of liability without first giving them a great deal of guidance. Although I have not been sent a copy of a letter as I did not participate in the debate in Committee, I have not yet heard anything in Committee or from the Government today which leads me to think that we are looking after such governors in the way that we should.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I believe that in this debate one should recognise that a great deal of entrepreneurial activity is taking place in the education system at various colleges. It is occurring in city technology colleges and in some of the new specialist schools. And it is certainly part and parcel of the Government's intention that it should take place in the new city academies. Such activity is happening in a whole variety of ways— sometimes on an individual school basis, sometimes through a group of teachers coming together, and sometimes through a school taking an active interest in promoting a particular part of the curriculum and selling it to others. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said from the Front Bench, a great deal of activity is already taking place.
I believe that we must he persuaded—I hope that we shall be—that this extra step is taken for other reasons because the present arrangements are inadequate. I was interested to hear the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I considered that he made a very persuasive case for PFI—rather more persuasive that any Ministers are prepared to make. I believe that a little touch of capitalism from the Church is to be seriously welcomed.
In effect, the right reverend Prelate said that the advice that he has received from governing bodies on how the Church arranges such matters is that this arrangement is necessary to ensure that the benefit of PFIs is spread widely in a clutch of schools. Basically that is what he said. I dealt with advice bodies for several years when I had responsibility for this matter and I was always very impressed with their professionalism. I would expect, and hope that the Minister will confirm, that the provision is necessary. If that is the case, then I believe that these clauses should remain part of the Bill. I have nothing against them in principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is against them in principle, as he made very clear in Committee. I remember what he said. I treasure every word that the noble Lord says; he is one of the few remaining spokesmen of old Labour in this House. He does not like profits and dividends, which this type of arrangement is likely to throw up. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that profits and dividends are a rather good thing as they make the world go round. So long as the profits and dividends flow back into the educational world, that will be another reason for welcoming these changes.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be able to say that, in one way or another, the present arrangements are inadequate along the lines set out by the right
558
reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. If that is the case, I believe that the clauses should remain part of the Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall introduce my remarks on this group of amendments by saying two things. First, although the noble Baronesses. Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, have put their names to the same amendment, my recollection from the Committee stage is that they approached these clauses and proposals from very different points of view. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, as she confirmed today, was fundamentally in sympathy with the proposals for school companies and entrepreneurial activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, called it. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was deeply suspicious of the whole thing. She would not have called it a "capitalist plot", as my noble friend Lord Peston would have done, but she was getting close to it. Therefore, let us remember the different points of view which are coming together for the purpose of this group of amendments.
The second point that I must make at the outset is that this all arises because we have been extremely open in describing the proposals. After all, the speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made in Committee arose because we had a 13-page policy statement on school companies. The noble Baroness made a very detailed criticism of that policy statement. I have no objection whatever to that. She subjected it to a fine-tooth comb textual analysis.
I then sent the noble Baroness a five-page letter, a copy of which—I am sorry to say—did not reach the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It was certainly intended to; indeed, my file copy was marked to the effect that a copy would be sent to the noble Baroness at the same time. Now the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has subjected my letter to a detailed textual analysis, which lasted 15 minutes. Well, that is what legislative scrutiny is for. I cannot have, I do not have, and, indeed, I shall never have, any criticism of the noble Baroness for doing so. It is because we have tried to be as helpful as we possibly can in our explanation of these proposals that this degree of detailed analysis has arisen.
Perhaps I may try to deal with as many of the points raised by the noble Baroness as I can. I was not able to deal with them on the first occasion, because, as she said, I did not have notice of them. However, at least I have the letter in front of me this evening, and I shall now try to interpret my own letter.
The noble Baroness started by saying that schools might not have the time to form companies, and questioned whether they would produce time-saving benefits. There are two points to consider here. The first is why we must have companies, and why they can do things that other organisations are unable to do. The fundamental answer to that became clear in Committee. Although individual schools can form companies, groups of schools cannot do so. There is no way in which they can commit each other to the kinds of activities that a company can undertake. It also became clear in

559
Committee that the powers are simply a useful enabling device, which is not essential for all of these joint arrangements. Nevertheless, they can be helpful.
There are very few things in life for which a company is essential. Indeed, this could be achieved through a partnership rather than incorporation. The advantages of having incorporation in a company are, first, that it allows limitation of liability. I listened to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but the restrictions on the limitations of liability under the Companies Act mean that you have to go to very considerable neglect, or even fraud, to become personally liable under that legislation. Secondly, a company is simple, transparent, and every one knows what it does. The Companies Act applies, and there is an existing legislative framework—you do not have to invent it all from scratch. Forming a company may not be essential, but it can be most helpful for schools that want to do so. I cannot see why anyone should want to deny schools this freedom.
As regards the examples given of schools combining to purchase jointly without this power, that is perhaps a possibility. But what about those from whom they are purchasing? Surely the people from whom they are purchasing will want there to be someone against whom there is some come back, so to speak. We have already observed that the local education authority has to pick up the tab if things go wrong. The existing power to have a school that takes the lead or employs a bursar means that the school is acting as agent for other schools. That is not the framework for joint decision. It does not give an individual school the protection of limited liability that the company arrangement would provide. As I say, suppliers are likely to be reluctant to give savings on a bulk order where they have to be content with a contract with several individual schools rather than with one company that represents all of them.
The fundamental point about this part of the argument is that a company is the easiest way for several schools to act together because it is on a template that already exists, and which has existed for many years. It is applicable only where there is more than one school that wants to act jointly in this way. The costs referred to are the costs of setting up, but they are really quite minimal and will become even lighter at later stages when the company is established.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had a whole series of questions about the supervising authority and about what I described in my letter as the "light touch". However, she did not quote my comments on what a supervising authority might do:
"it may direct the company to provide it with information on the company's finances, management and contracts; it may direct a governing body which is a member of the company to reduce its involvement in the management of the company; and it may direct a governing body, which is a member of the company to resign as a member of the company".
The latter are not constant day-to-day interventions in a company, but they are the necessary protection for the local authority. That is why I stated in my letter that a supervising authority needs to have,
"evidence for its decision, and will be bound by the general duty on LEAs to act reasonably".
560
It will not be second-guessing every decision of the company, but it will have the powers to come in and act if anything appears to be going wrong—just as happens now with its powers to suspend a school's delegated budget. Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, used the phrase "cost free". I never said that it was cost free; I said that the costs are minimal because of the existing template.
The noble Baroness queried the mention in my letter of purchasing companies joining together,
"to buy only what their members would normally buy".
Such restrictions will have to appear in regulation, and they will have to be imposed on local education authorities in their two roles: first, as approving the company in the first place; and, secondly, as acting as the supervising authority.
As regards the section in my letter headed "Bureaucracy", I said that there is no requirement for the LEA to be involved other than in the role of supervising authority, but I stated that that would apply once the schools have the permission of their local education authority to form or join companies. Those are the two significant roles. As to the role of the Secretary of State, I should remind the House that the Secretary of State only becomes involved when we reach Clause 12, which deals with the PFI on which the right reverend Prelate and the national society were so eloquent. I agree with every word that the right reverend Prelate said in that respect. But, to return to the question of whether or not it is a purchasing company, a "service providing company", or a PFI, I should point out that all of these things are voluntary; nothing is forced on any school.
The noble Baroness asked me about schools that are under suspension. In my letter, I said that,
"if a budget were only suspended for a short period, leaving the company may not be necessary … [but] if a budget were suspended for a long time it may be better for the school to withdraw from the company".
The issue of a possible take-over seemed to worry a number of noble Lords. We are talking about private companies. There is no market in their shares, and, therefore, no possibility of a hostile take-over. A takeover could take place only if a majority of the school company members agreed to sell their shares to a third party. Under what circumstances could that happen, unless it were to the benefit of the schools? Frankly, I cannot imagine it happening. However, under company law I suppose that we have to allow for the possibility that it might happen. But, fundamentally, if there is no market value for the shares, the opportunity for a takeover and for anything that gets away from the education system—which, I suspect, is the fear behind this—is minimal, if it exists.
The noble Baroness asked about the,
"market scan of alternative broker/provider organisations".
I too find that jargon horrible. Where that exists, it is felt that at present there are not the powers to complete plans, as the North Romford School Improvement Consortium feels. That is why that consortium supports this.

561
On the issue of dedicated staffing resources, I have to reiterate what I hope was made clear in Committee, that a company cannot employ a head teacher; he or she has to be employed by a governing body. No teacher can be obliged or even bullied into moving to work for a company. Only if the activities of a company are complementary to the activities of the schools, for example educational activities—I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston—would the transfer of staff arise. The idea of employing a bursar who may otherwise be called a manager of a company does not appear to me to be so extraordinary.
I believe I have answered the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised about the ability of the Secretary of State to be involved in the operation of companies. There is no provision for that in Clauses 10 and 11; only in relation to Clause 12, when we come to the PFI option for school companies, could the matter arise.
I turn to the specific amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. On Amendment No. 25 she rightly described the different purposes of school companies to purchase goods and services together or to deliver services. I believe that she was worried about the idea of regulations providing for a company limited by shares and that that may go wider. I recognise the strength of those concerns, which have been expressed twice, so I am willing to return at Third Reading with amendments that will require companies to be limited either by shares or by guarantee, which would be the normal situation, and we shall bring forward an amendment requiring regulations to be made limiting who can join companies. I hope that we have made it clear what the regulations were to do, but we shall make it even clearer by putting that purpose on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 26 is a relatively limited issue. If, under the amendments that we shall bring forward and under regulations, outsiders are to join in—they may be printers or, horrors, marketing people—surely they would want to be involved on a profit-sharing basis. The profits would have to be shared fairly and the role of the schools would have to be protected in the way in which the profits were shared. But one may lose the opportunity to acquire willing and useful partners if there was not a possibility that they could take a share in the profit. However, the fundamental principle must be, as my noble friend Lord Peston rightly said, that there must be a net gain from such an activity to the young people in the schools concerned.
Amendment No. 28 has been dealt with. It concerns the role of the Secretary of State. The amendment would have some funny implications, like a requirement for the Secretary of State when she invests to seek external approval for any borrowing, and it is difficult to know what that external approval may be. I believe that through this debate it has become clear enough what is the role of the Secretary of State and that both the Government and the Churches believe that the existing powers are not suitable for those purposes.
562
I apologise for the time taken to reply but it was a long and complicated debate. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the detail with which the noble Lord has responded to the amendment. He may heave a sigh of relief when I tell him that this morning the amendments were to form three groups and I suggested that we have a portmanteau debate on the whole subject of companies so as to deal with them in one fell swoop. Taking that into account I believe that we have done well to achieve all that in an hour.
I want to read what the noble Lord has said. This subject is complicated and we have a number of concerns about it. I do not expect an answer immediately, but I would like to know about the case in point put by the right reverend Prelate. What is the company to which he referred? Who are the members? Given that the bodies will be national bodies, who will pick up the liability should the company fail? Clearly, it cannot be the local education authorities. Although the right reverend Prelate talked about small primary schools, he used the word "involving" and did not say that they would become company members. Is it intended that they should become part of the company in penny packages? Where a school has been refurbished or a capital programme has taken place, should that school for that purpose become a company member?
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness on behalf of the National Society to spell out the situation. I would like someone more knowledgeable than I am on this subject to respond.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that. One cannot spirit £40 million plus out of the air. It has to be paid for. There will be a continuing liability to meet the cost of securing £40 million plus. I would like to know what is better, cheaper and easier under that arrangement than they would be under PFI arrangements or under the normal catalogue programme arrangements. 'The right reverend Prelate spoke of the likelihood of replacing 20 or more primary schools for £40 million. That cannot be done under the present arrangements, so given that we are still talking about large sums of money, most of which have to be funded in some way, what will make that happen?
I am interested in what the Minister has to say about limited guarantees. When companies go belly up somebody somewhere loses a lot—of money. Are we saying that the LEAs do not pay, that the schools do not pay, and that the company members are not liable, except perhaps for £10 liability? Who will go to the wall? Who will pick up that liability? I do not understand that, so it would be helpful to have an explanation of the involvement of the National Society. I do not want to be a party-pooper. If there is

563
a solution to capital programmes I believe that we should support it, but I want to know precisely to what we are agreeing.
The Minister said that the difference is that groups of schools can become companies as opposed to single schools becoming companies. But so far all the examples that we have been given show that they can come together corporately. The Minister made the point about buying power and suppliers need a single point of contact to ensure that the bills are paid. It is simple. Groups of schools come together; they all look at the catalogues that the suppliers make available; they all give their corporate order, which goes in; the schools pay into the pot; and the goods are distributed around the schools. The savings will be enjoyed by all the schools because they will buy books, pencils, computers and so on at a cheaper rate. The suppliers are willing to work in that way. If there is a sale they will be happy to ensure that it is concluded.
I am very sceptical about what the Government say about the supervising authority. In this Bill the supervising authority has a number of obligations under the law which the Minister spelt out in detail. They cannot possibly exercise that supervising obligation without knowing what is going on. They can only know what is going on either by the information provided to them by the company or by going into the company. If something goes wrong, it is important not to find out too late. The supervising authority should provide a guiding hand to the company so it needs to be involved.
Perhaps I can take a moment in trying to be unequivocal. I can remember a governing body of which I was a member. A certain character came to that governing body. Whenever we were talking about, for instance, school uniforms, he would say, "You want school uniforms? I can get school uniforms". Then we would talk about something else and he would say, "You want that? I can get it", and that went on. He turned out to be a really bad lot and the school was well rid of him when he left. Perhaps as an after-dinner speech I will describe the manner of his going; it was very interesting.
But it was not amusing. Under these clauses, that sort of person could serve on a governing body and say, "Look, all we have to do is become a company. We can provide school uniforms. We can do this and that". I am in the business of making sure that whatever we do and whatever we agree to legislate for, the protection is there for some very innocent people whose job it is to see that the school is run well, that teachers teach and that children learn. At the end of the day it is right that we should be devil's advocate with some of the questions we pose.
There does not appear to be any requirement that the activities of the companies need necessarily be educational. We have talked about third parties who have no educational interest whatever being part of the company. Again, having been involved with charities over many years, I recognise that schools are also charities. These companies will not be charities. Laws govern how charities spend their money; they have to
564
spend it for the benefit of the charity. But in company law there is no such requirement governing where a company's profit should be spent. I want to know what it is that legally obliges the company to spend its profits in the interests of education.
I am sorry I have taken up the time of the House. These are important questions. If, we are to legislate in this way, we should ensure that all the safeguards are in place so that the schools benefit and the education of our children is not disrupted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Limits on powers conferred by section 10]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 12 [General powers of Secretary of State in relation to companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Power of Secretary of State and National Assembly for Wales to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or childcare]:
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) Financial assistance provided for education or education services to a school or local education authority must relate to an objective need of the school or local education authority."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise in an extremely bad mood. I had very much hoped that my noble friend on the Front Bench would have moved the adjournment of the House during pleasure so that this serious subject would not be rushed through. I pause for a moment in the hope that he might still do that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The procedure in this House, which is recognised by all parties, is that we stop at the end of the group which is being debated at 7.30 p.m. That does not mean that we are restricted to seven minutes' debate on this group of amendments.
Lord Peston: My Lords, my experience of this House is that sometimes courtesy is extended to noble Lords on important matters. I know of no hard and fast rule and therefore I repeat my extreme ill humour at this matter.
I now go on to make another remark. I have the right to ungroup my amendments and I now propose to do just that. I shall therefore speak only to Amendment No. 30 at this stage and come back to Amendment No. 31 at a later stage of the evening. That does not get rid of the ill humour. It is simply my strategy for at least not being messed around.
Amendment No. 30, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady David, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Walmsley, is fairly technical but contains material of considerable significance. We ought to start by noting that we are now in the section on financial assistance for education and childcare. Within Clause 13, having referred to

565
"Financial assistance", subsection (2) gives us a long list of the purposes for which that financial assistance can be given.
I pause immediately because I am well aware that in the context of your Lordships' House, anything to do with the expenditure of public money is something we must treat with great care. We must not overstep the bounds, which now go back 100 years, as to what we are and are not allowed to talk about. I assume that this material would not be in front of us if we were not allowed to say, quite legitimately, "This is a correct way to spend public money", and, "That is not a correct way"; and that we would not in any way be infringing the rights of the other place in making such remarks.
The list in front of us, taken at face value, provides for most of us no problem whatever. Going through it, with one minor exception, I see nothing with which I would not agree. My only exception is that in subsection (2)(e)which refers to, "the promotion of learning"—I like the word "learning"—we would normally expect to see the word "scholarship", not "learning". However, I take the word to mean "scholarship", and that is admirable. My question is: under Clause 13(1), where it refers to the giving of financial assistance to any "person", I assume—I speak not as a lawyer—that "person" includes bodies of all sorts and not just an individual person, otherwise a great deal of what is in this provision cannot make sense. It must include bodies corporate and such things. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten me on that matter.
I say all of that before coming on to discuss Amendment No. 30, which essentially says that financial assistance, if made to a school or an LEA, must relate to an objective educational need of the school or local education authority. I interpret that to mean that if public money is being spent in ways that do not meet that criterion of an objective educational need, that money is being misspent.
That takes me on to the hidden agenda—I now hope to interest the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in this matter—namely, the former grant-maintained schools. In practice, when the grant-maintained schools were introduced, they were given extra finance that no one at the time could see had any connection with objective educational need. Indeed, they were given extra finance in order that grant-maintained schools would be a success. But that is not an educational need; it is a political need. Noble Lords who take an interest in these matters will recall that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place referred to the practice of the extra funding of GM schools as "unacceptable". Since that committee had a Conservative majority at the time it reported, I would assume that that report was highly objective.
But times change and new governments come to power. The grant-maintained schools ceased to exist as grant-maintained schools, but they did not cease to exist as schools. What is interesting, and what prompted me to place this matter very seriously before your Lordships, is that earlier this year The Times
566
Educational Supplement informed us that the schools that opted out—the former grant-maintained schools—continue to receive the extra funding benefits that they received under their original guise. That cannot possibly be justified on any educational grounds of which I am aware, and certainly not on any objective educational grounds. Indeed, I would argue that we would expect the reverse. We would expect extra funds to be given to those inner-city schools with the biggest educational problems of any schools in the country, not to schools with the easiest task before them, schools that in practice we know, despite their protestations to the contrary, are quite selective.
The Times Educational Supplement article states that the Dunraven School in Lambeth received more than £500,000 in extra funds. The Bishop Thomas Grant School in the same borough received more than £400,000. Three schools in Wandsworth received almost an extra £500,000 each.
My purpose in moving the amendment is to argue that we should use this part of the Bill to prevent precisely such financing. Otherwise, I, for one, feel extreme disquiet about Clause 13. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, when I first read Clause 13, I thought that it contained an extremely good list of things that we should try to achieve, but I must ask: is that actually what special funding is being used for?
My last point, before I ask a question, is that one of the things that the Government seek to promote is diversity. I, too, favour diversity if it is diversity on my terms and not on others'—naturally, I would say that sort of thing. It has never occurred to me that all our schools should be the same; neither has it occurred to me that all our schools were the same. Certainly, when I visited many schools, what struck me overwhelmingly was how different was each individual school and how remarkable schools were in adjusting to the job before them, even though they are often constrained by things such as the national curriculum. So I am not against diversity, but I am in favour of using public money properly. I therefore expect public funds to be used to promote the kind of diversity that corresponds to educational need.
I end with a question: in so far as the state feels that it ought to use funds in a discriminating fashion to improve children's education, does my noble friend agree that that should relate, again in the terms of the amendment, to educational need and not have any connection whatsoever—I use those words in that precise form—with what we may call the status of a school? In other words, the fact that the school has high status provides no logical basis for saying that it should therefore have more money. Indeed, I tend to take the view that if it has high status it should have less money. The schools with a low status are the ones that need the money. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, partly out of curiosity as to what the Government will say about the comments of the noble

567
Lord, Lord Peston, but partly because I, too, have a nasty, suspicious mind. I notice that subsection (2)(g) allows for,
"the provision of any form of training for teachers or for non-teaching staff".
Without the amendment moved by the noble Lord to ensure that the money is used for educational purposes and in accordance with educational need, people could run riot with that provision. We could have singing lessons for maths teachers and goodness knows what.
That is a small point, but a more serious point is that it has tended to be specialist schools located in predominantly middle-class areas—areas in which there may not be a high level of education need—that have received additional money. The principle that a child should not have extra money spent on its education simply because of the accident of which school it goes to is right. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in view of our last debate, staff could be trained to be company directors.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. On reading all of the amendments and their grouping today, I had not realised how substantial are Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, which is on a different subject. I have only one question about Amendment No. 30, but I should like to de-couple Amendment No. 32, on which I want to make a technical, editorial comment, whereas Amendment No. 31 is different in substance.
My question concerns what use money should be put to. I question subsection (2)(b), not because I do not believe that money should be made available for childcare and that Secretaries of State should have power to make such provision, but as I understand it, childcare is childcare and provision for it should not come from the education budget.
Some forms of childcare are definitely educational—the provision of playschools, playgroups, nursery classes, nursery schools and under-fives provision. But there is a great deal of funding for childcare which is definitely for another department. If so, the normal tradition in Whitehall is that moneys are transferred from one department to another. I do not want there to be a new obligation on the Secretary of State unless there is new money to fund it or money from the department that currently has responsibility for childcare.
That is my only comment. I reserve what I want to say about Amendment No. 32 for later.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. He began in ill-humour because of the timing of this debate. He should recognise what a difficult art form it is both in Committee and on Report to arrange precise timings to the convenience of movers of amendments. Even with the best will in the world, one can sometimes work out for exactly how long Opposition Members may speak, but the problem is always when Members speak from one's own Back Benches. The length of their speeches is much less predictable.
568
I recognise my noble friend's point—the noble Baroness has followed him in it. The grouping of these amendments lent itself to a substantial debate. I think that that would have been for the convenience of the House—that is why it was promoted. I fully recognise that, given that this debate would then have fallen athwart the dinner hour, my noble friend exercised his right to separate this amendment. That is a pity in some respects, because it detracts from the coherence of the total debate. Nevertheless, I shall address his amendment and the issues that he raised.
My noble friend will recognise that the provisions in Clauses 13 to 17 offer the Secretary of State a streamlined power to provide funding to ensure that every child can receive a high quality education. Of course, different initiatives and programmes are needed to do that in some cases. We seek to drive change across the whole education system, such as in our strategies to improve literacy and numeracy—I know that my noble friend supports them—reducing infant class sizes; developing diversity in secondary education; and reforming the teaching profession to increase its effectiveness. In other cases, we need to target resources to address the specific needs that children face in situations of deprivation and disadvantage. My noble friend will recognise the extent to which the Government have targeted resources in these areas. Examples include our support for children with special educational needs—an issue which has cropped up repeatedly in our debates on this Bill—and the Excellence in Cities programme of driving up standards in the inner cities.
In all cases, however, the funding provided by the Government is aimed at a real need: to raise the standards of attainment in schools and colleges. I recognise my noble friend's valid attempt to introduce the concept of "objectivity" into this exercise. As I think he will recognise, however, all who advance the cause of education say that they seek objectively to meet the needs of children. I have no doubt at all that, despite his and my trenchant criticism of the previous administration and some of the policies they pursued, they pursued those policies on the basis of an objective assessment of the needs of the children of this nation. We simply differ. I think that that probably identifies to my noble friend the real problem with the concept of "objective" in this context.
My noble friend will recognise that his Amendment No. 30 has acted as a trigger for a fairly substantial debate on the allocation of resources. I also note his linked amendments which will give rise to general debate after dinner. As for Amendment No. 30, however, I do not believe that the Bill would be strengthened by defining how the Secretary of State ought to go about the business of allocating scarce resources.
My noble friend asked me some specific questions. "Person" is a technical term which certainly does encompass bodies. I heard what he said about the word "scholarship". He is occasionally quite disarming in making comments that indicate that he may not be entirely au fait with recent developments in education. I am not saying that learning is a recent

569
development in education, but I am sure that he will recognise that, as a major objective of government education policy, learning not only supersedes but includes scholarship. I hope that he will accept that point.
In reply both to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of course we recognise that everyone must pay significant attention to the issue of support and school status. The Government are clearly seeking to ensure that over a course of time resources go to children whose needs in education can be objectively defined as the greatest; hence the special programmes which are in place. Nevertheless, this is not a process that we can pursue overnight. My noble friend will recognise that we must work through legislative patterns in order to change the education system. As he will recognise, we are currently trapped in a framework within which resources are allocated on an institutional basis to which he does not fully subscribe. In some respects, that is precisely the Government's position. He will see in this Bill just how we are seeking to change those priorities and, accordingly, how we are seeking to reallocate resources.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of childcare funding. We shall continue to maintain the division in funding between education and childcare as she has enjoined us to do. Most childcare funding is in fact provided by the Department for Education and Skills, albeit in a separate budget, and the different budgets will remain. We therefore respect the noble Baroness's point that there needs to he a separation of budgets in childcare provision. We intend to maintain that division.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised a further issue on teacher training. It is implicitly understood that teachers should be trained to teach what they are employed to teach. Consequently, unless a maths teacher is also teaching singing, it is unlikely that resources would be used to teach him how to sing. As she will recognise, however, within this framework we all value the allocation of resources to enhance the qualities and professional capacities of our teaching force. It is therefore only proper that developing the capabilities of teachers is identified within the appropriate sphere of resource allocation. As we shall see in later debates, and as we have already recognised in Committee, we propose very significant provision in that regard.
I hope that my noble friend will recognise that we did not intend to begin this debate in ill humour but are trapped by the exigencies of the timetable. He has very neatly extricated us from that gap, so that I am now overrunning the normal dinner break by only 20 minutes. Although he will have established an unfortunate pattern if we begin decoupling whole groups of amendments, that privilege is open to Members of this House. He has exercised that privilege. I hope he recognises that he has addressed himself solely to Amendment No. 30. I hope, too, that I have sufficiently met his arguments for him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Blatch, for their interventions and my noble friend the Minister for his very interesting reply, with most of which I agree. He may be interested to know that I am now in a less grumpy mood. I was partly in a bad mood because I blamed myself for the position we had reached. I was so busy until just before today's debate started that I had not even noticed that the two amendments were coupled. If I had not spent so much time last week on economic affairs I would have decoupled them then and we would not have had this problem today.
We have, however, had the debate that I wanted to have, and my noble friend the Minister has gone on record to say what I most wanted him to say. We still have serious problems in this sphere. As special funding for GM schools is coming to an end, and may already have ended, we shall from now on be in a position in which former GM schools continue to receive extra funding quite explicitly at the expense of other schools. It is an astonishing state of affairs for a Labour Government. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, at last I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.47 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) (Electronic Commerce Directive) Order 2002
7.48 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, even the title of this order is a major mouthful, and describing its effects will take us into technical and complex territory. I am afraid, however, that all of that is necessary. The draft order's objective is simple and is reflected in its title: to amend the UK's financial promotion regimes to bring them into line with the requirements of the European directive on e-commerce.
The draft order applies only to promotions that constitute what the directive refers to as information society services—which I hope I will be forgiven for calling ISS. There is a detailed definition of ISS in the European Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC) which I think is about one and a half pages long. For most purposes, however, ISS are probably best thought of as services provided over the Internet. The draft order is therefore of most interest to those who

571
undertake, receive or transmit financial promotions on-line. It does not apply to non-ISS financial promotions.
Before turning to the detail of the draft order, it might be helpful if I reminded the House of previous remarks that I have made on the impact of the e-commerce directive on the UK's financial promotion regimes. During the passage of the Bill for the Financial Services and Markets Act, I told the House:
"The UK is committed to ensuring that the financial promotion regime complies with all Community requirements".
and,
"in particular with regard to territorial jurisdiction and other requirements [the E Commerce Directive]…might place on the UK's financial promotion regime".—[Official Report, 18/4/00: col. 568.]
Last year, during debate on the original draft financial promotion order, I repeated that commitment and made clear that the Government would,
"seek approval to amend [the financial promotion order]…to implement the …e-commerce directive".—[Official Report, 29/03/01; col. 522.]
The draft order amends both the general financial promotion regime and the regime governing the promotion of collective investment schemes to ensure that they comply with the e-commerce directive. It achieves that first by bringing the scope of the UK's financial promotion regimes in line with the requirements of Article 3 of the directive.
Article 3 requires that financial promotions constituting ISS made from establishments in the UK to persons in other European economic area (EEA) states become subject to the UK financial promotion regimes. That is achieved by Articles 4 and 9 of the draft order which disapply the existing exemptions for promotions constituting ISS made or directed to persons in other EEA member states.
Likewise, financial promotions constituting full ISS made from establishments in other EEA states are exempted from the UK financial promotion regimes by Articles 6 and 10 of the draft order. Article 6 is qualified to reflect Article 3(3) of the directive. In particular, it does not apply to the advertising of its units by a UCITS—undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities—scheme.
In general, the effect of these amendments to the scope of the UK's financial promotion regimes will be that firms established in the UK will be subject to those regimes for financial promotions which constitute ISS, regardless of where in the European economic area the promotions are received. The existing non-territorial exemptions to the financial promotion restrictions will remain available to such firms, and the order makes minor adjustments to some of those to ensure that they will continue to make sense in a Europe-wide context.
Conversely, the UK financial promotion restrictions will be lifted for financial promotions into the UK by firms established in other EEA states, where those promotions constitute ISS. However, the lifting of the financial promotion restriction in those
572
circumstances is subject to exceptions for the areas referred to in article 3(3) of the directive and excluded from its reach. Those areas include the advertising of their units by UCITS, some requirements in the life and general insurance directives and contractual obligations concerning consumer contracts.
In addition to changing the scope of the financial promotion regimes, the draft order also amends the existing exemption for "mere conduits" of information, and introduces a new exemption for those who cache or host information. Again those changes bring the financial promotion regimes into line with articles 12 to 14 of the directive.
The effect of the amendments will be that, in line with the directive, those whose involvement in information society services is confined to the three activities just mentioned will not be subject to liability under the UK financial promotion regimes.
It is worth emphasising that all these changes to the UK's financial promotion regimes are limited to promotions that constitute information society services. They do not apply to promotions that are not covered by the directive. However, although these changes are limited to information society services and their providers, I want to make clear that the Government remain strongly committed to the country of origin approach to the achievement of a single European market in financial services, regardless of the medium through which they are provided.
We believe that this can best be achieved through the mutual recognition of different national regulatory standards supplemented by the harmonisation of core standards of consumer protection at a European level—as provided, for example, by the forthcoming directive on the distance marketing of financial services. We are continuing to push this agenda with our European partners and the Government will seek the House's approval of legislation implementing a country of origin approach as it is brought forward at a European level.
In the meantime, we will continue to manage the transition to the country of origin approach in a way that is consistent with our EU obligations, which continues to provide core standards of protection for UK consumers and minimises the risk of dual regulation of UK business.
Finally, I can confirm that in my view the provisions of the order are compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May be approved [30th Report Iron? the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Newby: My Lords, on these Benches we support the order. In particular, we accept the country of origin principle on which it is based.
I wish to make two points on the order. I should then like to make two slightly more general points. First—and this was discussed last week when the order was debated in another place—what happens if a consumer

573
of a product covered by the order seeks redress against the promoter, who happens to be based in another country? We know from experience that it is often difficult enough getting redress for products which are produced, sold, marketed and consumed in this country. But it will be much more difficult if I am buying over the Internet a financial product that may be marketed from the Netherlands, Spain, Italy or Germany. Considerably more thought needs to be given to this area in order to make sure that we do not just have complex legal provisions in place, but a user friendly system under which those provisions can be accessed and can benefit the consumer.
Secondly, what progress, so far as the Minister is aware, has been made elsewhere in the EU in implementing the directive, because, as with all directives, it is only as good as the extent to which it has been implemented elsewhere? I wonder whether, in terms of implementing something quickly, we are doing well in this area, and whether other member states are also moving ahead quickly.
My first general point relates to the volume of European legislation in this area and the implementation of the EU Financial Services Action Plan. The scale of the issue and of the work that needs to be done in the area was graphically highlighted in the recent London Investment Banking Association's (LIBA) annual report. Its chairman, Sir David Walker, pointed out that,
"over the next year and a half, there are likely to be over twenty distinct directives, initiatives and measures of international policy which will affect [members of LIBA]…mostly European. Taken together, they will be like a tidal wave".
My questions for the Minister are: how well is the Treasury geared up to handle that tidal wave? How many staff work exclusively in that area? And: what plans have been laid to augment them to deal with a particularly heavy concentration of work in the area over the next year or two?
My second general point relates to the issue of consumers being able to get redress if things go wrong and the importance of clarity in the regulation in that area; not least in the whole area of financial promotion. As the Minister knows, I have taken a particular interest in the problems of the split capital investment trust sector in recent times. There has been genuine concern and, indeed, difference of view between the regulator and the ombudsman about the remit of the ombudsman and the areas under which individual consumers can get redress.
To a considerable extent, those differences may have been reconciled in a letter which I received at the end of last week from the FSA with the support of the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO). There now appears to be greater scope for cases to be referred to the FSO than was initially apparent. But a number of grey areas remain. It is quite clear that an individual consumer will need to apply to the FSO in order to establish whether the ombudsman can adjudicate in his particular case.
The broader issue, exemplified by those difficulties in domestic regulation, is that financial services regulation covers complex issues and requires the
574
striking of a difficult balance between the interests of the regulated firms and the consumer. It also shows that, at first blush, legislation can often, despite the effort that we put into it, need amendment and need to be kept under continued review.
Happily, much of that is not for this evening. I repeat that we are happy to support the order before us tonight.
8 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my honourable friend Mr Howard Flight has subjected the text of the draft order to an intimate exegesis in another place. I do not intend to reconstitute his mellifluous prose in your Lordships' House. I shall confine myself to one or two general observations.
The principle issue here is the danger of having a playing field that is not level, due to the country-of-origin regulation of "information society services". As I understand it, the draft order covers persons providing or promoting financial products or services over the Internet. From a United Kingdom perspective, a person in, say, France who is free under French law to carry on the business of providing investment advice over the Internet may provide investment advice to persons in the UK over the Internet without being subject to the UK's Financial Services and Markets Act regulatory' regime. On the other hand, a person in the UK who wishes to carry on the business of providing investment advice over the Internet must, under the Financial Services and Markets Act, become an authorised person, even if he intends to promote his business only to persons outside the UK. He must also bear the cost of complying with the Financial Services and Markets Act regulatory regime.
I accept that one advantage of country-of-origin regulation is that a person in the UK who is authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act need not be concerned with the obligation to comply with local requirements in other EC countries when providing or promoting an "information society service" on the Internet into other EC countries. However, the e-commerce directive provides for several derogations that allow a member state to disapply the country-of-origin principle in certain cases. They are set out in the annex to the directive. One of the derogations is entitled "Contractual obligations concerning consumer contracts".
There is a concern that some member states will interpret that as allowing them to impose extensive provisions for the protection of their consumers, thus reintroducing host-state regulation. I understand, by contrast, that the United Kingdom Government have taken a restrictive view of the derogations and will seek to impose few additional requirements on persons in other EC countries who are promoting their services in the UK over the Internet.
Two questions occur to me. First, what steps will the Government take to protect consumers in the UK in the case of a person in the EC who is not regulated in his home state—because, for example, that state does

575
not regulate the giving of investment advice—but who is free to provide investment advice to persons in the UK over the Internet, as a consequence of the implementation of the e-commerce directive in this country?
Secondly, what steps will the Government take to ensure that member states apply the derogations permitted under the e-commerce directive in a way that does not frustrate the purpose of the directive and put UK providers of financial services over the Internet at a disadvantage?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the support in principle for the order expressed by both speakers and for the specific welcome that they gave to the Government's support for the country-of-origin approach to financial regulation.
I shall deal first with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I am glad that he has received a letter from the Financial Services Authority that explains the inevitably different and nuanced points of view of the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service. I agree with the noble Lord that, inevitably matters will appear in due course that will need to be resolved.
The noble Lord's first question was about redress for consumers in a case in which the person who is the subject of a complaint is in another country. There is a system, called Fin-Net, for addressing such issues at a European level. The Government are working to enhance and develop that system. It is worth repeating that the Government are handling the current transition period in such a way that UK consumers continue to benefit from core standards of protection. That underlines our policy on the use of the consumer contract derogations. Ruth Kelly referred to the issue in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord's second and more specific point was about progress elsewhere in the European Union. We understand that three other member states—Germany, Luxembourg and Austria—have completed implementation and that France and Ireland have implemented only partially. We are some way down the list but we are by no means at the bottom. The noble Lord made the valid point that a substantial volume of legislation from Europe was hitting the financial services industry. I do not know whether I am obliged to agree with the phrase "tidal wave", but the general point is valid.
The noble Lord raised a particular point about resources dedicated to implementing European Union directives on financial services. Over the past four years, the Treasury has established a dedicated team and increased resources by about 400 per cent. We believe that those resources are adequate, but we keep the resources devoted to all those tasks under review. The Treasury continues to take a consultative approach to the implementation of directives to ensure that those affected have the opportunity to comment.
576
The implementation of the e-commerce directive with which we are dealing tonight, is a good example of that.
The noble Lord said that generally the FSA letter was satisfactory about the issue of splits but that it could be confusing for consumers. The categories in the letter—those with execution-only and prospectus sales, those who have advised sales and the various issues relating to investment management firms that are responsible for managing trust assets or marketing associates of such firms—are complicated for us because we must cover all the possibilities. However, I do not think that it is complicated for individual consumers. They know what category they fall into.
I had hoped that the noble Lord would be pleased that the FSA was investigating the circumstances surrounding the problems with split capital investment trusts. I hope that he is reassured that the ombudsman service can adjudicate the channels through which retail investors are likely to have invested in split capital trusts. After all, it is not unusual for consumers to have to apply to the Financial Ombudsman for an adjudication.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, eschewed the mellifluous tone of Mr Howard Flight's interventions on the subject and made what I understand to be more general points. His particular concern related to what he called "derogations"; in other words, exemptions which are not limited to UK recipients. He asked: why should we not make the financial promotion restriction apply unmodified where the recipient is in the European Economic Area but outside the United Kingdom? I suggest that that is a misunderstanding of the requirement of the directive.
Article 3.1 requires us to apply UK national provisions, including exemptions, to outgoing electronic commerce communications. In other words, recipients throughout the European Economic Area will be in the same position as regards communications made from establishments in the UK. To display the exemptions would be to go beyond what the directive requires and would mean that UK-based firms would face a stricter regime for promotions into other EEA states than they would for promotions limited to the UK. We do not believe that that result would be consistent with the directive and we believe that it would be a significant and unnecessary constraint on UK business.
With those short responses to the points helpfully made in debate, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.47 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.12 to 8.47 p.m.]

Education Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 13.
Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 39, after "include" insert "educational provision distinctive of any particular denomination and"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak only to Amendment No. 31 because I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has decoupled her Amendment No. 32, itself an interesting technical amendment, from the grouping.
I am proud of Amendment No. 31 in one way. Everyone said that it would be impossible to construct an amendment that would enable one to move that there should be no more religious schools. Whatever else may be achieved—I fear that I may achieve virtually nothing—at least the technical problem has been cracked, which is something that honourable Members in the other place did not manage.
Perhaps I may refer to two items of history, the first of which concerns why Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 were grouped together; namely, they can be interpreted as being concerned largely with capital expenditure. Anyone looking at the history of taxpayers' support for religious schools, certainly with regard to the 1944 Act—although I think that history would show that such support began much earlier—would be aware that the support had nothing to do with doctrine or religious schools; it turned on the desire of the then Secretary of State for Education to bring those schools within the system. His method, to use as crude an expression as I can, was to bribe them by providing capital to mend leaking roofs and so forth.
What particularly intrigued me about the remarks made earlier by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on school companies is that capital expenditure appears still to be very much a live issue so far as concerns religious schools. The right reverend Prelate said that he would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am keen to learn something more, so perhaps he may be kind enough to write to me as well.
It is interesting to note that the Church has espoused private finance initiatives—again I imagine not through any doctrinal interest in PFIs or any belief in the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about free market capitalism, but simply because the Church believes that it might be able to improve its buildings. I do not for a moment criticise the Church on this subject.
Those remarks cover the technical aspect of my amendment. However, noble Lords will be aware that the philosophical point I want to make, which I regard as quite fundamental to education policy in our country, concerns the continued existence of religious schools, in particular the extension of religious schools to other religions.
Apropos a completely different amendment concerning the curriculum which we shall reach on Wednesday, a friend said, "In 1988 you made a rather
578
good speech on the subject of the curriculum". I replied that I have never reread later any speech I have made in this House. However, he photocopied it for me and I read it; and in fact I am rather pleased with it. I did make a rather good speech which I may well repeat when we return to discussing the curriculum on Wednesday. However, following my speech, at the bottom of the photocopied page, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, moved Amendment No. 22:
"subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, Christianity shall be the basis of religious education in every maintained school".
Only 14 years have passed since it was perfectly possible to table such an amendment in your Lordships' House that attracted no shock or horror at discrimination against other religions. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the subsequent pages, being interested only in my own speech, so I have no idea what was said later. However, what is particularly intriguing is that today I think it would be impossible for a Member of either House of Parliament to stand and remark that Christianity should form the basis of religious education. We are all now multi-cultural and multi-religious. If he chooses to speak, perhaps the right reverend Prelate will comment on that observation.
My position remains that of an unreconstructed liberal. I have no desire whatever to involve myself in other people's religious views. I would regard it as monstrous for anyone to criticise someone else on the basis of their religion, let alone—to address a subject that may well be returning to your Lordships' House in due course—to encourage the hatred of people either because of religion in general or one specific religion. That has never been my view.
My view is rather different. I ask: what is the role of the state in this, what is the role of the taxpayer and what is best for the society in which we live? I have argued to your Lordships before—which is why I shall not carry on at great length—that what the state needs to do is to provide a society in which people are free to practise their religions with no fear of discrimination against them and no fear for their lives, something which occurs in other societies. But it does not seem to me that the state remotely has a role in providing funding, particularly capital funding.
We have above all to bear in mind that if the Government's current policy proceeds and we get many more religious schools, the main burden on the taxpayer will be a considerable commitment to capital funding. That is what the additional religious schools will be about. In my view, if people want their own schools they must have them, but they must find their own funds.
I shall not trouble your Lordships—I can imagine how controversial it would be—with the history of our country and the particular role that Christianity has had in it as compared with other religions. In that context—much as I am a great believer in multiculturalism—all the religions in terms of the history of this country are not on a par, and one has to recognise that. In a way, that is none of my business because I do not care for any of them.

579
So that is why I have brought this matter before your Lordships. The other topic, which one or two noble Lords have promised me they will answer, is that I ask why? What is this all about? Is it the case—and if it is I should like to see the research evidence—that having a religious school is productive in terms of educational achievement? I know of no research that states that but I should like to be informed if there is.
Secondly, what is the nature of the demand for religious schools? Who is demanding these places and why? I know—I, of course, did it deliberately—that I very much upset the noble Lord, Lord Alton, when, through your Lordships, I said indirectly to him that my experience is that the demand for places in religious schools has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is astonishing in a society where people do not go to church because it is inconvenient when they could be at Sainsbury's or Tesco on a Sunday morning, that we are suddenly told that they have devout views and must have religious schools for their children. I should like an explanation for that. I am told that I am going to get one and I look forward to it.
My second question, which I have already asked—I am indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn for allowing me to ask it earlier—is that if it is a matter of freedom of choice, and I can understand freedom of choice, why is there no provision for those of us—and this would certainly have applied to me—who want an entirely secular school? Why does not an Act of Parliament give us that freedom of choice?
The great strength of Thatcherism was that it was built on the economics of freedom of choice. It turned out that there were all kinds of choices that people would like freely to have but they were told, "That does not count". The freedom of choice turned out to be quite limited when it came to the exercise of what was called Thatcherism.
I used to be a serious economist and therefore when I used to teach about freedom of choice I really meant freedom of choice. I meant that people should be free to do what they wanted. But it turns out that we pure economists are the only ones who believe in freedom of choice. Everyone else believes in something slightly different—namely, "freedom of choice, but…"
I have introduced the debate—I notice how full is your Lordships' House with noble Lords eager to participate—and I have put my arguments interrogatively. I should like an explanation. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I rise as part of the "Friends of the Education Bill" debate to engage once more with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on this important subject. I am glad that he has found a way for this issue to be debated. I am with him in regretting that there are so few people in the Chamber.
I noticed his modesty about his previous speeches. I was tempted when I spoke to him before the debate simply to say, "Will you read again my speech at
580
Second Reading". But I shall try to come to the issue in a slightly different way in order to answer some of the points that the noble Lord has made.
We have to accept the dual system of education whether or not we accept the noble Lord's interpretation of the 1944 Act. I suspect there is a grain of truth in it. I am not ashamed. If you live in the real world you come to compromises in getting the kinds of schools you want in the best way you want. My commitment, such as it is, to PFI—which I do not understand any more than does the noble Lord—is that if it enables schools to have better facilities and better premises in order that education may go on, so be it.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, made a point about the taxpayers' support. The taxpayers have also benefited. In 1944, the voluntary bodies put up 50 per cent of capital costs. That is 50 per cent that other people were not having to pay through their taxes. That has gradually gone down as the worth of church schools seems to have been established in one way or another. It may not have been established to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but it has been established to the satisfaction of a large number of people in this country, and successive governments have actually reduced it, sometimes against the will of some people in the providing churches. Is a 10 per cent contribution sufficient to have the kind of influence that we want to have? There are two approaches; there is also a contribution from taxpayers—modest though it may be.
In answer to the noble Lord's question about the 1988 Act, I believe I am right in saying that it is the law of the land that RE and collective worship shall be "mainly" or "broadly" Christian unless there is a determination by the SACRE. That was carried in this House. Whether such a provision would be carried today is a matter for judgment, but that is the present situation.
We have to address this business. It is a unique partnership which has continued—if we go back to the early part of the 20th century—for almost 60 years, and certainly since 1944. If the fear is that we do not want an extension of this to the communities that represent other world faiths, then terms such as "natural justice" and "human rights" seem to come on to the agenda. We need to think about that.
Secondly, do we really want a situation where, when schools provided by faith communities, particularly, say, by Islam or Hinduism—which are now private, are a law unto themselves and are in no way inspected in the same manner as other schools—want to come into the main system, that wish is resisted? I should have thought that, on the contrary, we want to get the good practices and the assessment that goes with being part of the maintained system into those schools if we can.
It is not difficult to posit a situation where those who have come to this country from other cultures and from other parts of the Commonwealth will be followed by others who may be of the Orthodox tradition or the Roman Catholic tradition, and who

581
will in their view need to have schools established in the areas where they are living. It would be a strange thing to accept an amendment to prevent that. We should be doing a disservice to those great world faiths. I am sorry that no members of other faiths are present to support the idea, so I have to do so.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the idea of "value-added". If he were to read my 2001 Hockerill lecture, he would see that it ends with the desire to see some academic research done about "value-added" or whatever the term is. The noble Lord is right. We get into this kind of anecdotal debate. I had a great deal to do with the rights of access legislation during its passage through this House. If you are a rambler, you think that everyone who wants to walk in the countryside is perfect; if you are a land manager or landowner, you think that every thug and vagabond will take advantage of the legislation. If you start in a secularist position, you are not necessarily looking for the best that the faith schools can provide—I prefer to call them church schools—and if you start on the side of the faith schools, you sometimes overlook some of the weaknesses.
Speaking from the Anglican point of view—the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, will probably want to intervene in this debate—if this amendment is passed, it will prevent the Anglican Church in England from responding to a clear need. There is no doubt that the charge of being elitist because we do not have enough secondary places will be perpetuated. That is why we were delighted when the government White Paper welcomed the things that we were trying to do.
What is the "value-added"? There are people—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may not be one of them—who do not necessarily embrace a religious faith themselves, but who do believe that faith schools provide the motivation for teaching and learning, and for the pastoral care and discipline which they want their young people to have. As I have said previously, there is a duty on community schools to take a look at what they are providing or are not providing in the spiritual, religious and moral context which make such schools rather attractive to parents who do not belong to a particular Church or religious denomination.
I want to make a point about the secular schools. I say this with a great sense of modesty. I have a feeling that if those people who embrace that approach had been prepared to put up, as it were, the foundation of this kind, then we should be in a position to respond to that. We are here tonight because people of Christian faith and of other world faiths are prepared to put up substantial amounts of capital and invest in teacher training and other resources to ensure that the schools are part of the dual system.
That is my basic response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I appreciate that he always delivers them in a most gracious way. He is someone with whom one can engage, because he engages in that particular way. He is clear and straight in his objectives. However, I hope that we shall not prevent other world faiths or church communities, where there is a clear need and a clear desire, from being able to
582
establish, with the assistance of the taxpayers' money, as the noble Lord describes it, other schools based on faith communities.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, I was invited to contribute. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, challenged me to honour a claim that I made under the influence of a glass of very good red wine over dinner, so I had better try to be an honourable claimant.
In the previous debate on this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, at a very late hour and with suitable apologies, asked what was the distinctive contribution of Church schools, and he has asked the same question tonight. We began the day by talking about the purposes of education. Noble Lords will recall the references to the broad and balanced curriculum which,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils"—
beginning with the "spiritual and moral".
It has been said that if spirituality is the journey, then religion is the vehicle. RE is part of the curriculum of all schools, as is worship. What is distinctive about Church schools is that this is their raison d'être, their distinctiveness. In an increasingly secular society, perhaps one might claim that if spirituality is a valid experience—I shall come to that—it contributes to society to have among its schools those that place a special emphasis on that journey.
Is it a reality? Well, it is a reality if you think that it is a reality. I think that I once mentioned in chatter to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that a Darwinist of some distinction, Sir Mister Hardy, professor of zoology at the University of Oxford and an FRS, produced a hypothesis in the mid- l960s that the religious or spiritual sense in humankind was a selective advantage. That hypothesis has been taken very seriously. A small department was set up at Oxford, which now exists in the University of Wales.
From time to time, surveys are carried out. I am told that it is a characteristic that in Europe, while there is a sense of spirituality, it is not associated with formal engagement in any religious practice, as it is throughout the rest of the world. In an article published by one of the staff of the University of Nottingham in 2000, reference is made to surveys on the frequency of reports of religious or spiritual experience in Britain in 1987 and 2000. The article then gives some analysis. In 1987, 48 per cent claimed it. That is analysed under various headings. In 2000, the figure is 76 per cent. I attach no significance to the increase in percentage. However, I attach significance to the fact that it is part of people's feeling about their experience in life.
Why would someone such as Hardy think that there is a selective advantage? That, too, has been thought about by others better than I. Very simply, if you feel that you are part of a world that is within the hand of God and he cares about you, you have an extra resilience in coping with adversity and at times an extra courage, an extra enthusiasm and sometimes an extra peace and solace.

583
My answer to the first question of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that the Church schools make a distinctive contribution within the whole to the spiritual and moral dimension of education. He may want to ask about the connection between spirituality and morality. Religions have always had a moral code. Others have argued more strongly that in many cases a society's morality is derived from its religion. Some have even said that no great civilisation has long survived the demise of its religious faith. I cannot prove that statement, but there is a connection.
The noble Lord's second question was why, in an increasingly secular society, parents who are not church attenders choose to send their children to a Church school. Why does a survey of 80 secondary schools by the Association of Anglican Secondary School Heads show that, whereas in 1996 there were 1.3 applications for every place, by 2000 there were 1.6 applications for every place, with a steady increase in the intervening years? We can only speculate. I suspect that sometimes it is because, for whatever reason, Church schools have a reputation for good education results. I am not going to get into controversy about that. I had a hand in a report on the subject that shows the statistical analysis.
I suspect that ordinary folk have a perhaps unformed religious—or perhaps it is better to say spiritual—element in their experience of life. Although they want no part of formal religion, which in its practice is very dull rather than exciting, they feel it fitting that their children should go to a place where spirituality is taken seriously. I also think that they know the ordinary moral code that goes with that religion and perhaps feel some sense of security with it.
Church schools, perhaps paradoxically, are in increasing demand in a secular society. Perhaps it is because society is increasingly secular that many parents find some security in the ordinariness and familiarity of the moral values that the Church stands for. Noble Lords may ask me why so many Muslims choose to send their children to a Church school. I may have said before that a distinguished Muslim gave the answer to the Bishop of London when he said, "We divide the world into those who believe in God and those who do not. Your lot do so you are OK". Muslims follow a religion of the Book. They feel comfortable with a school where spirituality is real and where religion is practised sensitively.
I believe that the noble Lord said that it was no longer valid to say that religious education in this country could be based on the Christian faith as we are a multicultural society. However, I well remember chairing a conference in London at which the then Secretary of State for Education, the Archbishop of Canterbury and representatives of all the six main faiths—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was a Minister at the time—agreed to draft a moral statement. That was a wonderful thing. I cannot think of anywhere else in the world where six faiths could sit down together and over a year or two work through an agreed statement of religious education covering the six faiths. That shows that we are a civilised society. It
584
also shows that the faiths are not at each others' throats. An Archbishop of Canterbury said of Church of England schools that they exist to nourish those of the faith in their faith, to encourage those of other faiths and perhaps to challenge those of other faiths.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter so openly and for giving us an opportunity to discuss these deep issues. It is right that they are reconsidered from time to time. At the moment, in spite of all the controversies, parents say often, "I should like my child to go to a Church school".
9.15 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dearing and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for laying the amendment before your Lordships' House. We all know that this issue has stalked the Bill all the way through its proceedings. It is better that it is placed on the table in this way and that we can debate it fully. Like others, I am sorry only that there are not more noble Lords present to debate these deep and important questions.
The noble Lord's inventiveness has never been in doubt. He remarked that he had gone to some lengths to place an amendment before the House. It is not his inventiveness but the effect of the amendment that troubles me. He said that it has its origins in the 1944 debates. We can go back to Victorian times and Edwardian times and the 1911 debates about Rome on the rates. As the noble Lord knows, at that time there was a great debate between non-conformists and the Roman Catholic Church as to whether it would be permissible for Catholic churches to establish parish schools. The argument was then put that it would be better for those schools to be within the system than outside it. As the noble Lord said, that matter was finally resolved in 1944. It is to everyone's advantage that those schools are within the system. As the right reverend Prelate said, that has enabled those schools to be properly inspected and to ensure that they uphold the kind of civic values that your Lordships would have a right to expect.
We have differences as regards matters of faith—as the noble Lord and I have—but we do not have differences as regards the need to cherish core values of belief in civil society and the upholding of liberty and democracy and the rule of law. The noble Lord has a right to argue that those matters should be promoted inside schools whether they are Church schools or secular schools. I entirely agree with that. I have four children in a denominational school and I am a product of denominational schools. I chose to send my children to such a school after paying my taxes towards the maintenance of the whole of the state sector and schools to which I did not choose to send my children. Parents of children in schools in the voluntary-aided sector pay at least 15 per cent more—it is often more—towards the education that their children receive. As the right reverend Prelate said, that is added value. We should be careful before we start to dismantle for either social or economic reasons a system that has served us so well.

585
The noble Lord also asked whether we could provide evidence of what he described as productive educational achievement. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, went some way to answer that. I refer to some remarks made by Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi. He said:
"Denominational schools have a great strength. Often, they have a clear ethos that gives consistency and power to the lessons they teach".
He cited a survey of 34,000 teenagers in England and Wales that was carried out by the Jewish Association for Business Ethics. It found that children educated in such an ethos,
"are less likely to lie, steal or to drink alcohol illicitly. The evidence is that teaching about the morality of everyday life does make a difference".
One can dismiss that or accept it, but that is what Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, said.
It is hard in some ways to sum up precisely what the "added value" is that parents choose when they choose a denominational school. Dorn Aidan Bellenger, a Benedictine monk at Downside Abbey, gave a lecture at York Minster last year on Christian education. He said:
"A Christian education, like prayer, should lift up the heart and mind to God. It should also remind us that the Christian life is about holy dying as well as about holy living. Only in eternal life with God, as Dante reminds us, will Christian education find its true ends".
Concentrating one's mind on the hereinafter gives me pause to reflect on the reasons why I still value the denominational education that I received. It helps to concentrate one's mind on the hereinafter. That puts this life into a useful perspective.
At the more empirical level, we can turn to bodies such as Ofsted. Its annual report for 2000–01 contained a list of particularly successful schools, which included a high number of Catholic schools. Ninety secondary schools were listed, of which 15 were Catholic, and 206 primary schools were listed, of which 42 were Catholic. When one considers that Catholic schools provide only 10 per cent of schools nationally, it is clear that they are included to a higher proportion than their overall share of the maintained sector would suggest.
The noble Lord asked about the productive educational achievements of those schools. That can be answered properly and well at two levels: at the spiritual level and purely in terms of how well those schools are doing as educational institutions. He also asked: what is their point? Although they have no point for the noble Lord, they do have a point for hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It is true, as he said, that some of those people are not regular churchgoers but that confuses two matters. Many who have religious faith do not necessarily attend a church on a Sunday. My only disappointment is that there are not enough places in many secondary schools—especially Anglican schools—in this country to accommodate all of those who would wish to have those special values transmitted to their children. The report that was promoted by my noble friend Lord Dearing and which has been accepted implicitly in the
586
Bill and in earlier legislation means that that opportunity will now be there for parents who were previously frustrated, and for people of other faiths.
In that regard, I agree with the right reverend Prelate: it would be discriminatory not to provide the same opportunities for people who do not have a Christian or Jewish background but who want the same opportunities for their children. As I said earlier, however, the issue is whether we can have shared civic values. If there are not shared civic values in such schools, the noble Lord has a perfect right to raise that matter in future and I should be the first to join him in expressing concern.
The noble Lord touched on the question of choice. "Choice" is a fairly over-used word; I believe that it comes from the same Greek root as the word "heresy". The idea that I can make as many choices as I want with total freedom, as if there were no consequences for others, is a sort of modern heresy. Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow, and freedom for the hunter is death for the hunted. If we exercise our choices, that is bound to be at somebody else's expense. In providing the most fair, reasonable and equitable education system, we must ensure that there is equality of opportunity for children from whatever background.
I want to deal with one or two other issues before concluding. In earlier debates—at Second Reading and in Committee—various caricatures were made of Church schools. I have tried to look at some of them objectively. I visit schools of various religious backgrounds on a fairly regular basis. It would repay serious study if the noble Lord and others looked at a document published in 1997 and entitled Catholic Schools and Other Faiths. It deals with some of the issues that have been raised. I shall not go into it in great detail; that would not be appropriate at Report stage. However, perhaps I may deal with three questions which were raised earlier in our debate and which are covered in that report.
The first deals with openness. The Church said:
"When a school admits a proportion of children from other faith communities, it should recognise that it is taking on a commitment and a relationship to those communities which calls for a higher degree of openness and dialogue. To do this will require the wholehearted support of the trustees, governors, teachers, parents and diocesan authorities".
I believe that that is reassuring.
Secondly, with regard to serving the community, it says:
"Catholic schools may find themselves in places heavily populated by people of other faiths, including parents wishing to send their children to Catholic schools. Some of these people may be among the poorest and most vulnerable in the area. In such a situation, a Catholic school might wish to take on a particular responsibility towards the local community".
That is the position of the Church, as promulgated to the schools. Again, I believe that it answers a criticism made during our debates.
The third point concerns the religious education syllabus:
"It (the school) should ensure that the Religious Education programme includes teaching with integrity about other faiths in their relationship to Christianity …There may also be a need to

587
hold Parents' Evenings to explore the role of the Catholic school in relation to other faiths… The school should be ready to share resources with other schools and with other faith communities"—
that, of course, is something which the Government have been urging upon us during the course of the proceedings of this Bill; this was stated by the Church in 1997—
"especially if the Catholic school is situated in an area of deprivation or racial tension".
That answers the type of question that was properly raised about situations such as applied in Burnley and Oldham.
The Church has also drafted guidelines for Catholic schools which are considering the admission of pupils of other faiths. Those demonstrate a recognition of the need for Catholic schools to be beacons of hospitality and service to the local community. Again, they are far removed from the inaccurate caricature of Church schools that is too often propounded. Those guidelines state, first, that:
"The school should consider the nature of the existing diversity of religious understanding and commitment among its present Catholic or Christian pupils, and how this may be influenced by admitting pupils of other Faiths".
Secondly, they state:
"The school should consult with parents of other faiths who might wish to send their children to the school, and with the Spiritual leaders of their faith communities in order to clarify their expectations and requirements and to see what sort of creative relationship can be established".
Thirdly, they state:
"The school should also seek to clarify situations where any of its practices or policies seem to people of other faiths to constitute proselytising".
Fourthly, the guidelines say:
"Any school pursuing a philosophy of dialogue will need to strive to affirm and strengthen the differing religious identities, traditions and backgrounds of the pupils, while at the same time seeking to help pupils and staff to recognise and value what their differing beliefs have in common".
It is important to make clear that those extracts state the policy of the Catholic Church towards the role of its schools in our communities. I believe that they go a long way towards meeting many of the criticisms that have been made.
Finally, I believe that those who wish to abolish Church or faith schools or certainly those with any kind of maintenance from the state—that would be the effect of the amendment—or in any way to dilute their freedom over admissions policies would do well to read those 1997 guidelines. They demonstrate that fidelity to the mission of the Church and openness and dialogue with those of other faiths and none are compatible and that they offer a blueprint for the future development of Church schools.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is right to remind us of the fallibility of those who have a religious faith. We all know that we are called because we are sinners rather than because we are virtuous. If one looks at the history of religious faith—whether it is the Inquisition or any of the worst moments of our
588
history where religion has been a part of it—there is plenty there to illustrate the point of the American Rabbi who said:
"I hear this talk of Christian society and all I see is barbed wire".
Therefore, some degree of humility is needed.
It might also be pointed out that in the 20th century some of the worst tyrannies and ideologies, such as fascism and communism, involved people such as Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, who came with no faith. Certainly none of the tyrannical, totalitarian policies that they promoted were based on religious extremism.
Therefore, we all need to approach this issue with a sense of humility. We also need to remember that, where religious impulse works for the common good—one thinks of people such as Lord Shaftesbury or William Wilberforce—it can make a radical difference in the life of society. I believe that we would be unwise to dismiss that tradition, to relegate it or in any way to undermine it, as I believe the amendment would do.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to be totally honest in this debate. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his long defence of the Roman Catholic Church. My position is really very different. I do not believe in religious schools in the state; I do not believe in any faith schools. I should prefer this to be a totally secular society, with totally secular schools.
I realise that my remarks will probably offend most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate tonight, except perhaps my noble friend Lord Peston. However, I should like to express my point of view. I believe that faith schools are dangerous. One has only to look at Northern Ireland. I have long been a supporter of integrated schools in the Province because I believe that to be the best hope for that society. I would be frightened of us going down the way of having totally religious schools of different denominations, and so on, in this country. I would rather have none.
However, I do not think that that is a popular view at present. When I served on an admissions and appeals committee for Cambridgeshire County Council—perhaps before the time of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—one knew about the pressures to get into Church schools because parents thought that those who attended such schools were better-behaved children and that they were well looked after; and, indeed, they were. At that time, the education in Church schools was not very good, though it is perhaps better now.
I am frightened of going down this route, though perhaps it is not very dangerous. Many people say, "Well, there won't be many of them, and it won't make any difference". But I am afraid that it might. Therefore, my attitude is not to help them. I just hope that we shall not put too much money into them when it might be going to other schools that have a greater need for it. I am completely in support of all those who have spoken today against more money going to successful schools, with less money going to deprived schools. I just wanted to make my position quite clear,

589
because I have not previously spoken freely on the matter. I t seemed to me that this was the moment to do so. I do not believe that I shall receive much support, but I just wanted to express my opinion and say what I really believe in.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to comment briefly because much of what I wished to say, and support, has been outlined by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Alton. However, I have a few points to add to the debate.
First, I return to the proposition being made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This would be the abolition of faith schools. There is no questioning that fact: if they cannot be funded, I doubt if many of them would have the wherewithal to go independent and become faith schools outside the state school system. The faith schools throughout the country about which we know are populated by young people from the local community who simply would not have the wherewithal to do anything as regards making alternative provision. We are talking about a large number of schools that would be abolished. Indeed, they would very quickly become secular schools. The moment the money stream was cut off would signal the end of their lives as state schools.
Secondly, I should like to repeat what I have said many times previously. I really believe that education without a spiritual and moral dimension would be an education lacking. It would be clinical and arid. One has only to consider the example of America where parents look across the ocean to our country and long to go down the road that we have taken where a spiritual and moral dimension is a feature of all schools, not just those that have a distinctive faith.
Thirdly, as I said earlier, I have always been conscious of those children for whom school is the only anchor in their lives. For some children it is the only place where they will learn about the parameters within which to grow up and develop, and where they will receive any kind of yardstick, or any kind of help, to enable them to cope with those rather deep questions of life; in other words, how to grapple with difficult situations. My goodness, some of our young people do have to face such situations and that dimension of education, which applies to children right across the sector, does help them enormously.
The question was asked why people choose such schools. I believe that they do so for a variety of reasons. Some of them choose them unashamedly because of the Christian ethos or the Jewish ethos or the Muslim ethos. People look for an education imbued with a particular faith.
For many people there is something about the ethos of faith schools that makes them special and different. Faith schools have a dimension that is not present in secular schools. For many parents one manifestation of that is behaviour. People are at ease with the framework and the parameters, within which children grow up and develop, that are set by the faith schools.
590
I believe that faith schools are popular for good reasons. I believe that they are part of the tapestry of educational provision in this country. Long may they remain so. The noble Baroness, Lady David, talked about not wanting to go down that road, but we have been going down that road for a long time—some hundreds of years. We should also remember that the Church started mainstream education in this country. Mainstream education, including free education, was brought about by the Methodists and the Christian Churches in the century before last, so we have much to thank them for. I certainly want to support their continuation. I hope that the noble Lord will not succeed in his amendment to cut off the money supply because I believe that the country would be the poorer for it and many thousands of children would certainly be the poorer for it.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I feel provoked to speak in this debate, although in Northern Ireland education is now a devolved matter. As one who is a parent of six children, who has watched education develop in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, and who is an Ulster Unionist Peer, I fully support the idea of faith schools. We have two types of schools in Northern Ireland: state schools attended mainly by the Protestant majority community and by the Jewish minority community; and Roman Catholic schools supported and attended by the Roman Catholic minority.
I have no doubt whatever that people of a minority religion have the right through parental choice to select the schools that their children attend. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have always supported 100 per cent the financing of faith schools in Northern Ireland that are mainly and almost entirely Roman Catholic schools.
When I hear a Member of this House say, "Look at Northern Ireland", I despair. That shows a distinct misunderstanding, perhaps even a lack of knowledge of what is happening in Northern Ireland. The situation in Northern Ireland has not come about simply as a matter of religion, of Roman Catholics and Protestants; that is the European, ill-informed approach to Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland matters go much deeper than religion. I say that as a Protestant who supports the right of the Roman Catholic minority to have their own schools and who is well pleased at the success of the Church of England schools in England.
The situation in Northern Ireland is not about religion but about nationalism. It is the mixture of religion with politics. If one does not understand that, one should not say, "Look at Northern Ireland".
Lord Hylton: My Lords. I am grateful for what my noble friend has said. However, he could have gone on to say that some parents in Northern Ireland have demanded that children coming from the Protestant and the Catholic traditions should be able to meet and to mingle in the same schools. Ever since my late noble friend Lord Dunleath's enabling Bill in about 1977,

591
they have been able to do that. I have witnessed the growth of some of the integrated faith schools and they are very good.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, this is a somewhat daunting debate to which to respond, which began, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said, with a very gracious expression from my noble friend Lord Peston. But though the amendment has taken flight in terms of the range and depth of the contributions, it is fairly prosaic and perhaps the House will forgive me if I address myself first and foremost to that prosaic quality. That is the basis on which I shall seek to persuade my noble friend to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 31, quite straightforwardly, would exclude all schools with a religious character from any form of financial assistance from central government. That would mean that no Church school could, for example, receive funding from the Standards Fund, formula capital funding or the School Standards Grant.
I recognise the strength of feeling behind my noble friend when he presents this vision. He is saying that he believes that the basis upon which British education has been established over the past 170 years, and certainly since the great formative education Acts of the 20th century, should he reconstructed because of societal change, which means that formal religion occupies a lesser place in the life of the nation now than it did in the past, or that the concept of religious education was misconceived in the first place.
My noble friend needs to recognise that it is no easy matter to contemplate the withdrawal of funding from a sector of education which has served a large section of the nation well in the past. I recognise that arguments are increasingly presented that this is a multi-faith and multi-cultural society and therefore the predominance of the faith schools, which are predominantly Christian, ought to be altered. But I do not think that my noble friend believes it is a realistic proposition that, on the basis of a simple amendment to this Bill, we should end the basis of faith education in this country. Nor do I think that he sustained any argument for saying that those who belong to minority faiths want the situation to be solved in that way.
It is perhaps easy for us to say that if we could rewrite history we might have produced the American solution—the concept of the melting pot—in which religion plays no part in the formal education system and the task of communicating religion to children is taken on by the Churches and religious institutions. But we do not start from 1776 and the revolution; we start from an evolved educational culture over several centuries, against a background in which the Church played a formative part in the early years of education, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly identified. My noble friend will recognise that the belief of large numbers of those who have a different faith from Christianity is merely that they should have equal opportunity with Christian schools; namely, that it is only right that the finance available to faith schools, as
592
established in the Christian ethos, should also be available in areas where there is a substantial demand for it in Muslim and other religious faiths.
The Government are not encouraging faith schools. Nothing in the Bill encourages such development. But we defend the right of existing schools to receive resources on the basis of the education which they provided in the past. The argument has not been sustained that there is a massive flight from faith schools; in fact quite the opposite. It may be for a whole range of reasons—my noble friend began by suggesting that those reasons may not be wholly related to religion—but it is the case that the demand for education in faith schools remains buoyant, to put it at its mildest.
I am in no position—I am not sure that anyone in the House is—to identify exactly the elements that lead to that, although I have some sympathy with the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Parents find the issue of how to inculcate moral values and to meet the challenges of the next generation pretty daunting. After all, not all parents are as well blessed as is my noble friend Lord Peston with intellect and capacity to take on any intellectual challenge—no doubt even from his redoubtable offspring. For many other parents, increasingly well-educated children can produce challenges at an early age that make most of us scratch our heads.
It is not easy to inculcate such values. In certain areas, parents run away from the issues altogether—hence the abysmal level of sex education communicated in the nation as a whole. I think that that also obtains in certain areas of moral values. Parents find it easier to believe that it is the role of the school to provide an intellectual, spiritual and ethical framework within which children can evolve. Of course, parents are in the business of teaching children right from wrong from an early stage. That is rather different from creating over time a framework that is eminently sensible and withstands the challenge that young people can often make.
One can at least say that those who have been involved with Church schools have a framework within which they can meet such challenges. Parents' wish for faith schools reflects that need and their belief that, on the whole, that gives their children a framework within which they can develop.
So the Government merely say that we acknowledge parents' wishes to educate their children in mainstream Christian schools. Given our multicultural society, it is only right that parents of other faiths should have similar opportunities to educate their children in accordance with their own beliefs. We are not campaigning for more faith schools. We are merely saying that, where there is a clearly articulated demand, opportunities should occur.
Whereas there are more than 7,000 faith schools in the United Kingdom, the increase year-on-year is low. We are not talking about an immense surge towards such schools. The amendment would produce a revolution in education provision in this country and we are not prepared to countenance that within the framework of this rather modest Bill.

593
I recognise the value of this debate for allowing some extremely telling contributions from many parts of the House, some of which were prompted, as debates should be, by contributions that caught raw nerves and inevitably raised issues of deepest principle to us all. As far as the Government are concerned, the amendment, modest though it is in a long list of amendments before us, proposes to withdraw financial support to a system of education that has served our country well and which is still in great demand among parents. If we could devise a means to measure spiritual depth, we would have a rather more sophisticated education system and society than we have. I do not think that we will reach that position, so my noble friend will have to take the position on trust. I hope that on that basis he will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am very pleased with our debate. I had no idea that my "prosaic" little amendment, as my noble friend the Minister called it, would both give rise to some very deep philosophical contributions and revolutionise the whole nature of education in our country. I am very tempted to carry on campaigning. If my little amendment can do that, I really must spring to action and start to round up the type of support I need.
I found bits of the debate most distressing. I have to assume that, for noble Lords who believe that education must have a spiritual and moral content, people like me are not educated. I do not exactly take offence from that, but people with religious views sometimes do not think before they speak. Large numbers of us regard ourselves as very moral people and have engaged in activities serving our country but have no spirituality in our lives whatsoever. I myself do not make remarks about religious people of that kind, and I occasionally think that those who have religion ought not to make remarks about the rest of us.
As philosophy is my great hobby, I was particularly interested in the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I did come across the alleged research on the idea that spirituality had a positive evolutionary role, and I then checked with some serious scientists whose exact words were, "The man is mad and no one would take him seriously".
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the man is elsewhere now.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish him well. However, that argument has always intrigued me. As I said, whenever I come across these views, I consult various scientists, but they just say that the ideas are mad.
I have one slightly frivolous observation on the subject. As noble Lords know, my main interest in life is football. I have noticed that quite a few players come on to the field and cross themselves before going on to the pitch. I have been inquiring whether any research has been done on the effect of footballers crossing themselves on the performance of their teams. As far as I can see, the England team contains no players who cross themselves before going on to the field. I worry
594
enormously. If crossing oneself and having deep spiritual values is productive in football, our coach needs to be told.
I am much more interested in the issue of moral values and of whether it is true that those of us who have felt it our duty as parents to inculcate moral values in our children are somehow failing as compared with parents who say that the schools must do that. I honour my late father and mother because that is the right thing; I do not honour them because it is in the Bible or the Ten Commandments. I do not covet my neighbour's wife because it is in the Bible but because it is the right moral position to take. I think that we are discussing largely similar issues in this debate.
I shall certainly not get involved with Northern Ireland. I hope that I may be excused for not being a pundit on Northern Ireland.
Except for some extreme American religious fundamentalists who wish to use it as a way of getting creationism back in schools, I know of no Americans—as a graduate of an American university, I know hundreds if not thousands of Americans—who wish to have the religious schools set-up that we have.
As I have said before, including in Committee, I think, nothing that I have said should undermine my view, or anyone else's view, of the role that the Churches have played in education. The Churches were concerned about the poor in this country and their education long before almost anyone else. They have no apologies whatsoever to make on that subject. However, that was then and this is now. The situation is similar in relation to the role in education played by the trade unions and mechanics' institutes. People like me probably were educated more and studied more in the public libraries than at home because we did not have a quiet room at home in which to study. So although many different institutions contributed to education in this country, that does not mean that that is how we have to continue.
I had intended to divide the House on the matter in order to be in a minority, as I thought, of one or possibly two. Since virtually no one else has said a word in support of the amendment, and since other noble Lords intend to soldier on for at least another two or three hours, I do not think that I should divide the House. An inner voice is still telling me, "Divide, it is your moral responsibility". None the less I shall overcome it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, it may have been a slip of the tongue or perhaps I did not hear him properly, but I thought he said that he did not covet his neighbour's wife because it said so in the Bible; he did it because it was the right thing to do.
Lord Peston: Yes, my Lords, I must have failed English at some point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, line 39, after "education" insert "provided by an institution within the higher education sector"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can be brief in dealing with Amendment No. 32, which is a small but important amendment. When it was discussed in another place the Minister got it all wrong and promised to go away and think about it. So far as I know, nothing has transpired from that.
Clause 13 in Part 2 gives the Secretary of State power to fund a number of items set out in subsection (2). Subsection 2(c) includes,
"enabling any person to undertake any course of education, or any course of higher education provided by an institution within the further education sector".
We agree. We think that that is the right thing to do. We know now that there is an increasing incidence of higher education courses being carried out in further education colleges. Clearly, they need to be funded. I have no quarrel with that. Clause 13(3) states that the Secretary of State may not fund,
"higher education, and 'educational' shall be construed accordingly".
One cannot, on the one hand, say that,
"higher education provided by an institution within a further education sector"
can be funded, and then say that higher education cannot be funded. The distinction is that higher education in further education can be funded in that way, but higher education provided by an institution within the higher education sector is funded by another means.
The Minister in her reply to me stated:
"We have found, as the noble Baroness rightly said, [that is me] our current powers for funding the Higher Education Funding Council for England—in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992—to be fully adequate, and do not see the need to make changes there".
But in her reply to me—I having said that I thought that what the noble Baroness was saying was contradictory—she said:
"I shall try. In subsection (2)(c) the first occurrence of 'education' does not include higher education".
In subsection (2)(c) it does include higher education, but it includes higher education as taught in further education institutions. She goes on to say,
"but subsection (2)(c)",
which is the same subsection,
"also makes explicit reference to higher education, which is therefore an omission".—[Official Report, 7/5/02: col. 1129.]
So I am totally confused by her answer to me. But I think that there has to be a proper distinction made between higher education as taught in a further education institution and the second reference to higher education, which I believe is provided by an institution within the higher education sector. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady, Blatch has pursued this issue, quite rightly, both in Committee and again today against a background where she indicated matters were less than
596
clear after the Bill had passed through the other place. Therefore, we need to address the issue in some detail here.
Let me make the obvious point that after the Committee stage, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, recognises, there was a significant development; namely, my noble friend Lady Ashton wrote to her in an effort to address directly the issues raised in Committee and to provide what we regard as being the definitive response to the anxieties. But clearly it was not definitive enough to settle the mind of the noble Baroness about this matter. I shall try, therefore, to do so again this evening.
We seek to clarify the position relating to higher education. The amendment would not clarify the issue but would make it infinitely more difficult. The amendment would make a substantial change, widening the coverage of Clause 13. We set out to ensure that Clause 13 covered only some specific areas of overlap between schools or further education and higher education. Those areas were the continuing professional development of teachers and support for people undertaking higher education courses at a further education institution. We have not sought to go any further than those two categories, and there is no need to take the funding power into the realms of higher education beyond those precise areas of overlap. If we did, we would have several significant difficulties, which I shall identify in a moment.
Following the discussion in Committee on the drafting of the clause, we examined it again to ensure that it covered the areas that we intended. We are confident that it does so. Clause 13(3) introduces a general exclusion of higher education. Subsections (2)(c) and (2)(g) modify that general exclusion in a precise way to include higher education provided in an institution in the further education sector and all training for teachers. Those are exactly the two areas that we seek to exclude from the general inhibition about higher education. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that the clause does that.
We have no intention of extending the funding power to include other aspects of higher education. The amendment would do that and would bring into the public remit additional funds allocated to the private sector of higher education. I reassure the House that that is not our intention. The intention behind the clause is straightforward. We need specific exclusions from higher education because we have those two specifically targeted areas. The clause is drafted accurately on that basis. If the noble Baroness accepts the argument that it is proper that we should make those restrictions, as we intend, I can assure her that the clause is drafted to do that.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I accept absolutely the way in which the Government wish to fund higher education. I accept absolutely that the Government wish to fund higher education that takes place in a further education institution; that is included in subsection 2(c).

597
It was interesting that, when the Minister gave a lay person's description of what he meant, he said that other aspects of higher education were not included. That is exactly my point. I want the words on the page to mean what the Minister says. The provisions of subsection 2(c) represent a modification, as we now have instances of higher education courses being taught in further education institutions. However, the Minister referred to other aspects; I do not care whether that means other aspects of higher education or higher education in institutions other than further education institutions. As it stands, the clause says:
"does not include higher education".
It does include higher education; it includes higher education provided in further education colleges. Either the clause should read,
"other aspects of higher education",
or, using the wording in my amendment,
"provided by an institution within the higher education sector".
The Minister is right about what the Government intend to do, but the words in the Bill do not reflect it accurately.
I shall return to this at Third Reading. I hope that the Minister will see the point that I make. "Higher education" refers to higher education; and higher education in a further education college is higher education. Therefore the wording on the face of the Bill is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Repeal of specific grant-making powers]:
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 34:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
"CONTROL OF REGULATION

(1) In relation to the conduct of education in schools and nursery schools, 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.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report to Parliament, setting out any progress he has made in the preceding year in seeking to control or reduce the volume of regulations, circulars and codes of practice that he or his predecessors have published, and reporting any representations he has received from governing bodies, head teachers or teachers' representative bodies about the burden that regulations impose.

(3) 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.

(4) In making his estimate under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall impose no additional burden on schools or nursery schools to provide him or local authorities with information."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 34 relates to the control of regulation. In reply to the amendment in Committee, the Minister said:
"I understand from parliamentary counsel that the effect of the amendment would be to reduce the level of regulation to nothing".
I accept that because that is what the wording did I hope that the Minister will realise that I have addressed that in my new amendment. She later said:
"We have set out in the Government's regulatory reform action plan our programme to reduce the burden of regulations on the schools sector".—[Official Report, 7/5/02; col. 1134.]
I understand that the task force is most critical of the Department for Education and Skills and it does not agree with the Minister's assertion that there is a reduction.
For the second time today, I want to quote the Times Educational Supplement, which in some way or another has managed to unearth a secret government report suggesting that the mountain of paper from the department is growing. It states that the dossier that has been uncovered was produced by the Cabinet Office with the Department for Education and Skills and is marked "restricted". None of us therefore has been privileged to see it as yet. It is based on a survey of 40 secondary schools and is expected to form the basis of renewed attempts to tackle one of the most serious problems facing teachers. I concur with that.
The paper goes on to state that barely an organisation that deals with staff emerges unscathed. Examination boards, local education authorities, the Learning and Skills Council all come under fire. It reveals that in English GCSE course work teachers have to fill in at least seven forms for every pupil. A special needs co-ordinator looking after six pupils each taking 12 subjects has to fill in 72 forms per term. Staff must fill in special eight-page application forms for pay rises and every experienced member of staff must have a one-hour interview for performance pay rises. The intensive nature of AS examinations effectively means that teachers carry out three terms' marking in two terms. Teachers feel submerged in a sea of bureaucracy, most of which is pointless. John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, states:
"It seems almost as if the Government and its agencies are part of a conspiracy to make life as difficult as possible for our schools".
That comment was responded to by a DfES spokeswoman who said:
"Most of the tasks undertaken by teachers in schools are essential to the education and personal development of the pupils. Reducing bureaucracy is about eliminating unnecessary burdens".
I believe that there should be a bonfire of "unnecessary burdens".
The Minister was kind enough to write to me in one of the many letters sent after the Committee stage, and again I thank her. In the second paragraph, she stated:
"The Secretary of State then intends, following the outcome of the Spending Review, to make specific proposals across a range of areas in her formal response at the beginning of the Autumn term".
That is a response to the report of the teachers' review body. But that is ludicrous. The Bill before us spawns endless regulations, guidelines and guidance. Therefore, whatever bonfire is being considered in the department is being built up at an even faster rate.
We have made so many suggestions to limit regulation, but I am afraid to no avail. We shall make another attempt in later amendments to try to reduce regulation, but we shall be told that it is necessary. I repeat my amazement that independent schools remain standing and in existence. They get by without a Department for Education and Skills; they get by without guidance, regulations and missives that arrive on a daily basis by the vanload in our schools. Let us put a bonfire to some of this paper and let us take at least a knife to some of the regulations that are to be spawned by the Bill.
In the same letter the noble Baroness remarks:
"That is why the Bill includes a series of practical measures to deregulate and give greater autonomy to schools".
Of their own volition, the Government have chosen the most bureaucratic way of introducing innovation and earned autonomy. We have put forward suggestions whereby both of those aims could be achieved, but without the bureaucracy. I am sorry to say it, but the Bill makes a joke of some of the comments that have been made by the department with regard to the reduction in the burden of bureaucracy on our schools.
I shall make a final comment on the letter. The Minister pointed out that:
"What we all want is a change in the mindset and culture that will give school leaders the confidence and freedom to lead the changes needed for higher standards".
It is not a change of mindset in the schools that is required for the reduction of bureaucracy and regulation, it is the mindset in the department and among Ministers. If that were to be achieved, then perhaps we would see a tangible sign that this burdensome chore for schools was being relieved. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my support for the amendment. One of greatest disappointments about the Bill so far as concerns Members on these Benches is that there is nothing in it to address the problem of the recruitment and retention of teachers. If the amendment were to be carried by the House, at least it would do something to contribute towards the reduction of the horrendous burden of paperwork and form-filling put on schools and teachers. It is hoped that, by doing so, it would attempt in a small way to address the problem of recruitment and retention.
Of course many other issues are involved with regard to recruitment and retention, but the burden of paperwork is always quoted by teachers when they are questioned about why they are planning to leave the profession or why they have already done so. For that reason, I wish to support the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps a good benchmark for the department to adopt would be that every regulation it imposes on a school should be perceived by those who have to fill in the forms and do the work
600
required under it as a benefit to them within their own school. If that was the case then I believe that teachers would undertake the administration with pleasure.
I have noticed that where good systems of data collection and pupil monitoring are in place, teachers benefit so much from it that they are delighted to spend their time undertaking that work. When data simply disappear into the thin air of the LEA or the Department for Education and Skills, teachers resent it. Finding a local use for the administration makes all the difference in these cases.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that I made it clear in Committee that we are at one with the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Walmsley, in the objective of reducing unnecessary burdens on our schools. I too have seen the report in the TES. Noble Lords will not be surprised if I comment on it. It comprised a fairly raw list of issues. Schools were asked to identify areas of concern. Some of those are important and need to be tackled, some are not accurate and are based on misunderstandings, while some are already being addressed.
We take these issues extremely seriously. None of us has any interest in wasting the time and energy of people working in schools on implementing badly drawn-up regulations or ploughing through paperwork for which there is no real need. At the same time, we must all recognise that there is no magic wand here—we cannot administer our schools system in a vacuum free of all regulation.
The Government fully accept their responsibility for ensuring that the balance of regulation is right and that we must keep a close track of the concerns of schools in this area. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made changes to the original drafting of the clause to take account of the practical considerations which cannot be ignored when seeking to strike the right balance.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government do need to send some materials to schools. For example, in response to the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee about the welfare of children, the Government will bring forward amendments to require—rightly—materials to go to schools. The revised special educational needs code of practice had to go to schools. The same applied to details of the teachers' pay settlement, information about new opportunities for schools under this Bill and in other places, and so on. We cannot simply stop giving schools information in the interests of cutting paperwork.
I want to focus on the quality of communication. We need to ensure that schools know what they need to know without being given extraneous material. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a positive suggestion about the need to consider how we can get good systems and involve those who are recipients in the process. I shall write further to the noble Lord about that. It is very difficult to legislate to ensure that one gets quality communication and that we do so

601
effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the School Teachers Review Body. We are well aware of that and a consultation is under way.
I need hardly point out that regulations and bureaucracy are intricately woven into the pattern of pressures which comprise the workload of our teachers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, indicated. We know that this is a pressure that has had an impact on teachers. The reason that there are not measures specifically directed to the subject of retention and recruitment is that there are fundamental student loan issues involved. There are many measures in place and under way. The Bill legislates for what we need to legislate for.
At the beginning of the autumn term, the Secretary of State will respond formally. She expects to make specific proposals across a range of areas, including how to tackle regulatory and administrative burdens. I would not wish to pre-empt that. I can assure noble Lords that we share their aim and that we are taking action to achieve it.
At the moment, 32 pathfinder schools of all kinds across England are leading the way to establish new and better approaches to teacher workload. The pathfinder schools, for example, are exploring the opportunities for information technology, which offers help in new ways of communicating within schools, between schools, between local education authorities and with the department. This will help to cut down the time that it takes teachers to deal with repetitive tasks, another important factor in the workload for teachers.
The pathfinder programme will be of key importance in providing all schools with practical examples of the way forward in helping to make our teachers' jobs more manageable while continuing to ensure that we have the educational standards that we want. We want to learn from the pathfinder process; we want to make sure that the Secretary of State's response in the autumn will be based on real information about what practical steps can be taken. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, with the assurance that as we move forward I shall keep the noble Baroness and the House fully informed of developments.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want desperately to believe the Minister but—a very big but—I am looking at Clauses 18 to 22. Clause 18(2) states:
"Regulations shall provide for a governing body to consist of—

(a) persons elected or appointed as parent governors,

(b) persons elected or appointed as staff governors".

Clause 18(3) states:
"Regulations may make provision as to"—
and then there is a whole list of items in paragraphs (a) to (1).
602
Clause 20(3) states that,
"Regulations may—

(a) set out terms of reference for governing bodies of maintained schools,

"(b) define the respective roles".

They have been defined for years.
Regulations defining the number of governors, the persons who should be elected, the eligibility for election, the terms of office, resignation or removal are already on statute. We are sweeping away old regulations and providing yet more. We even have regulations dealing with the clerk to the governing body, for heaven's sake. Are they really necessary? There are regulations making provision for the dissolution of governing bodies, enabling governing bodies of a federation and so on. In Clause 24 regulations may make provision modifying any provision contained in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. I could go on.
All the way through the Bill there are pages and pages of regulations. Those regulations are accompanied by guidance—they are not regulations on their own—and we shall be talking about more later when we come to other amendments. I want to believe the noble Baroness, but I am afraid that almost as she is talking about ways of reducing regulation, this Bill is piling it on. We shall certainly return to this amendment.
I asked a question at the previous stage of the Bill, and I ask it again. How many sets of regulations and guidelines are being produced as a result of the provisions in the Bill, and what areas do they cover? Perhaps we could have an answer before Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Governing bodies]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert "or in accordance with subsection (1A) below.
(1A) A governing body may resolve to retain the instrument of government in place on 1st September 2002 for a period of up to 10 years, and may review this decision from time to time."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving; this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36.
This amendment would help to eliminate some of the unnecessary new regulations that may be issued. The amendment is relatively self-explanatory. It relates to governing bodies and whether we need to have a new set of regulations in relation to them.
As we discussed at length in Committee, governing bodies have only recently been reconstituted under the regulations that were agreed as recently as 1999. For some governing bodies, this caused considerable upheaval. For others, it caused a degree of work that diverted their energies from the more important issue of governing their schools. I suspect that a majority of governors will see no reason for further reconstitution and, indeed, could become alienated were this change

603
to be imposed. There are already rumblings among governing bodies at the thought that they will have to be reconstituted all over again.
However, some governing bodies may find this further so-called flexible model that the Minister is introducing attractive. In Committee, the Minister talked a great deal about the Way Forward Group. Some members of the group were quite keen on this idea and would like to go forward and reconstitute.
The great advantage of the amendment is that it provides an option. It provides schools with the option, if they so wish, to retain the instruments of government that were in place in September 2002 so that they can continue for the next 10 years under those instruments of government. As I understand it, the Minister intends in any case to phase in the new proposals somewhat slowly to give time for schools to change over. The amendment seeks to extend that period by six years, from 2006—which I believe is the date referred to by the Minister—to 2012. If in the mean time schools decide that they would like to switch over to the new regulations, they can review the situation from time to time. That is the essence of the proposal. We believe that the amendment is reasonable. We know that it would be received with a sigh of relief by some school governing bodies.
Amendment No. 36 amends the new regulations that have come into force. We discussed this at length in Committee. One of the points in relation to the new flexible regulations is that they attempt to cut down the number of stakeholder groups who form governing bodies.
Paragraph b on page 16 of the document, Policy Statements and Draft Regulations Supplied to Standing Committee G states:
"to implement the Government's commitment, the regulations must provide for at least one of the available vacancies to be provided by a teacher".
There is only one group for teachers and staff governors on governing bodies proposed under the new flexible regulations. That has caused a great deal of concern. The regulations of 1999, which were the result of lengthy discussions and consultation, finally found a separate place for support staff governors. Support staff governors have been delighted to have the extra place. The new flexible arrangements do not provide for a separate place for support staff governors.
The regulations will provide that at least one of the places for staff governors on school governing bodies should be provided by a teacher. The amendment suggests that, except for the smallest category of schools, "micro-schools"—we recognise that it is a bit much to expect that all members of staff in schools with only two or three staff members should be on the governing bodies—there should be separate representation by teacher governors and staff governors. That is precisely the aim of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. The changes that were made for
604
governing bodies are still fairly recent and are only just beginning to bed down. It is right that schools should be given an opportunity to stay with those rules. I do not think that that would cause any upheaval. It would be administratively tidy to go to a uniform system across the country, but administrative tidiness does not always make for happy schools.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I find myself rather torn on Amendment No. 35. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has just said about arrangements having been put in place, yet 10 years seems a long time and might pander to those governing bodies that most need to be changed. That is why I am hesitant about fixing a 10-year period in law. It would set in aspic the governing bodies that one would most like to adopt a new approach. I entirely support Amendment No. 36, provided that there is an adequate definition of the "smallest category of school".
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I remind the right reverend Prelate that the new governing rules came into effect only two years ago, so they have not been set in aspic for very long.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I was thinking about the end of the process in 2012, when I shall be in my bath chair, rather than the beginning of it. That is why I said that I was in some doubt as to how to respond to the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I shall respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the number of regulations. I apologise. I had meant to do that already. I have the information and I shall ensure that I pass it to her.
The fact that there will be regulations under the clauses on governance that we are about to debate does not mean that schools will be more regulated—quite the opposite. The regulations under these clauses replace many pages of primary legislation that we have repealed. Through these changes we shall simplify the rules, give schools greater flexibility and reduce the extent to which processes are regulated. My experience of discussing the issue with governing bodies is that they welcome the changes. That has been the response to my own consultation and the formal consultation.
I understand and agree that it would be helpful to governing bodies to have a reasonable period to choose a new constitutional model and have a new instrument of government in place. That is why The Way Forward consultation paper on school governance suggests giving governing bodies three years to implement the proposals.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, we are committed to giving governing bodies until 1st September 2006 to have a new instrument of government in place. Our proposed time-scale for implementation offers flexibility that governors have told us that they want. It enables governing bodies to adopt a new constitutional model from September 2003 if that is what they want and it gives those

605
governing bodies that prefer to take longer the freedom to do so and move to the new framework by 1st September 2006.
Governors have told us that the proposed timetable for implementation is helpful. We believe that three years is a reasonable length for a transition period. The amendment would mean that governing bodies could remain constituted under existing legislation, or reconstitute under the new proposals, for the next 10 years. Having two frameworks in place for such a long time would not be helpful. That has been confirmed by the responses to the consultation that we have received from governing bodies and from local education authorities. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment No. 36, our proposal for school staff to be represented on the governing body as one stakeholder group received a high level of support. All governing bodies will be able to decide on the number of staff governors, up to and including a maximum of one-third of the places on the governing body. To safeguard teacher representation, we have said in our policy statement that regulations will prescribe that one place must be reserved for a teacher. Noble Lords might have seen from the draft regulations that where no teacher stands for election, the place can be taken by another member of staff. It is only by legislating in the way we propose that we can provide for that kind of flexibility.
All governing bodies will be able to choose a constitutional model that suits their needs best, within a framework of principles. A governing body cannot have fewer than nine governor places, or more than 20. Provided that governing bodies comply with the relevant principles, they are free to decide their own size and make-up.
There is a technical issue with the amendment in that there is no such concept as the "smallest category of school" in the new constitutional arrangements. There is no disagreement of principle. I have already said in Committee that I believe that support staff have a tremendously important role in schools. I therefore believe it is right that we are proposing a framework that allows for both teaching and other members of staff to be represented on the governing body as staff governors.
All governing bodies will be able to choose a model that allows support staff to be elected to the governing body as staff governors. If a governing body chooses a model of more than two staff members, it will be the electorate, which means all school staff, which will decide who it believes is best placed to be a staff governor.
I therefore hope that what I have said, together with the draft of the regulations, will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. If there are further points requiring clarification, I shall be more than happy to discuss them before Third Reading. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply but I am a little disappointed by it. The notion of running the two models side by side is rather an innovative one that we should welcome. However, I am not surprised as I had rather expected the reply that I was given. As regards both Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, we need to go away and think about these matters a little more. We may return at Third Reading with some further proposals to see whether the Minister will regard them favourably on that occasion. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 2, at beginning insert "except in the case of a voluntary aided school"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 39.
In relation to Amendment No. 37, I announced in Committee that I would table an amendment to correct a drafting error in Clause 18(2)(d). As drafted, this clause requires all schools to have at least one community governor, currently known as co-opted governors. Voluntary-aided schools have never had co-opted governors and we did not propose to change this. Amendment No. 37 will provide that Clause 18(2)(d) does not apply to voluntary-aided schools. I hope therefore that the House will accept this amendment.
I turn to Amendment. No. 39. This addresses concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn in Committee about securing a majority of foundation governors in voluntary-aided schools.
This amendment will put on the face of the Bill that in voluntary-aided schools, foundation governors will have the majority over the other governors. I also promised in Committee that we would provide for the level of the majority in regulations and that regulations would provide for a majority of two foundation governors in voluntary-aided schools, as we proposed in The Way Forward consultation paper. I should like to repeat that commitment to the whole of your Lordships' House. I trust that that will meet the right reverend Prelate's concerns. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 38 which stands in my name. However, first, I express my gratitude to the Minister for Amendment No. 37 and particularly for Amendment No. 39. We are enormously grateful for that and, indeed, for the following regulations which will stipulate a majority of at least two.
We are also grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to discuss wider issues to do with the governance of voluntary schools. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to the matter of the governance of

607
controlled schools and the number of foundation governors for such schools. I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate that the foundation governors of a controlled school have a particular responsibility to ensure the continuance of the distinctive character of such schools within the 1944 settlement and subsequent education Acts. Given that responsibility—it is quite different from the responsibilities of stakeholder governors, for which the Bill provides—we believe that the amendment contains a very modest request indeed. Foundation governors are not on a par with the other categories of governor. Their presence, after all, is one of the ways in which a voluntary controlled school differs from a community school. Hence our wish for this modest provision.
If there were just one foundation governor, that would put the odds very much against him or her being able to make a real or appropriate contribution in the face of, for example, a governing body—the majority of its members are appointed for very different reasons—that may not appreciate the religious character of the school or may even be hostile to it.
I chair the governing body of at least two higher education institutions. Student representation on those bodies is usually officially one. However, I always invite a second student because I feel that it is very important for the first student to have support. Moreover, in the report back to the body from which they come, that approach provides someone alongside the officially elected person to collaborate and confirm matters. The foundation governors must at some point presumably report back either to the local church council or to the diocesan authorities about what is happening in a particular controlled school. They would be well advised if there were two such persons, who supported one another and were able to collaborate in the "reporting back" process. While expressing gratitude for the amendments that the Minister will move, it is for that reason that I beg her to reconsider the position regarding controlled schools and to ensure that this modest amendment appears in the Bill rather than in regulations.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for moving Amendment No. 38. I am pleased to be able to say to him that there is no difference of principle between us. I confirm that it is our intention to provide for a minimum of two foundation governors or partnership governor places at foundation and voluntary controlled schools.
Our plan is to ensure that that is the case in regulations. As I have previously said in your Lordships' House, our approach is to set out the key principles in primary legislation and the detailed provision in regulations. That is why the level of representation of the different categories of governors will be defined in regulations. However, I can confirm that the minimum of two governors will be secured in regulations. I hope that my assurance that regulations will provide for the level of representation that the
608
right reverend Prelate seeks will be enough to satisfy him and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I add, although I suspect that this will not tempt him at this hour, that the amendment is technically defective in that it does not take into account the interaction with Clause 18(2)(e). Moreover, my door, as the right reverend Prelate knows, is always open to discuss these matters again.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the previous amendment, I am rather disappointed by that response although it is not totally unexpected. I promised the Minister that I would not tonight refer to "half full and half empty" but I cannot resist doing so at this time of night! I am grateful to her for her categorical assurance that provision will be made in regulations for two foundation governors for voluntary controlled schools. With that assurance, I shall not press the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Uphollandmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 24, at end insert—
"(3A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3)(a) must secure that the majority of the governors of a voluntary aided school are persons appointed as foundation governors."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 40:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 to 45.
In a way, this amendment continues our debate on what is necessary and unnecessary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, we have relatively new provisions on the statute book, which are only just bedding down. It is important that they should be left there.
In addition, in relation to my perennial theme about regulations, there appears to be a surfeit of them in this part of the Bill in particular. When one asks the fundamental question of what value the regulations add to teaching and learning in schools, it is difficult to obtain a positive answer.
The Local Government Association said that regulation is the enemy of innovation. The Government have made much of deregulation in the Bill. Shifting primary legislation to regulations made by secondary legislation is not deregulation. Deregulation occurs only where the primary legislation sets out principles and then allows local bodies to get on and do the job. I agree with that because it seems to me to be precisely what should happen. Therefore, I propose that Clauses 18, 19, 20(3), 21 and 22 should not stand part of the Bill.

609
The reason that I seek to oppose only subsection (3) of Clause 20 is that I believe that it makes a fundamental statement about the responsibility of governing bodies. Subsections (1) and (2) state:
Subject to any other statutory provision, the conduct of a maintained school shall be under the direction of the school's governing body … The governing body shall conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school".
That is what governing bodies do, and I suspect that it would be a brave act on the part of any government—in that I include my own, previous government—to leave schools to get on and do that. Given that they are accountable to the parents and the local community and, of course, more formally, that they are accountable through the inspectorate, I suspect that they would not go far wrong. In fact, we might be surprised to find that different schools were extremely innovative in the way that they met their obligations under the law to promote high standards of educational achievement at their schools. Fundamentally, that is what they are about.
The noble Baroness said—I agreed with her—that where regulations are set out in this part of the Bill, they are to replace other regulations; in other words, some regulations are being repealed and these are to be put in their place. I question whether the regulations need to be repealed so soon after being established. I accept that they are replacing other regulations; therefore, that represents work for schools. As the noble Baroness said, it does not mean more regulation. I accept that. But a change in the regulations means more reading and more inward digesting of change. A great deal of work for every single school in the country will be involved in finding out what is changing and why it is changing, and in shedding the governors who no longer qualify to be members of a governing body and in employing new ones who come under the rules set out in the Bill.
However, a basic question needs to be asked. Do some of these areas require any regulation at all? Is it not enough, for example, to state that schools should appoint a clerk to the governing body without having a raft of regulations? Would the sky fall in if that were to happen?
Finally, I wanted to refer to a letter sent to me by the noble Baroness the Minister, following the Committee stage, but I cannot find it at present. The fundamental point that I wanted to make was that the recent regulations are barely in place. They are bedding down and should be left alone. I do not believe that any overriding argument can be made to justify all this change. As I said, change will mean more work for the schools because they must find out what the change is and what it is for and they must absorb the new compositions. Given the fundamental role of governing bodies, I believe that they can be trusted to get on with the job. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 41. When this amendment was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Sharp
610
of Guildford, she commented that it would be undesirable to move the statement of principle that LEAs have responsibility for making the instrument of governance for their maintained schools out of primary legislation and into secondary legislation. Principles should be in Bills, not in regulations. Despite the Minister's comments in Committee that the change would simplify legislation and that LEAs would still be obliged to ensure that each school has an instrument of governance, we feel the need to press the amendment because of the principle.
Clearly, under both arrangements schools can propose their own draft instrument to the LEA for its approval, but putting the LEAs ultimate responsibility on the face of the Bill makes it all the more difficult to sideline the local education authority at some date in the future. The Minister will be aware that it is the constant suspicion of noble Lords on these Benches that the Government have the ultimate objective of getting rid of the LEAs that makes us so anxious to put barriers in their way. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to allay our suspicions by accepting our amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it falls to me to look at the exact impact of each of these amendments. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I do so, because I need to ensure that that impact is recorded. I shall, in a sense, start where I intend to end my remarks. It is important for noble Lords to understand that, if the amendments were accepted, we would not revert to the status quo; in fact, schools would not be required to have governing bodies at all.
The proposed amendments would take away the clauses that are absolutely crucial because of the principles within them. I know that that is not the impact that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wishes to see, but I need to ensure that noble Lords understand the nature of the impact of these amendments. I shall begin with Amendment No. 40. I should point out to the House that we have consulted very widely on the governance proposals, and the package has received widespread support.
As I have said previously, I have conducted a number of consultations with groups of governors in different parts of the country. Indeed, I also had the good fortune to chair the final meeting of the Way Forward Group. Therefore, it is worth saying that Amendment No. 40 would make it impossible to implement the proposals at all. It would make it impossible to give governing bodies greater freedom to decide what works best for them. Governing bodies would have no scope to choose a constitutional model to suit their needs. We do not believe that one size fits all; we believe that it is important for schools to choose ways of working that work best for them. The governance proposals in the Bill and ensuing regulations combine that flexibility with important safeguards to ensure high standards and a balance of stakeholders on governing bodies. The consultation responses showed that that approach is supported by governors and by governing bodies.

611
We made very clear in the policy statements provided to the House what we propose to put in regulations. I recognise that I have only just been able to make available draft regulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. I am sure that all noble Lords will recognise that the legal detail of regulations takes some time to resolve, but we have ensured through our policy statement that our intentions are clear.
I turn to Amendment No. 41. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that we should try to allay certain suspicions. I rather hoped that some of the amendments that I have tabled tonight would have done so—at least to some extent. As I have said before, this is not about some secret agenda on the role of local education authorities. As the department, and all Ministers within it, recognise, LEAs have a really important role to play. I should like to take this opportunity to confirm that LEAs are responsible for making instruments of government. They can review and vary instruments, which means that they also have an important role in relation to schools' instruments.
As I have already said, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and, I hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will have received a copy of the latest draft of the new regulations on governing body constitution and instruments of government. In these draft regulations we have defined the role of the local education authority; we have not changed it, as the draft regulations show.
However, if Amendment No. 41 were accepted, we could not make regulations that contain important safeguards and principles in relation to, for example, consultation requirements and the requirement on schools with a religious character to include a description of the ethos of the school. Under this amendment, an LEA could decide to vary an instrument without the governing body's agreement. Alternatively, an education authority might decide that it is unnecessary for voluntary-controlled or aided schools to consult the appropriate diocesan authority when making, or varying, an instrument. We are committed to deregulation provisions where this is appropriate, but we also believe that it is right to maintain important safeguards. Amendment No. 41 would remove those safeguards in relation to an important document for schools—the instrument of government.
In response to Amendment No. 42 I would like to refer to previous times when I have spoken about our approach to streamlining education legislation. Clause 19 requires maintained schools to have an instrument of government that determines the governing body's constitution and other matters relating to the school, such as the name of the school. We shall carry forward the existing principal arrangements for instruments of government, but we are keen to deregulate the process where possible.
The current legislative provisions on instruments of government are in Schedule 12 to the School Standards and Framework Act and they run to some
612
four pages. Those provisions contain a great amount of detail on points of process and we believe that that kind of detail should be set out in regulations or guidance. Amendment No. 42 would make it impossible to streamline that area of governance legislation.
I turn to Amendment No. 43 which removes Clause 20(3) which provides the power to make regulations setting out terms of reference for governing bodies, head teachers and LEAs on the conduct of schools. Clause 20 replicates Section 38 of the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act. The only difference is that the existing regulation making power does not extend to the LEA's role in the conduct of schools.
Schools are autonomous institutions operating within a framework of locally channelled funding and local accountability. While schools manage themselves and take front line responsibility, local education authorities retain some essential functions for conducting schools; for example, they have significant powers, including intervention functions, in relation to school improvement. They have the right to make representations about head teacher appointments as well as a duty for all categories of maintained school to make a written report to the chair of a governing body in any case where they have a serious concern about the performance of the head teacher.
Writing the LEA role and responsibilities into terms of reference regulations alongside that of the head teacher and governing body would clarify and protect the interests of all three parties in this important partnership of conducting schools. The existing terms of reference regulations have been widely welcomed by all parties. The ability to set out clearly the respective roles of governing bodies and head teachers ensures that there is clarity.
Amendment No. 44 would remove Clause 21 which replicates, without amendment, the existing provision in Schedule 11 to the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act. That schedule will be repealed once the changes to governance arrangements covered by this Bill are brought into effect. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not intend that school governors should not be provided with essential information necessary to enable them to operate effectively in their role, nor that they should not have access to training.
We believe that local education authorities are best placed to fulfil that information-giving role and my department works closely with the co-ordinators of governor support and training services in education authorities to ensure that such information is available. We have introduced a national training programme for new governors tailored around the key roles that governors need to play to support their schools in promoting high standards.
Governing bodies may buy their training from any training provider, but we continue to believe that it is education authorities that should carry the legal responsibility for ensuring that all governors have access to essential information at no cost to

613
themselves, because of their role as regards supporting strong leadership and management in the schools that they maintain.
Amendment No. 45 would remove Clause 22 and the provisions relating to regulations on the appointment and dismissal of clerks to school governing bodies. I have long waxed eloquent on the subject of clerks and the crucial—not just important— role that clerks play in supporting school governing bodies. Without an effective clerk, it is very difficult for a governing body to discharge its considerable legal responsibilities effectively. Governors are volunteers and they deserve a well qualified clerk to keep the paperwork in order and to ensure that their meetings are being conducted appropriately.
We had an extensive discussion in Committee about the appointment and dismissal of clerks and the important role of governing body clerks. It is important to provide, in secondary legislation, that governing bodies be free to select and dismiss their own clerks while retaining the existing power for education authorities to step in and change clerking arrangements where it is necessary to do so for any school in special measures.
Indeed, we believe that clerking is so important that we recently commissioned Consortium 52, a consortium of northern education authorities and diocesan hoards, to produce a training package for governing body clerks. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn was inquiring in Committee about the involvement of diocesan boards. Many Church schools will take advice on clerking practices from their diocesan board. I am pleased to say that all the relevant diocesan boards are actively involved in Consortium 52 and will be working alongside northern local education authorities and governor and clerk representatives to produce a national training programme for school clerks. This is an excellent example of a real partnership approach to improving the quality of clerking in our schools. It demonstrates what can be achieved with co-operation and good will without legislation.
As I said, these amendments would take away governing bodies' responsibilities. It would leave us in some difficulty. I hope that I have said enough to
614
reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Match and Lady Sharp, to enable them to agree to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment. It was not my intention that we should have an absolute void. In fact, had we been lucky enough to have the amendments accepted, I would have expected to stop the repeal of all the other provisions so that the provisions remained on the statute book.
I received the statutory instrument at lunch-time. I do not complain about that; I am grateful to have it. But on a quick calculation it contains 31 pages and 25 references to other statutes. Every governor in the country will have to react those; every clerk to the governing body; at least every head teacher and possibly the teacher governors of the school as well. Twenty-five references to other statutes is excessive. It is not a case of simply reading the 31 pages; it is a matter of cross-referencing to see what their obligations will be under other provisions. To suggest that that will not take a considerable amount of time is hiding one's head in the sand.
I hope that we will not be here in another two years seeing another new set of regulations. The noble Baroness cannot sit with a sanguine look saying it will not happen because it has happened within two years and the likelihood is that it could happen again. I shall withdraw the amendment, but there will be an almost audible groan going up from the schools as they receive yet more information and presumably guidance to follow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Instruments of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 20 [General responsibility for conduct of school]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Training and support of governors]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Clerk to the governing body]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Mr Steven Bryant
  Mr Steven Bryant
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Precision Guided Bomb
  Precision Guided Bomb
  Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles
  Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles
  Smallpox Vaccine Procurement
  Smallpox Vaccine Procurement
  Beef Imports
  Beef Imports
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Medical Toxicology Unit
  Abortion
  Abortion
  NHS Bank
  NHS Bank
  Filipino Nurses
  Filipino Nurses
  Adoption Support
  Adoption Support
  Foster Care
  Foster Care
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mineral Content of Food
  Mineral Content of Food
  Heart Operations
  Heart Operations
  NHS: Non-executive Directors
  NHS: Non-executive Directors
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Ulster Scots
  Ulster Scots
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners
  Northern Ireland: Visits by President of the Irish Republic
  Northern Ireland: Visits by President of the Irish Republic
  Republic of Ireland: State Visits
  Republic of Ireland: State Visits
  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings